Authors

Monday, November 29, 2010

Simulation Forecast

Tomorrow is the simulation. I am already anticipating being marginalized as the WWF. Many of the guidelines proposed are economically based and I don’t think groups are going to have the environment on their agenda at all. Although we are connecting our own purposes to the economically driven guidelines, I still feel that we are going to have to make an extra effort for our voices to be heard.
I am pleased with the way our video turned out, thanks to Rachel for taking ownership of its creation, and I am confident with the extensive research we have found. Kate was successful in finding relevant case study and her and I have combined our research on a few topics in a way that I think will make our presentation effective.   
I do expect to have to fight a little harder to keep our objectives from being pushed aside but with what we’ve prepared, I think we’ll be able to do it.

Reflection 13—


The Museum of the American Indian is inherently ironic in its formation. The dismissal of reality is an unfortunate product of our cultural and political contempt for the indigenous people of America. The government displays the mirage of honoring and representing Indian culture and history on our national mall, when it is more of a glossing over of the past and present Indian reality. We have to make the conscious choice of whether to fully acknowledge Native American history or at least do it the service of honestly ignoring it altogether. Instead of choosing one of these two truthful options, we have decided that it is better to misrepresent the Indian past by focusing on the rich and diverse cultures. This would be all well and good accept for the fact that it was these cultures that America dismantled, discounted, and disrespected. It is a futile enterprise of reconciliation to now acknowledge the cultures without also recognizing the gross misdeeds we have performed.

Saturday, November 27, 2010

Reflection 14

I find it really ironic that we are reading the Todorov book this week. Of course, this week is thanksgiving, where we celebrate being together and being alive with mountains of food and time off of work and school. Of course, on the Original thanksgiving, the feast they made came from the help of the Native Americans, who taught the settlers of the Mayflower how to farm and hunt, and they celebrated the fact that the native Americans pretty much saved them from death. Then we go on to read Todorov, that offers deep insight into how the European settlers destroyed the Native American populations by killing them and giving them diseases. When I actually realized what was happening, I kind of laughed a little bit.
I thought about it a little more, and I realized how much the institution of thanksgiving in general directly correlates with constructivism. Thanksgiving is a purely American institution, where people spend hundreds of dollars traveling to family homes to spend a long weekend together, while for the rest of the world it's just another weekend. Thanksgiving gives the American public an identity completely unique to them, which distinguishes them from the rest of the world. And so thanksgiving also contributes to the theory of constructivism.

Monday, November 22, 2010

Reflection 13

I found the Native American museum this week very interesting. It was kind of funny actually, I was always really interested in Native American culture as a child, and going to the museum on Wednesday reminded me of that. I was always interested in the culture, history, and mythology of Native American tribes, and that led me to thinking about why that possibly was. Then I remembered, that at the time I was being taught about Native Americans, I was in the fourth grade, and had lived in this country for no more than two years. At this point, I did have some friends, but my transition into an American lifestyle was horrible, and, luckily*, it never became complete. I was tormented every day for the first year, my mom talked of nothing but how much she wished she were back in the UK, and I had to learn what different words meant (like eraser and pants) while getting accustomed to habits that I had been taught were impolite (like eating french fries with your fingers). Anyways, I digress. the reason this is important is because at that point in my life, I hated this country and came home from school near tears every day, just wanting to go back home with my friends and family. The only thing that was going well for me was my schoolwork. Then I learned about the Native Americans, and I discovered a part of American history that was completely different to anything I had learned up to that point. I guess it gave me a little bit of hope that not everything in this country is bad, which is lucky because when I was given the decision to go back to the UK or not in 4th grade, I decided to stay here. So it must have done something to change my views of the US. sure, I know now how much Native American culture is removed from US culture, but at the time it had an impact on me. Anyway, it was nice to feel nostalgic as I was walking through that museum.

*Just to clarify, I do not in anyway use that word to suggest I don't like the US or don't want to be an American. It is more to clarify that I love being who I am, and that is British. It is a joke I use a lot but I sometimes get myself into trouble for it, so I just had to clarify to anyone who took offense to that.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Blog 11—

Columbus is unique. His religious piety that he prized over wealth makes him a remarkable man. However, his progression from a respectful bewilderment of the Indians to an antagonistic force, bent on subjugating their culture, undeniably rests some degree of blame for the subsequent colonization on his shoulders.

