Faucheaux -Social Networking

The Social Network explains in great detail the series of events surrounding the development of Facebook. Our main character, the boy genius  called Mark Zuckerberg (apparently played with spot on accuracy by Jesse Eisenberg), is a socially handicapped Harvard undergraduate who is ironically obsessed with social status.

Much of the story is told through the two law suits that are made against Mark. One is his former best friend, Eduardo Saverin, after Mark deceitfully cheated him out of the company. The other is made by the Winklevoss twins who claim that Mark stole their idea after they approached him about creating a social website especially for Harvard. 

I believe that, though subtle, there is a political agenda regarding corporations, business ethics, and privacy.

Obviously, “social networking” has become a HUGE thing. There are countless websites geared toward social interaction and many sites that existed before the craze have now added a feature that allows you to communicate with your online friends or share information with them. These networks have become a part of life (especially but not specifically for the younger generation) that are in some ways unimaginable to live without. For many, these sites are their main source of interaction with other people. Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Google Plus... the list goes on and on.

Faucheaux -Movie Presidents

Michael Douglass, Harrison Ford, Morgan Freeman, Gene Hackman, Jack Lemmon, Bill Pullman; all these men have played fictional United States presidents. The presidential characters they’ve portrayed fit a relatively consistent description. I’ll call this profile “The Movie President”. 

“The Movie President” is is a man (or Geena Davis) who is eloquent and educated. He is a father figure, usually a family man, and attractive. I mean, who wants the leader of the free world to be an uggo? And obviously Movie President is wonderful with connecting to the American people, is “honest” and has wonderful leadership skills. “Movie President” is a man of the people. 

The West Wing’s President Jed Bartlett, played by Martin Sheen, is another fictional president who fits this profile precisely. In The West Wing pilot episode, we only meet the president in the last few minutes of the show. However, it is apparent that he is a perfect Movie President. He shows no political stand. Instead it seems that he rules with an ethical backbone. It is mentioned earlier in the show that President Jed belongs to the Democratic party, but that this does not stop him “from fulfilling his role as a moral leader.” He is a husband who speaks of his wife kindly, a protective grandpa, and he is unpretentious.

While I agree that these movie characters would make good presidents, this is just not reality. 

In the 21st century, politicians are “career politicians.” Their decisions are usually not made based on the wellbeing of the common people, but instead on how to steal another term. The promises they keep are usually not those made to the voters during election campaigns, but instead the promises made to endorsers and people with the funds to get them elected. People do not lead according to morals and ethics but according to political affiliation and nonsense parties.

I believe that it is possible for present day presidents to make good on their promises to the people (if their promises are realistic and not propaganda) and to be a humanly, successful president. But it will take individuals who are willing to go against the grain.

Faucheaux- Perceptions of Socialism

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, socialism is defined as a system of society or as a political theory in which there is no private property and the government administers the means of production and distribution of goods.

The Merriam-Webster children’s and English learner’s dictionaries define socialism as a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies.

The meaning of the term “socialism” is often misconstrued. Usually due to the slant of one’s personal political opinions or because they are swayed by the views of others. These pictures seen below, found in a Google image search of the word "socialism", illustrate some of the numerous common views on socialism.

Extreme Fear?

These three pictures show an attitude of extreme fear toward the application of socialism as a political system in the Uited States by comparison to the extreme tactics used by dictators in other countries. For example, Hitler and Karl Marx, considered the father of socialism. 

Thieves and Murderers?

These images show a point of view in which socialists stand for “stealing” from those with more money in order to give it to the less wealthy. They also show more fear of socialism for different reasons. One image depicts socialism as Satan choking prosperity while another warns against a government that is too powerful. To me this photo poses an interesting question; if our government supplies us with everything we have, and we do not truly earn nor own anything for ourselves, how easily can it all be taken away?

Pretty Lies and Dead End Theories?

These pictures tell us that the promise of a better socialist society may just be a pretty picture painted by those who could benefit from it, but it would never actually work for the society as a whole. The plan sounds nice but... The cartoon shows our country being hypnotized by the shiny, happy promises made by socialism. We are told to blindly trust the government and all the while we are being strangled by it.

Or are we just lying to ourselves?

The above are some of the more pro-socialism images found. They suggest that those people who are opposed to socialism are just being childish, hypocritical, and difficult by saying that we already have socialist elements in our government.

Faucheaux- For the Love of Capitlism

Michael Moore is a rather infamous American film maker from Flint, Michigan. His most well known documentaries are Sicko, Roger&Me, Fahrenheit 9/11, and TV series The Awful Truth. In the usual Moore style, his 2009 film Capitalism: A Love Story inquires what price the American people are willing to pay for their love of capitalism? 

Beginning with a comparison between us and the Roman Empire, we are taken on a tour of the very roots of “American greed.” On to wistful flashbacks of post World War II United States, the good ole days when there was no global competition from distraught Germany or Japan and the middle class was established as a comfy family where mother could quit her wartime Rosie job and father had a reliable retirement package in his pocket for safekeeping. Followed by speeches from Jimmy Carter warning against the dangers of "self-indulgence and consumption" and from Ronald Regan "turning the bull loose" for free enterprise.

A series of interviews are conducted for Moore’s investigation of "Dead Peasant” insurance policies. These are life insurance policies taken out on a company’s rank-and-file, or common employees with the company listed as the beneficiary. This means that the company receives the insurance benefits when the employee dies. 

Moore shows the effects of these policies from a very emotional point of view, interviewing the families and widowed spouses of deceased employees who were left in difficult situations when their loved one passed away.

The film shows many examples of foreclosure and families being put out of their homes, in some instances showing neighbors having a protest or giving the people sent to see the eviction through a hard time just for doing their job. There is also a clip Ohio Representative Marcy Kaptur encouraging Americans to be squatters in their own homes, not to vacate, but to stand their ground.

The film then shows the 2008 presidential election where labeling Barack Obama as a Socialist backfired for his opponents. Once again with the flare for dramatics, Moore shows scenes of crying and cheering Obama supporters as he is elected as the 44th president of the United States. Moore expresses his optimism that the election of Barack Obama would bring much needed change to the country, I wonder if Moore is satisfied with the first term.

Moore shows the initiation of FDR’s Second Bill of Rights, saying that it could have been the saving grace of the nation and protected us from the effects of capitalism. But before the bill is put into action Roosevelt passes away, leaving self-seeking politicians to form an unhealthy relationship with Wall Street and corporations. The middle class is left with diminishing employment and billions of dollars are put at the disposal of the banks and the insurance companies. 

Towards the end of the film, Moore says that we will never be the country that FDR wanted us to be, instead we are this... and shows scenes of the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. To me this is a very inappropriate comparison. While there were many man-contributed mistakes that led to the amount of devastation caused by Katrina, there is no accuracy in attributing scenes of people sitting on their rooftops surrounded by fifteen feet of water to capitalism. 
No matter how you spin it, this scene was added simply for dramatic effect and Moore should have more confidence in his audience. We are capable of comprehending a message without having to add inaccurate details for theatrics.

There are good points made by this film, but I feel like it can be an insult to American viewer’s intelligence when things are blown out of proportion just for the sake of pointing fingers. This is just another example of how dangerous slanted media can be to people who soak up every word that is told to them.  Watch the movie but form your own opinions of it carefully.

Moore, after attempting a humorous citizen’s arrest of the Wall Street executives, concludes that “Capitalism is an evil which can only be eliminated, a better system is that of democracy. Rule by the people, not by money.”