Obama in 100 Years

     As Barack Obama enters his second term as President, us Americans can't help but wonder how he will be remembered many years from now. According to surveys taken by presidential scholars between 2008 and 2011, Abraham Lincoln is the highest ranked President in American history, followed by Franklin Roosevelt and George Washington. The top 8 Presidents on this list all have something in common: each of them were elected into office for a second term, just as President Obama recently was. Obama will serve as the 17th President to have been re-elected to two terms. As this article states, "Most of the best-regarded presidents have won...at least 90 percent of the electoral vote in their second-term bid." Obama, on the other hand, won by a closer margin, winning 62% of the electoral vote. Using the graph on the right, it can be estimated that Obama will be ranked as the 17th highest president, but of course, numbers and statistics cannot always be trusted.
    Despite much criticism, Obama has already achieved a lot in his first term, including, as The Week magazine states, "his universal health-care law...his bailouts of Wall Street and Detroit...he ended the war in Iraq, is pulling us out of Afghanistan, and has already reduced the deficit by $3 trillion over the next decade." While this is an impressive list of accomplishments, Obama's remembrance might rely more on how he handles his second term, free from the pressure of getting reelected. As this article states, presidents "are judged by whether they get a few very big decisions right or wrong." As this statement suggests by using the word "few," often times many of the decisions that a President makes, whether they be good ones or bad ones, are ignored in the long-run. Only few decisions are remembered, and those are the ones that end up shaping a President's legacy. Although it may be impossible to tell so early, how do you think Obama will be remembered? In general, how do you think Presidents are remembered?
    
   

All About the Hair

    The President gave a great speech at the inauguration, but I'm here to talk about something a little more important: Michelle Obama's hair. If you have been hiding under a rock for the past few days,  then you probably haven't heard the BIG news: the First Lady, Michelle Obama, has bangs!
     When I first saw them, I didn't think much of it. I get haircuts all the time, but nobody ever seems to think of it as a big deal. The First Lady's haircut, though, had America buzzing. People across the country are talking not only about how they think Obama looks with bangs, but also about why exactly they think she did it. There is even a Twitter account called "FirstLady'sbangs" (that's when you know its a huge deal). As much as I love having to deal with my own hair everyday, thinking so hard about someone else's, as well, would probably give me a headache. People have come up with all kinds of hypotheses about why Michelle Obama got bangs. To begin, some say its the "youth factor." This one's pretty simple, she's just trying to make herself look younger. Others say, and this Washington Post article quotes, "she's expressing her inner self." In other words, now that it's Barack Obama's second term in office (and her second term as first lady), she is feeling more comfortable and free to express herself.  Others ponder that perhaps the First Lady has gotten bangs representing the fact that she "has plans to forge a new and expanded role in the second term, taking on different issues." Upon reading that, I thought to myself, "since when do bangs have such deep meaning?"
      These ideas could be realistic, don't get me wrong, but why can't the woman just get a haircut and not have all this speculation surrounding it? I'm not hating on the hair, I actually think it's quite trendy, but I just don't completely understand what all the fuss is about! Why do people pay more attention to the First Lady's hair than they do to issues facing our country? 
    

Final Exam: A "Candid" Shot of Mr. President

    Barack Obama is America's first African American President, but in the long run, will his bust deserve to be placed next to Martin Luther King Jr., Abraham Lincoln, and George Washington? This photograph of Barack Obama in the Oval office is an important contemporary artifact and relates to many texts discussed in class.
     The caption under the photograph, taken by the White House photographer, Pete Souza, claims that the picture is “candid.” I doubt this to be true because the President’s life is completely staged. Obama happens to be sitting in the company of some very important people in American history; Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Martin Luther King Jr. This relates to another photograph we looked at in class where Obama is surrounded by no less than eight American flags. Rachel Hoying commented that Obama “had to prove how American he was.” The word that stands out to me is “prove.” Obama cannot just tell people that he is American, but has to prove himself by showing it. In my artifact's case, Obama is surrounded by American icons, again trying to prove to his doubters that he is an American. George Washington, the father of our country, hangs above everything else in the picture, but Obama is on the same level as MLK and Lincoln. If the lower part of the picture were cut off, Obama’s bust would fit in quite well, showing him as another great American leader.
    Specifically, Obama’s bust would closely resemble Lincoln’s. Their heads are in almost the exact same position, looking down. In the movie “Lincoln,” Abraham Lincoln is shown as very calm. This photo seems to be channeling that side of Lincoln in Obama by making him seem very poised, despite surrounding pressure. Also, because the eye reads left to right, a viewer starts out focusing on Obama, and ends up on Lincoln. This makes it seem like the photographer is purposefully comparing Obama to Lincoln, rather than to MLK. This reminds me of the movie “Glory” when Trip, a member of the 54th regiment, asks Colonel Shaw, “What about us? What do we get?” The word “we” stands out because Trip is not just referring to himself, but all the freedmen. The picture may be trying to show African Americans and White people as equal by making Lincoln and Obama similar, but the problem is that having an African American President does not mean that there is complete equality for African Americans, the “we” that Trip was referring to.       
    This picture could also represent pressure surrounding the President. Despite the eyes constantly watching Obama, he still looks calm and collected; his arms rest casually on the chair, and his face reveals little, if any, emotion. The pressure that this photo may be portraying reminds me of the progress myth: to do better than your parent’s generation. Bill T. Jones said that “we’re supposed to do better than our parents.” The words “supposed to” stand out to me. Parents work hard so that their children can succeed, which may cause pressure for kids to feel like they must live up to a certain standard. In Obama’s case, the pressure is not from his parents, but from the leaders before him. MLK and Lincoln seem to be acting as the agents, or people who made it possible that an African American could become President. Obama has pressure to use his power and help society progress. 
    Clearly there was some motive behind the photo. It seems that the underlying theme beneath it may be to glorify Obama. The question is, will Obama will only be remembered because he was the first African American president, or because of the progress and accomplishments he made while in the White House? What do you think the photographer’s motive was?

