AP Practice

2006 Question 3 about entertainers, politicians, ordinary citizens, commentators etc. expressing their opinions on a variety of topics.  Are these opinions worthwhile?  Does this expression foster democratic values?  In your essay, take a position on the value of such public statements, support with appropriate evidence.

Outline:
Introduction:
Today, it seems that our society is dominated by the influence of the media.  The opinions expressed by popular or well known figures have an immense influence on the values and political ideology of the general citizenry.
        THESIS: such commentary is valuable, however its prevalence is reaching a point of excess.  Americans are so constantly bombarded with other's opinions, it becomes difficult for them to formulate ideas of their own, resulting in a generally uninformed, although highly opinionated, citizenry.  This combination is counterproductive for democratic discussion and reasoning.

Paragraph 1:

• Biased commentators spew political rants, immensely influencing their viewers.  These so called "political theorists" often hold extremest points of view and back up their opinions with questionable data or manipulated facts and statistics.
• Because these people seem informed and are on TV, many Americans believe the skewed data they provide.
• Out founding fathers believed one of the cornerstones of a democratic republic was an informed and educated citizenry.  The influence of the media is often counterproductive for this.
• The preponderance of commentators and the increasing influence of opinionated media members has resulted in a decline in individual thought among the general citizenry.  No longer are people researching current issues and formulating their own opinions.  Instead, many are relying on the talking heads on CNN, Fox News or MSNBC to tell them what to think.

Paragraph 2:

• Media influence provides a vehicle for politicians to reach more people and expand their influence through televised speeches, debates and commercials.
• Pro: citizens watching speeches etc. can help them be more informed about a politician's platform
• Con:  the opinions, policies and ideas often promoted by candidates running for election can be markedly different from those outlined in their platforms.  
• i.e. candidate says he supports environmentalism in speech, using vague terms such as "alternative" or "green" energy.  But in reality, his "alternative" is natural gas, or "clean coal" both of which are limited in supply and have similar environmental consequences as the burning of conventional fossil fuels.
• doublespeak

Paragraph 3:

• Despite its downfalls, the media has some positive influences as well
• It enables citizens who are passionate about causes to reach a much wider group of people

Conclusion:

Although the media can enable minority view points to be heard, the increasing preponderance of highly charged opinions generally does more harm than good for democracy. Although more information may be "out there" people are relying on others to tell them what to think instead of formulating their own ideas.  This is counterproductive for a democratic society.

Sample 3A, Score 8:

This essay took a fairly neutral position on the value of such public statements.  Strong ideas, and generally good diction (a few errors but nothing excessively distracting).  This essay improved as it progressed.

Sample 3B, Score 6:

This essay seemed average but adequate. Discussed evaluating trustworthy v. untrustworthy sources, good examples (Rush Limbaugh)

Sample 3C: Score 4

This essay does not have a clear thesis so the student's opinion is fairly unclear.  It uses colloquialisms and faulty or only tangentially related evidence.  It is often unclear and confusing.

Postmodernism in The Poisonwood Bible

Postmodernism is often considered to be the style of writing that began after World War II.  It is characterized by the use of rhetorical devices like fragmentation, untrustworthy (or biased) narrators and generally unconventional methods.    Barbara Kingsolver's novel The Poisonwood Bible is relies heavily on many of these Postmodernistic devices.

The novel's very organization is fragmented.  Each "Book" is divided into many sub-sections (chapters) which are narrated by one of five narrators.   The mother, Orleanna, narrates the first section of each book and the four daughters narrate the proceeding chapters.  Each section is relatively short and each narrator has an unique voice, giving the book a fragmented feel.

Furthermore, the use of a first person, unreliable narrator is characteristic of Postmodernism.  Each narrator brings her own biases forward, many of which potentially cloud her judgement.  The youngest narrator, Ruth May, is often simply naive,  while the other narrators bring their own preconceived notions and judgements with them to Africa.  The use of the unreliable narrator, as well as fragmentation, enhances  The Poisonwood Bible and reflects the views many Americans and Europeans had on African society and culture.

