Coming All Together

John Winthrop gave a most famous speech when the Puritans first landed in the strange, new land of America.  He mentioned the importance that his Massachusetts Bay Colony be a perfect community.  This small group of families were to be examples for the whole world to see and emulate.  It was called "City Upon a Hill," which comes from the Book of Matthew in the Bible.  He believed this nation was to be the moral and civil example of a perfect community, and everything he did was to help further this cause.

I look at all my past blogs, and I can definitely see an emphasis on great moments in American History.  Maybe it is because I loved my AP US class in high school, or maybe it is because I love America itself(which I am still not sure about), but despite the reason, there is still the emphasis.

I spoke about President Lincoln, and his somewhat controversial control of the government.  I also spoke about the Constitutional Convention, and the hard decisions they made in creating the government we have today.  I mention American daily life in the 20th Century, and I also mention democratic beauty that disallows authoritarian leaders to take control of our nation.  And my favorite mention of American history is Horatio Alger Jr.'s novels that were sold in the late 19th and early 20th century, which gave a large degree of false hope to many poor young boys who shelled out their life savings for one of the books.

I think I enjoy writing about huge moments in American History because these huge events were caused by decisions made by government leaders and president.  They had to choose this course of history on their own.  They were able to lead our nation, at least to some degree, successfully.  And I am living in that nation now, and a part of the results of their choices.  And I am confident that most of our leaders today, when making these difficult decisions, wondered whether their decision would reflect a "city upon a hill" or a "city lying on a ditch."

Compromise Rambling

In American Heritage, I had to study up on the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and understand all of the points of view, the issues, and the hardships that go into making a government.  Points such as "who has the power, and how much should they have?" were asked time and time again.  How was the legislature to be elected?  Representational votes?  Popular vote?

Well, in the end, we all ended up with a government based on a compromise.  And this led me to think: a lot of things are formed based on compromises- nearly every law in the United States has compromise, everyday business deals made are compromises, legal issues, and even talking to your teacher about your not so good grade can end up in a compromise.

Most nations have a history of compromises, especially the United States.  When the constitution was first being formed, no one knew how to deal with slavery, and whether slaves get to represent the state they live in, and so the Three Fifths Compromise was formed. Again, on the issue of slavery, there was the Missouri Compromise in 1820, in which states below the 36 30 boundary were to be slave states, and future states formed above this line were to be free states.  These two compromises on slavery were made to appease both sides of the argument on slavery, yet the South still became angry with the North about their lack of support for slave states, and proceeded to secede when Lincoln became president.

So, not all compromises can end with a peaceful resolution, like the Great Compromise which formed our government as it is today.

But why do compromises happen?  Is there not a straightforward right and wrong path in every decision we make, business or ethic?

Let's take this example:
A guy lets his friend borrow a car to her hometown(let's say...6-7 hours away) for the weekend because the car owner was not going to use it.
So the friend drives the car down to the hometown, spends the weekend with her family, and then begins driving back.  However, the car begins to break down, and the friend of the guy freaks out.
The engine is fried, meaning there will be a large cost for repairs.
So who pays for the car's repairs?
On one side, the person who lent the car is the owner of the car, yes, but the friend of the owner was driving it, and had already driven about 7 hours down to her hometown.
Perhaps the stress of the car for driving too much had ruined it, or perhaps the car was not in good condition in the first place.
The worst part of a situation like this is that there is no definite wrong or right answer to this kind of question.  Or is there?

Trolling is Funny

I like watching trolls on the internet.  For example, David Thorne is my absolute favorite troller in the planet.  I read his blog whenever I am down, and laugh for hours at his funny posts.  The first one I read was this: Missing Missy, a story about a distressed lady who cannot get a proper poster for her missing cat.

In this particular trolling, however, when I am particularly somber, I will think of poor Shannon who is so stressed about her cat, and David who does little to make it better.  In fact, he tells her vivid situations in which the cat could be in terrible danger or pain.

So yeah, we laugh at Shannon's expense.  But is it really much of an expense?  To David, he just wanted to get some laughs out of a favor he was doing for his workmate.  I mean, he was making the posters.

 Judith Donath, who researched the identities and purposes of trolls in a psychological manner, states in her book Identity and Deception in a Virtual Community that:

The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well they – and the troll – understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group. Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community.

This section here makes trolls seem like sadistic people, though.  Their enjoyment is derived by the pain of others.  But, in reality, that really is what trolls come down to be.  They mess with people to get a certain reaction from them.  For their enjoyment.

So is David Thorne really just someone who wants to cause pain for his own delight?  Well it could be seen that way, but no one can truly delve into the mind of a troller and know what he is thinking.

Control and Participation: Inverses

Control is not a confusing topic for me.  In the non digital world, I see it is inversely correlated with participation(at least in the way I see it)

When more people participate in their nation, their workplace, or wherever else they may be, then that means they put in their opinion out there, and allow their voice to be heard.  With more and more participation, it is hard for one person to completely control a situation.

For example, if a dictator came waltzing into the United States or another democratic nation, then people would most likely revolt and kick the dictator out, replacing him with someone who will take less control of them.

In a totalitarian nation, there is very little participation of the people in politics; they simply live their lives, feeling they cannot change who controls the nation even if they participate.

In the digital world, things aren't like this at all to me.

Every website we frequent is controlled by one person, or by a small group of people who control what is put on there, what kind of content is put up, whether they want it to be kid friendly, the layout of the website, and all other kinds of stuff.  We are just people who are happy to see the content online.

However, it looks like Facebook is selling some stock to the public to make some money.  This means that Facebook, the social networking site, will belong to the people who log in to that site and post their content.

On Facebook, and other websites like Tumblr, Reddit and Twitter, it feels like we have a lot of control, when in reality we only have the illusion of control while the people who have control have the ability to delete any content at any time.  We only go on these websites anyways because we feel we have privacy on them, and also because they allow us to express ourselves in a grand online community.  But it looks like our Facebook privacy could be at jeopardy when selling its stocks...

Click Here for More Information