http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/opinion/25dowd.html?_r=1&em
Maureen Dowd, an op-ed columnist for The New York Times, recently wrote an article in which she expresses her frustration at the fact that, while the American economy is struggling, business officials are off spending our money at their lavish events.
The article begins with the Northern Trust of Chicago. In a posting on TMZ.com, the website stated that shortly after receiving $1.5 billion in bailout money, the company sent employees to Los Angeles where they were treated to "posh hotels, salmon and fillet mignon dinners, music concerts..." and a variety of other luxurious perks. Choosing to include this example in the front of the article underscored Dowd's opinion that these businesses were sly and sneaky. Readers could then identify with a solid example of this deceit and wonder: Did they really need the $1.5 billion bailout? Shouldn't that taxpayer money be put to good use? Why am I paying for luxurious "business trips" for other people?
Dowd continued to emphasize her belief as she referred to the Northern Trust as "Northern No Trust" and "Northern Untrustworthy" at various places throughout the article. This element was successful in presenting her beliefs to the public as she offered the readers not-so-subtle clues that this company was deceitful; just bad!
I agree with what Dowd is saying because it seems like companies oftentimes participate in luxurious "meetings" such as these, but are they really necessary? In a time when many Americans are out of work or struggling financially to make ends meet, is it fair and morally right that these other employees are living such a glamorous and luxurious life? In my opinion, companies such as Northern Trust need to cut back on this type of spending because that is not where taxpayers want to see their money going. I think these big companies need to make some sacrifices so more jobs can be made available in society and more Americans can obtain financial stability.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
"In Praise of Oscar Long Shots"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/movies/awardsseason/13carr.html?ref=arts
This article, written by David Carr, focuses on Oscar nominations: who was nominated? Who wasn't? Do these people deserve nominations? What determines if an actor should be nominated or not?
The perspective on this article is to pull away from all the glitz of the awards show- the fashion, red carpet, etc.- and focus on the credibility of the actors actually nominated. Oftentimes there are nominations that are obvious and, well, expected as is the case with Mickey Rourke this year. Rourke's "The Wrestler" has received much buzz in recent weeks although it was not an initital front-runner. However, Rourke's "comeback" and backstory contribute to this publicity and the movie is gaining more recognition.
However, there are still some films which were not highly publicized receiving nominations- have many people heard of Melissa Leo in "Frozen River?" Either way, Carr states that the awards should be determined by the acting talent and not the publicity surrounding the film.
Carr provides much detail about the films/actors he is discussing so that the readers know the background information and can understand why they are nominated. Carr writes, "Sometimes it’s not the actors who pull us — and the academy — into films, but the films themselves." Therefore, the award should not be given to the actor with the biggest name, but rather the actor with the biggest talent.
I agree with Carr because the general public tends to get caught up in the glamour and publicity surrounding the nominations while not even thinking about the actual talent all of these actors possess. If we focus on popularity or names to determine the winner, aren't we losing the purpose of the awards being given?
Carr says it best when he writes, "But for those of us who are either too busy or too lazy, the Oscars, of all things, can serve as a frame on the wonders we might otherwise miss." There is true talent within many films, even if we have never heard of them, and we must respect that or else genuine talent in our generation may go unnoticed, which we be an upset for us.
This article, written by David Carr, focuses on Oscar nominations: who was nominated? Who wasn't? Do these people deserve nominations? What determines if an actor should be nominated or not?
The perspective on this article is to pull away from all the glitz of the awards show- the fashion, red carpet, etc.- and focus on the credibility of the actors actually nominated. Oftentimes there are nominations that are obvious and, well, expected as is the case with Mickey Rourke this year. Rourke's "The Wrestler" has received much buzz in recent weeks although it was not an initital front-runner. However, Rourke's "comeback" and backstory contribute to this publicity and the movie is gaining more recognition.
However, there are still some films which were not highly publicized receiving nominations- have many people heard of Melissa Leo in "Frozen River?" Either way, Carr states that the awards should be determined by the acting talent and not the publicity surrounding the film.
Carr provides much detail about the films/actors he is discussing so that the readers know the background information and can understand why they are nominated. Carr writes, "Sometimes it’s not the actors who pull us — and the academy — into films, but the films themselves." Therefore, the award should not be given to the actor with the biggest name, but rather the actor with the biggest talent.
I agree with Carr because the general public tends to get caught up in the glamour and publicity surrounding the nominations while not even thinking about the actual talent all of these actors possess. If we focus on popularity or names to determine the winner, aren't we losing the purpose of the awards being given?
Carr says it best when he writes, "But for those of us who are either too busy or too lazy, the Oscars, of all things, can serve as a frame on the wonders we might otherwise miss." There is true talent within many films, even if we have never heard of them, and we must respect that or else genuine talent in our generation may go unnoticed, which we be an upset for us.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Native American Boxing Network
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/sports/othersports/09boxers.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=us
This article follows the story of Cheryl Ziegler, an 18 year old single mother who travels to various boxing matches with her trainer. Ziegler is a member of the Native American Warriors Pro-Boxing Network, which provides an opportunity for Native Americans to escape lives ridden with poverty, drug abus, alcoholism, etc. It is believed that organizations such as this one willallow Indians to help each other improve their lives
I think that, although organizations like this may provide more opportunities for struggling Native Americans, it can also be a very intimidating lifestyle for a majority of them. It seems like it may be forced upon many of them as it proves to be the lesser of two evils.
The article then goes on to explain some history of this network and profile some more members of it. I think that, although this lifestyle would appear less dangerous in the short run, it may actually end up having poor consequences for its members- both physical and emotional. Boxing obviously takes a heavy toll on the body, but I think the mindset required to be a boxer is very different from that of the average person. Therefore, if people are thrust into this lifestyle, they will be forced to adapt to it quickly and it may make them feel insecure, intimidated, and frightened.
Overall, however, I think it is good that this option is available to Native Americans because if they can put themselves in the proper mindset, they can adapt to this lifestyle and overcome challenges they were faced with in their pasts.
This article follows the story of Cheryl Ziegler, an 18 year old single mother who travels to various boxing matches with her trainer. Ziegler is a member of the Native American Warriors Pro-Boxing Network, which provides an opportunity for Native Americans to escape lives ridden with poverty, drug abus, alcoholism, etc. It is believed that organizations such as this one willallow Indians to help each other improve their lives
I think that, although organizations like this may provide more opportunities for struggling Native Americans, it can also be a very intimidating lifestyle for a majority of them. It seems like it may be forced upon many of them as it proves to be the lesser of two evils.
The article then goes on to explain some history of this network and profile some more members of it. I think that, although this lifestyle would appear less dangerous in the short run, it may actually end up having poor consequences for its members- both physical and emotional. Boxing obviously takes a heavy toll on the body, but I think the mindset required to be a boxer is very different from that of the average person. Therefore, if people are thrust into this lifestyle, they will be forced to adapt to it quickly and it may make them feel insecure, intimidated, and frightened.
Overall, however, I think it is good that this option is available to Native Americans because if they can put themselves in the proper mindset, they can adapt to this lifestyle and overcome challenges they were faced with in their pasts.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)