Heart of Darkness vs. Apocalypse Now

For me the most striking, albeit most obvious, difference between Joseph Conrad's novel Heart of Darkness and the Francis Ford Coppola film Apocalypse Now was the change in setting.   Heart of Darkness is set in the Belgium Congo as Leopold II attempts to expand his colonial empire just before the turn of the century.  In Apocalypse Now the setting is moved to war torn Vietnam in the 1960s.  Despite the change in setting the underlying stories are the same.  This shows the common nature of conquest and that in any state of subjugation there will always be imperialists and authoritative, power hungry men like Kurtz.  The differing settings highlights the similarities between the two stories and shows the transcendence of Conrad's original novel.

Difficult Passage, Heart of Darkness

I was confused as to exactly what was happening around page 103, at the very beginning of Part II, when Marlow overhears the nephew and the uncle talking.  Perhaps it was because at times he only hears bits of dialogue, but I don't think I completely understood what transpired.  Here's an excerpt:

Perhaps it was just a simply a fine fellow who stuck to his work for its own sake. His name, you understand, had not been pronounced once.  He was 'that man.'  The half-caste, who, as far as I could see, had conducted a difficult trip with great prudence and pluck, was invariably alluded to as 'that scoundrel.' The 'scoundrel' had recovered imperfectly.... The two below me moved away then a few paces, and strolled back and forth at some distance.  I heard: 'Military post--doctor--two hundred miles--quite alone now--unavoidable delays--nine months--no news--strange rumors.'

Heart of Darkness Quotation Response

"They were no colonists; their administration was merely a squeeze, and nothing more, I suspect.  They were conquerors, and for that you want only brute force— nothing to boast of, when you have it, since your strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others.  You grabbed what you could get for the sake of what was to be got.  It was just robbery with violence, aggravated murder on a great scale..."

The discussion of the European "conquerors" in Africa (and elsewhere during the era) is especially.  These people, like Conrad claims through Marlow, were not colonists.  They did not seek this land to live in, they merely wanted to exploit the nation's labor and natural resources for their own gain.  Their conquest was successful because they were stronger, not necessarily physically, but mostly technologically.  The Africans could not compete with the Europeans guns or other 'modern marvels.'  This unequal competition was in no way the fault of the Africans themselves or the result of the triumph of the Europeans, it was the result of chance (if you've read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel, you know that it could be considered only the result of geography!).  Marlow also depicts the greed of these European explorers.  They pillaged and plundered what they could, not caring what devastation they left behind.

Journalists Won't Give You Receipts (Chapter 16)

This chapter focuses mainly on the interactions between Leopold and his growing opposition.  Leopold's popularity was declining and attacks were now coming from "all quarters."  Leopold attempts to fight back with counterattacks and positive reports (about the Congo) on an international scale.  He uses bribery and financial incentives, primarily through his Press Bureau, to get glowing articles and even books published about the Congo throughout Europe and America.

Despite his efforts, criticism of Leopold's Congo continued.  Morel encouraged the United States, as the first nation to acknowledge the Congo, to take action.  Influential figures of the day, including Mark Twain and Booker T. Washington, also encouraged President Theodore Roosevelt to do something.  Like it already was in England, Congo reform would soon become a full scale crusade in the U.S, despite Leopold's continuing efforts to court influential Americans (like John D. Rockefeller, who he granted major Congo Concession rights to) by offering them a share of his Congo riches.

Leopold continued to campaign in America, playing the role of the victimized Catholic (with the help of the Vatican).  He hired lobbyists to speak to Congressmen, give glowing speeches and write positive articles.  However, one lobbyist, Colonel Henry I. Kowalsky, would prove detrimental.   When he was cut from Leopold's payroll, Kowalsky exposed the Belgian King's bribery and lobbying to a prominent American newspaper.  Leopold quickly lost control of the American ideology about the Congo as his opponents began to rise in numbers and power there.

King Leopold made one final attempt to clear his name and created a biased Commission of Inquiry.  Although multinational, the commission was far from impartial.  In fact, none of its three members could speak enough English to converse directly with critical British and American missionaries.  Nevertheless, stirring testimonies, especially one by a Chief who named the 110 members of his village who were killed by the quest for rubber.  The Commission produced a 150 page reported that repeated nearly every criticism hedged by Casement and Morel.  Leopold made one final attempt to cover up the negative report.  When he released the Commissions findings to the press, he included a cover letter containing a "complete and authentic resume of the report," conveniently in English.  British newspapers, thinking they had a jump on the competition, hastened to publish the summary.  Only in the next few days, when editors read the full French version, did they realize how inaccurate the resume was.  The so called summary held none of the document's original meaning.  With his popularity in sharp decline and his old tricks failing him, Leopold's Congo State was resting on increasingly shaky ground.