Honorable, yet Shameful

Hubertus Strughold

    Should an American award be named after a man who worked on experiments for Nazi concentration camps? The Space Medicine Association (SMA) is currently discussing this issue. Every year the SMA gives out the Hubertus Strughold Award, which is named after a man who played a large role in helping American astronauts walk on the moon. Subsequent to Strughold's death, though, US Army Intelligence documents were released, proving that he was involved in experiments in Germany during World War II that assisted the Nazi Regime. The experiments he worked on were extremely harsh and killed hundreds of inmates at Dachau concentration camp. 
     Due to his involvement with the Nazis, many of Strughold's honors have been stripped. A library at Brooks Air Force Base was named after him, but his name has been taken down. Likewise, his image on a mural at Ohio State University was removed. On the other hand, the Space Medicine Association has not changed the name of the Hubertus Strughold Award...yet. This article from The Wall Street Journal quotes Professor Proctor, a critic of the award's name, who says, "You can't whitewash history." I question this comment...haven't we whitewashed history plenty of times before? Take George Washington for example. Most just think of him as a hero and altogether ignore the fact that he owned slaves. Franklin Roosevelt, another American hero, had affairs with women while he was married, but it’s rare to hear mention of that. Many American people focus solely on the good that these men did for our country, whitewashing the flawed parts of their lives.
    Clearly loads of respect toward Strughold has been lost, and rightfully so, but why can't he be honored for his accomplishments (as the two men listed above were), instead of dishonored for his wrongs? How do we change the present because of certain pasts, but not others? Where is the line drawn? 

Forgive and Forget

    "Forgive and forget" is a commonly used phrase, and especially typical to hear as we enter the new year. The phrase dates back to "Don Quixote de la Mancha" written by Miguel de Cervantes in 1605. He writes, "Let us forget and forgive injuries." It also appears in William Shakespeare's "King Lear," in which he writes, "Pray you now, forget and forgive." As you can see, over time the words forget and forgive have been flipped, possibly implying that if we first forgive, we will later forget. I hear these words together so often that until now, I have never really had a chance to think about them. Personally, I think that forgiving and forgetting is much easier said than done. In fact, often times I do not think trying to "forgive and forget" is necessarily the right thing to do. In many cases, it can be good for someone to forgive in order to move on, but not necessarily helpful to completely forget.
    Certain circumstances seem simpler than others. For example, as of today, the NHL lockout is over. Despite the 113 days of waiting fans have had to do for the season to start again, a large majority of people, myself included, will likely be forgiving of those who were involved in the lockout. By the time they are watching their favorite team again, the lockout will be a thing of the past and put out of the minds of the fans. Of course, there are more complicated and serious issues, such as the one described in this article. It describes the story of Conor McBride, who murdered his girlfriend, Ann Grosmaire. Ann's parents, although extremely devastated, were quite forgiving, which was a shock to me. The article states that, "The Grosmaires said they didn't forgive Conor for his sake but for their own." In this case, the Grosmaires were forgiving, but clearly will never forget what McBride did. The families ended up deciding to use a system called restorative justice, which "considers harm done and strives for agreement from all concerned — the victims, the offender and the community — on making amends." Is it right that just because the Grosmaires were forgiving toward McBride, that he gets to have less time in jail than he would have through a modern justice system? How far should forgiveness take a person? Where is the line drawn when forgiving and forgetting isn't the best option?