How Progressigve was the Progressive Era?

The so-called Progressive era in America was a time in which, according to A Peoples History of the United States by Howard Zinn, the people of the United States were so downtrodden, poor, oppressed, and unhappy that socialism was rapidly gaining popularity. The prospect of a socialist system was a direct threat to the rampant capitalism that had infiltrated American government, so the mucky-mucks tried to calm the masses by passing laws and regulations that barely improved living conditions. Zinn writes on pg. 14: "History books give the label 'Progressive Period' to the early years of the twentieth century. True, it was a time of reforms--but the reforms were made unwillingly. They were not meant to bring about basic changes in society, only quiet the uprisings of the people."

Undoubtedly if the upper class had spent more of their unseemly fortunes educating their underprivileged laborers, said workers would have been able to modify the very structure of America. Like a toddler with play-doh, the lower class could have molded the government and it's priorities into nearly any shape they wanted (in this case socialism). As the Declaration of Independence states: "Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."

Outstanding Blogs

1. Economic advice to Obama: Evan Lott www.evanlott.blogspot.com

I chose this blog because he brings up an interesting point: "Where exactly does that money go? We have spent billions of dollars for this war, but why can't we get that money back?" I find this observation interesting because our economy is in dire straits yet all the money is still there. The government doesn't just go around burning up American currency in huge pyres, does it? I am sure that any learned economist would scoff at my puzzlement, but too bad. I think this qualifies his blog because the foremost consideration when reading something is interest. The points he made interested me, therefore I enjoyed reading his blog.

2. Literary analysis: Jacob Harris www.jacobharris.blogspot.com

Jacob does an excellent job of both literary analysis and writing in his blog. "In other words, it is showing that he likes feeling and petting things that are soft and pretty, which leads up to him petting another characters hair in the end of the book, causing her to panic, which causes him to panic, which makes him hold on so tight to where the characters panicked flailing causes him to accidentally crack her neck, killing her." He pairs good vocabulary, fluid sentence structure, and insightful analysis, resulting in a good blog.

Charles Darwin's 200th Birthday

According to Dictionary.com, science is defined as "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." Since we obviously did not spring into existence with an understanding of life's mechanics, (In truth this point is impossible to prove, as everyone alive today was born into a society that possesses at least a rudimentary understanding of existence. For all we know, the entire universe could be a figment of the readers imagination.) science is the process of distilling the kaleidoscope of action and reaction into recognizable and quantifiable patterns.

Charles Darwin contributed significantly to mankind's collective scientific understanding, finding a pattern in the seemingly chaotic play of evolution, blazing a trail that the rest of us could follow with our bumbling brains. He occupies the same lofty tier of history as Albert Einstein, Issac Newton, and Leonardo da Vinci; men whose names will, in all probability, not be forgotten as long as human civilization persists. Their accomplishments brought them resounding fame, but it should be remembered that before they gained such towering proportions in history books, they were no different than the rest of us.

My point is that science is a field of study that conveniently keeps pace with humanity's intellectual evolution, and that all anyone has to do in order to ascend to a similar stratum of history is contribute positively to the general database of scientific knowledge. If one manages to do so with the same inspired savvy, the same daring panache as these intellectual colossi of yore, then that individual's name and achievements will be observed in the same light (however, people will refuse to acknowledge anyone in this fasion until after their death, which might blunt any sense of accomplishment somewhat).

To answer the question then, a balance must be struck between observational analysis and less tangible theories. If someone wants to believe in higher powers, there should be no social restriction to their beliefs, but at the same time religion comes in all forms, some of which might not be conducive to ordered civilization. For example, even though God/s might be vicariously bloodthirsty, I do not advocate sacrificing members of society on alters at the top of skyscrapers just in case. At the other end of the spectrum, a culture based solely on scientific knowledge does not seem like a good option. Focus on a single theory to the exclusion of others can result in crippling social shortsightedness.

Stuff That Makes a Great Interview

DESIGN PRINCIPLES:

1. Be Polite. Even if the interviewer harbors a deep personal hatred for the interviewee, retaining good manners will allow for barbed questions and comments that will not be sufficient for the subject to challenge outright, thus causing the interviewee to grow flustered, frustrated, lose their cool, and make it much easier for the interviewer to extract the required information. This interview demonstrates exemplary execution of this principle - the interviewer can be seen speaking courteously to a person devoid of higher brain function (Sarah Palin).

2. Keep digging until you receive a satisfactory answer. Note that this "digging" can be done with either a 20 pound maul or a razor sharp trowel (or anything in between), according to the preferences of the interviewer. A good example of this principle in action is this Sarah Palin interview. You can see the interviewer digging with what I might describe as a medium-weight shovel until the interviewee is practically forced to admit that she cannot name a newspaper.

3. Keep the interviewee on their toes trying to guess where your next blow will fall, regardless of the preferred approach. Adhering to the tenants of guerilla warfare will ensure that your questions fall on the interviewee's metaphorical underbelly. The previously cited interview of Sarah Palin also happens to fit this third design principle like a tailored glove on a petroleum jelly smeared hand. Obviously Sarah Palin was not expecting to be asked what newspaper she read, or she would have taken the 5 minutes necessary to find out (or make one up).