Quiz Questions:

1. How did Leopold use his immense influence to get positive accounts about Congo travels and business published?
2. How did Morel shape his arguments to appeal to different American constituencies?
3. What is the significance of the title?
4. In what ways did Leopold try to "court" influential Americans? How successful was he?
5. In what ways did Leopold's lobbying and press effort begin to derail?  In your eyes, what was his biggest mistake?

Colonization in Africa and Some Seriously Screwed Up People

Not to sound conceited, but reading King Leopold's Ghost hasn't significantly changed my point of view on colonial enterprises.  For quite a few years now, I have understood the seriousness of the atrocities committed by Western colonizers; however, Hochschild provided significantly more "evidence" of these horrors.

The psychological profile of many of these early explorers was especially interesting.  Despite the commonality of a troubled home life and often significant personal baggage, I still believe financial gains are the principal reason for the exploration and colonization of "uncharted" territories, like the Congo.  When you look at the individual explorer's personal lives, many were plagued by financial problems.  Exploring new potential colonies, like the Congo, gave them the opportunity to gain fame and fortune, or at least merely avoid their debts for a few years.

Furthermore, the potential for economic gain was the principle reason many, if not all, nations engaged in colonialism (despite the "philanthropic" ideals rulers like Leopold II of Belgium preached).  Even in the scramble for Africa, mercantilism was still a pervasive idea.  Like Leopold, sought colonies as an economic venture.  Not only could a colony provide a market for the dominant nation's goods, colonies like the Congo also provided nations with raw materials, precious metals and valuable commodities.

King Leopold's Ghost brings memories of current issues involving forced labor, human trafficking and unsafe working conditions.  As developing countries strive to compete with the "Western" world, these governments encourage the building of factories that can churn out products faster and cheaper than their competitors in already industrialized nations.  This leads to child labor, unsafe working conditions, brutality towards employees and environmental exploitation (i.e. for natural resources) and degradation.

Even though the age of colonialism is generally considered to be over, problems with inequality among nations reminiscent of colonialism remain pervasive.  Still, the industrialized nations continue to dominate "Third World" countries.  Although the current super powers lack official colonies, they continue to exploit developing countries in a very similar manner.

Why Do We Ignore Conquest and Brutality?

So why do we really ignore tragedy, genocide, general brutality and even manipulation when it occurs outside our own realm? Some will blame ignorance, but in reality, the issue is much more complex.


Although misinformation can be to blame, it is frequently not the true excuse. The United States has been called the "policeman of the world" in reference to our frequent intervention in foreign diplomatic issues for the sake of the common good. Teddy Roosevelt, who intervened in foreign affairs a number of times during his presidency, and his "Big Stick Diplomacy" was especially indicative of this role.  

Today, the US continues to intervene in other nation's affairs for the sake of freedom, democracy and the "common good." Nevertheless, this intervention is often self serving. Some will ask why the United States does not to more to help alleviate the current tragedy in the Congo or even the Rwanda genocide. Politicians blame misinformation, but in reality, US intervention often seems more tied to potential economic gains. The US often seems more giving of aid to oil-rich nations (take Kuwait in 1990 as just one example). It seems that a lack of intervention in these lesser-known areas of the world could be attributed to a lack of fiscal or political gain to be had.
Lack of media coverage, and therefore public knowledge, can also be to blame. Take the current war in the Congo for example. Although catastrophic and horrifying, it receives relatively little news coverage. The US took a similar bystander role in the Rwanda genocide of 1994.
A similar bystander effect can be seen in issues close to home as well. In World War II, many Germans complied with Nazi tyranny because of a "surely that could never happen to me" type attitude. Out of fear, many became Nazi supporters. These supporters chose to ignore atrocities in their own nation because they feared the repercussions if they spoke up and felt powerless to do so. A similar affect occurs today. Many politicians and citizens turn a blind eye to this brutality because they fear the consequences of speaking up or feel they are powerless.

(Written in response to question 5: Why don't people speak up sooner when they realize that mass brutality, manipulation, and subterfuge is going on in various of the less-well-know corners of the world?)

