A Real Tea Party

Over time, I've developed a very slight obsession with tea. I wouldn't say I'm a tea connoisseur by any means, but I do know details about tea that the average drinker probably doesn't, like black tea will get bitter if steeped in boiling water or in any temperature water for too long, rooibos is supposed to be helpful with combating allergies and chamomile is a natural muscle relaxant (that's why it helps you sleep and relieve tummy aches!). I've found a local tea shop in the Chicago area I like visiting, and it just feels so classy to sit around a pot of tea with friends, discussing the great topics of our current lives. I've even had a tea party here at St. Olaf on the floor of a friend's dorm room. Each person brought their own tea to the "table" and it was a teastravaganza!

I'd guess one of the reasons I started drinking tea was because of the classiness aspect. It's become associated with royalty, in European and Asian cultures. The Japanese tea ceremony is a highly refined art form, and all nobility would drink tea after meals, especially when it was still luxurious. According to MacFarlane this was true, but tea became an integral part of the working class life as well. If sustained laborers through the day, providing that extra boost to stay motivated in less-than-motivating work conditions. It truly became a staple of life; I wonder why that isn't more known. Where in history did we learn to associate it primarily with the upper class instead? Unless it is simply an error in my judgment, which is very possible. A possibility: somewhere along the way we stopped drinking it as frequently, and over time it faded from the commoner's mind but was still imprinted as a luxurious royalty item. Or maybe it's just because I live in America and it just wasn't as big of a deal here.

Either way, I'm far from aristocratic and I still adore the art of tea.

Tea Party... not so much.

Now this is going to be hard for me, because I do not like the tea party. Not a bit. Like, at all. However, there's a trend in America right now claiming that all the tea partiers are crazies going around shooting guns calling everyone socialist Hitlers. Now, there are people that do that. And believing all of them are like that makes the tea party even easier to hate than it already is. But there is a core of people who actually have political ideals represented by the tea party. From what I can understand their main belief is in the control of government. It's sort of like libertarianism, where they believe politics shouldn't too closely intervene in their lives interrupting their "freedoms" and taxes should be much lower than they already are. It's the platform I disagree, and that's why I dislike the party. The added hysteria is just another reason to tack on after the fact (and I definitely think there are a lot more hysterics in the tea party than in other parties, but that is completely my opinion and probably isn't based in any sort of reality). I'm less of a libertarian and more of a Rawlsian, but that's a discussion I'll leave for another day.

Virtue Ethics

I was really excited today during class when I saw all those ethical philosophies on the board, because all I could think about was my ethics class Junior year. I also was dying to explain them all, just because... I dunno, I would have felt cool. On Monday when we first talked about Ben Franklin's approach to being virtuous all I could think about was the bent stick remedy. I suppose I should explain this more.

In Aristotle's virtue ethics he believed that in order to live a virtuous life we must live the "golden mean" between to opposites. Between humbleness and zealousness there was just pride, or between fear and foolhardiness there was bravery. He believed that if you were too humble, for example, you would aim to be as egotistical as you could because you would end up landing at just pride- like if you have a bent stick you bend it past the midway point so it falls short settles there instead.

Benjamin Franklin used this exact method! And by striving to be the absolute maximum virtuous person, he settled on something in the middle; still virtuous, and still human at the same time. I wouldn't say that's a bad place to settle, would you?

The Root Runs Deep

I decided it would be best to respond to DeAne's comment on my previous blog with this post. Basically, I was asked why the American Dream present in Franklin's time doesn't exist today.

I can't say I'm fully qualified to answer that question. My understanding of social changes in America since the 18th century is minimal. However, one trend I can point out is education. With increased knowledge, more and more jobs have been created using new information. Since the 1700's, careers have expanded from simple laborers and clergymen to include options like biomedical engineers, or computer programmers. Because these jobs require a more comprehensive understanding of complex topics, more education is necessary. Because they are more complex, they also offer a higher salary. A person needs a higher salary in order to move up in socioeconomic standing.
The issue comes in when, for most people, educational availability did not increase with the growth of knowledge. Certain populations of our country were never granted higher education due to enslavement or rural location, for example. Now, all-legally-must offered an education, but in poorly managed schools or within circumstances that prevent them from devoting much attention to schoolwork. Sure, they have access to certain low-end jobs, but they don't offer a livable wage, or a wage they can increase their economic standing in.

I firmly believe that if we reformed our educational system, the American dream that once existed would blossom into existence once again.

Any further causal questions I cannot answer; my knowledge on the matter is not deep enough.

Franklin's American Dream

There is one reoccuring definition of the American dream. It has evolved since the foundation of America, but more or less it has always been around. It's the idea that should you work hard enough and commit yourself, you may move up in socioeconomic standing. In the past, people came to America expecting it to be a place where they could find new beginnings. It's been the dream of new Americans for decades, and for a while it held true to this image, like in the case of Benjamin Franlkin.

Franklin started in middle class. He was the youngest son, with siblings all working at a relatively early age. He was able to receive some education, but not fully complete it. Yet, he was still able to accomplish a multitude of things. He educated himself, worked hard at the job he was put into, saught out new opportunities. With hard work and conviction he was able to work himself into notereirity in politics, science and literature. He sure moved up, as any American who works hard is theorhetically able to do.

But how true is this image? I would say that in our modern world it's pretty much false. But that's something I've complained about enough already. No doubt it'll continue to come up.

Save us from the Shopocalypse!

This here is reverend Billy, who I mentioned in class yesterday. It's kind of hard to sum him up, but with a few words I'd say guerrilla gospel protesting. Reverend Billy is a character leading the church of stop shopping, devoted to "...supporting and advocating for sustainable consumption, encouraging and advocating for strong local economies, and defending the first amendment and public space." He takes a gospel choir to various establishments, including places like Walmart, Starbucks, or Disneyland, delivers a sermon on the evils of over consumption, sings a song and then is usually ushered away by the police. He challenges people to buy locally (as to support mom and pop stores), not to buy more than they need, to know where their products come from and to not replace gifts that could be heartfelt with ones that are expensive.

Now a lot of people believe he's crazy, and in a way he is. He's excessive because it draws attention and is better at getting the message across, if you don't immediately look away. I think anyone is more likely to watch a man making a fool of himself with a pretty good sounding choir behind him than a man on a box yelling on a street corner (another place where the beauty of art supplements a message of social justice... interesting). It's another person asking us to be aware of our habbits as Americans and how they influence other Americans and people around us,

The Roots of a Weed

I'm about to go on another rant about being upset with America's values (a common theme amongst my blog posts) so if you'd rather not listen click back now.

Now that that disclaimer's out of the way, I would like to announce that I've found the roots of one of our countries main problems; consumerism! Perhaps it's excessive to say that I discovered it alone, and that it is the sole root. Butler on page 154 suggests that Americans from the start imported plenty of European products. Was it ncessary? Probably not. But they rellied on luxuries from their home instead of compeltely distancing themselves, and comepletely detaching themselves from the consumerist attitude they came from.

That is one of the roots.

The other one exists within the American Dream. I was in a class called Justice Seminar last year, which I've probably talked about before. It was addressing social justice issues and we spent a lot of time on the evolution and devolution of the American Dream. The American dream, in theory, suggests that anyone may move up from their socioeconomic level by tightening their bootstraps and working hard. Cullen suggests that this upward mobility was fully available to early colonists, and was pioneered by Benjamin Franklin. Over time this has faded into nothing but an ideal. Socioeconomic levels have been concreted and harder to move about. It is the devolution of the American dream.

Hm, maybe that doesn't fit into my root metaphor. Oh well, I like it anyway.