Senior Project Update and Research Paper Reflection

Overall, I think I wrote a good research paper from my Senior Project.  While my project is becoming SCUBA certified, I chose to write my research paper about environmental degradation in the oceans.  I am especially glad that I chose a research paper topic that was interesting to me instead of one that may have related more directly to my project but been boring to me.

I think the paper itself was good.  However, it was on the shorter end of the 5-6 page goal (it was exactly 5 full pages).  I think another way the paper could improve was with my source selection.  Unlike the research paper I am writing for my English class, I did not read a book to write the paper and some of my sources were not as academic as they could have been.  Given more time, I could always improve it, add more information etc.  Nevertheless, I still believe my Senior Project research paper is a strong representation of my work.

Research Paper Update

My research paper if focused on the current preponderance of standardized tests in the American education system.  Today, they are used at nearly every grade level to place students academically, determine federal funding for schools and even make admissions decisions (for both colleges and elementary and secondary schools).  Although their importance cannot be denied, my paper evaluates rather or not standardized testing is really helping our education system and students.

Thus far, the book I read, The Case Against Standardized Testing: Raising the Scores, Ruining the Schools by Alfie Kohn, has been and incredibly useful source.  It provides a clear and concise case against standardized testing and specifically outlines its negative consequences.  The book itself was displayed in a question-answer/rebuttal type format but the actually text was filled with essential facts and valuable insights.

Personally, I think standardized tests, although necessary to some degree, are used too widely in today's school system.  Aside from a standardized test at school (or perhaps if you were chosen as a contestant on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire), one will never encounter an environment like those tests.  Rarely (if ever) would someone have take a test or complete a task entirely alone, without collaboration or ability to look up a forgotten obscure fact, in a strictly time environment. The multiple choice format is especially useless.  In the real world, it is rare to only have to recognize a correct answer and not even generate it yourself.  Furthermore, the knowledge tested in these tests does not reward deep thought; instead working quickly and guessing well seem to lead to more standardized test success.

The norm-referenced test is an exceedingly common, yet often misunderstood aspect of the standardized testing world.  Scores from these test are not reported numerically or based on a percentage of questions answered correctly.  As the name implies, a "score" on this test is not a score at all but a percentage reflecting how the student performed relative to other test takers.  For example, scoring in the 90th percentile (90%) on a norm-referenced test indicated that the student's score was higher than 90% of the the other test-takers.  Likewise, a student scoring in the 10th percentile was outscored by 90% of his peers.  Although one of the primary goals of standardized tests is to compare students, these norm-referenced tests can also be incredibly damaging.  Even if students personally improve, their peer group often improves with them, meaning that students often maintain a similar percentile.  This can be especially harmful for low-scoring individuals, who may become discouraged with school as they begin to believe they are stupid.  Likewise, a high scoring student could become complacent.  Furthermore, the scores from these tests do not measure learning at all.  Because of the percentile scoring method, students could all do reflectively poorly on a test but someone would have to score in the 99th percentile and someone would be in the bottom 1% of test takers, even if the scores from all students were fairly similar.  Lastly, and perhaps most unfairly, norm-referenced tests are designed so that there is a separation between students' scores.  This means that they are not testing the material that is most important.  Instead, difficult questions are specifically designed so students who score well on the test generally will answer them correctly.  This design often favors wealthier students as material and knowledge gained outside of class is often placed on the test as a way of differentiating students.

I was especially surprised to hear about a ridiculous reading comprehension featured on a New York state standardized test.  The question involved a fable (a clear adaption of the Tortoise and the Hare) in which a pineapple challenges a hare to a race. (Here is a link to an article featured in the New York Daily News containing the full story and question set).  Here's a quick summary: all the animals in the forest bet that the pineapple will win, thinking it has "some trick up its sleeve." However, when the race begins, the pineapple does not move and the hare wins.  The forest animals proceed to eat the pineapple.  The moral of the story is stated as "pineapples don't have sleeves."  Students are then asked a series of perplexing and subjective questions, including why the animals ate the pineapple and which animal spoke the wisest words.  This case provides a clear point about the luck and guessing ability (as opposed to intelligence or critical thinking) measured by standardized tests.  Students who did not think too deeply and quickly guessed an answer for the perplexing questions were rewarded with more time to complete the rest of the test while students who thought more deeply about the confusing questions may have run out of time on the rest of the test, even if they knew the other answers.

A Word on High School

According to Jennifer Senior's essay "Why You Truly Never Leave High School" the majority of Americans did not even graduate from high school until relatively recently, specifically the Great Depression.  Although the idea of "everybody" attending high school is relatively recent, I believe that the social dynamics and order developed in high school are not a reflection of an adolescent sub culture, but a result of more primal human nature.

Some would argue that the typical "jocks" or "popular" kids don't necessarily have power later in life.  However, the traits the propel jocks or "populars" up the high school social ladder are the same traits that our society values, such as athletic prowess, good looks or even humor.  Professional athletes, models and even actors and comedians reach super star status based on their athletic abilities, physical appearance or sense of humor.  This is not any different from high school, just on a larger, more societal, scale.  Perhaps high school is a recent development, but the interactions there are evident of larger human nature. Although adult society is clearly different from a high school environment, many of the social interactions and hierarchy found in a high school environment can be seen as a microcosm of the social order of society as a whole.

Ditching Your New Year's Resolution, There's a Day for That!

Celebrating the coming of the New Year is a tradition dating back nearly as long as civilization itself.  The Babylonians celebrated it in March, but the Romans moved it to January, which they named for their two-headed god Janus, who said to be looking backwards to the old year with one head and forward to the new year with the other.

Both the Babylonians and Romans practiced the tradition of adopting New Year's resolutions, however, when the Romans converted to Christianity, they replaced their resolutions with prayers and fasting.  This tradition continued for many years.  Although Puritans practiced prayers and fasting, they also adopted a similar tradition resolution type tradition.  They used the coming of the new year as an opportunity to reflect on the previous year and contemplating the coming year, often setting goals and making moral resolutions.

Today, it seems that New Year's resolutions are meant to be broken.  In fact, January 17th has officially been dubbed Ditch New Year's Resolutions Day.  Whether it be eating healthier, working out more often or just being kinder to others, it seems that nearly all resolutions end up getting "ditched."  With an official day dedicated to abandoning resolutions placed just 17 days after they were supposedly set, it seems that resolutions are meant to be broken.  Perhaps the tendency of people to break resolutions is evidence of humanity's perpetual hopefulness, or maybe it's laziness.

Although a little off topic, I though this was fitting and amusing.

9/11

Even though I was only in first grade on September 11, 2001, I have some vivid memories of changes in security (in airports and other public venues) as well as American culture as a whole.  When I was young, especially in kindergarden and first grade, I traveled quite a bit with my parents on business.  Before 9/11, traveling by plane was significantly less stressful, not to mention time consuming.  Family and friends could walk you to (or meet you at) your gate and arriving at the airport an hour before your flight was fairly reasonable.  I went to Chicago with my mom and grandmother just a few weeks after 9/11 and still remember the stark contrast between the world before and after the terrorist attack.  On my trip after 9/11, security was not only stricter and more time consuming but there was clearly a climate of fear and anxiety that I had not experienced before.  Nevertheless, there was also a climate of greater national pride.  I distinctly remember the cabin bursting into applause when the plane landed safely and routinely.

Even so, reading these essays ("Everything Isn't Racial Profiling," "The FBI Is Reading Over Your Shoulder," and "How the USA Patriot Act Defends Democracy") expanded my view on the pre-9/11 world.  As a very young child, I was quite unaware of issues of national security or international relations.  Until recently, I never thought much about the reality of living in a world where the government can inspect so many of your day to day actions, nor did I really care.  My view was, and to some degree still is, 'sure the FBI can see what I search on the internet, or even listen to my phone calls if they truly believe I'm a threat, if they really care that much about my life, then they're just wasting their own time.'  Nevertheless, reading the essays defending and attacking the USA Patriot Act altered my view a little.  They cast a new light on the erie, slightly Orwellian and 'Big-Broter-esque' power our government possesses.

Interestingly enough, reading "Everything Isn't Racial Profiling" actually convinced me of the preponderance of racial profiling in our security systems, exactly the point the author was trying to argue against.  Although well meaning, to me, the measures seemed excessively discriminatory. I firmly believe that strong national security measures are necessary, however, I think that many of the ways our  government goes about achieving that national security are sometimes ill-conceived and can even be downright discriminatory,