Arguably any other European would have more quickly made the jump from assimilation to colonization, but the reality is that Columbus was the first European man with the ability to make that transition; which of course he did. It is clear that he delights in the natural aspects of the new world, which many other men would have viewed as secondary to wealth, but his discovery of Indian culture was altogether normal and predictable. Tzvetan Todorov asserts that Columbus possessed an extraordinary amount of pride, predisposing him to infuse irrevocable truth in the skewed observations he ascribes to the new world. This idea can be expanded to the sentiment of European superiority, so although other Europeans would have had the same enslaving colonialist doctrine as Columbus, it was Columbus who first shaped the Indian reality in that light.

Columbus began the inevitable progression from discovery to domination, and despite the fact that he went about the transformation in a slightly novel manner, he crossed that bridge. The subsequent actions of Spanish colonizers were dually part of their own subversive intentions as well as reflections of the precedent set by Columbus. With the great praise gifted to Columbus for his world altering discovery, there must also be dispensed an equally harsh degree of responsibility for the actions that his discovery initiated.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Did Columbus set off the domino effect?

Since Columbus was the one to have the first ever encounter with Native Americans, his observations and reactions obviously had greater significance than if others had interacted with the Native Americans before. But what happened after he “discovered” the Americas is more a matter of European identity. Upon seeing a different culture, Europeans developed the belief that they were superior, so even if Columbus hadn’t had those interactions, it’s very likely that another European would have. As Rowland said, it has a lot to do with Europe’s identity and reaction to “the other.” When Columbus observed the Native Americans without any indication of religion, law, language or clothing, he came to the conclusion that they were barbaric and uncivilized people.  When comparing these characteristics to his own identity, one well-established and one he had always known, it made the Europeans feel superior. If Columbus didn’t react with these observations, then it is likely that others would have, given Europe’s identity. This identity developed because of Europe’s conditions at the time. As Angelica pointed out, Europe had just come out of a period characterized by stagnant social conditions and a new atmosphere breeding new ideas and expansionist thinking was emerging. This contributed to the future conquests and colonization that occurred after Columbus discovered the Americas, so Columbus’s actions and interactions with the native population were not what set things off on a course but it was instead inevitable because of Europe’s circumstances and identity at the time.

Bonus Blog question

I am not going to lie, the first time I saw this photo I rolled my eyes a little bit. I have never much taken to "football" (remembering i'm English), and it's no offence to anyone but that is just generally the usual response I give to anything "football" related. But I digress; that is not what this blog post is supposed to be about.
In terms of which representation of Native Americans is more acceptable, I believe you could see both representations either way. Most Native American rights advocates (as well as the Native Americans themselves) would find the museum a more acceptable view of "Indians" because it showcases and represents the history and culture of various Native American tribes that generally most people don't know about and don't think about on a regular basis. They would also probably find the representations of "Indians" made by the Redskins unacceptable because in their view, it is an innacurate representation of Native Americans and possibly an ethnic slur. But at the same time, Football fans probably don't think much about the slurs behind naming a football team a Native American derogatory term, and see it simply as a representation of the sports team they love and support until the day they die. But the senario becomes different when talking about how the same football fans would view the Native American museum. In this case, the football fans take on the same view as the American public; which is that they don't know very much about Native Americans in the first place. That is not anyone's fault though, because Native American affairs simply are not prevalent in American news and culture, so they are often forgotten about. Sure, people are taught about Native Americans in elementary school, but it is not likely they still remember it far into their adulthood. So in this case, it is impossible to say wether these people view the museum as acceptable or not, because they just don't know enough to decide in the first place.

Blog Post 11

Despite everything that Columbus did to the Native Americans in Hispaniola, he did find (not discover) the America which opened a whole new set of resources and a plethora of knowledge up to the Europeans, as well as a new area of the world to expand into and eventually a little country called the United States of America. So, even though it is widely believed that Columbus did not do very many positive things in terms of finding Hispaniola, there were a few good things that came out of his voyage.
That being said, there is a lot to blame him for. He did still highly marginalize the indigenous people, bring disease from Europe and enslave the natives. He was sent to prison for the way he governed Hispaniola, and he started a trend of explorers dehumanizing the Natives in the areas they find. You could blame Columbus for a lot of things that happened to the Native Americans in Hispaniola.
At the same time, Columbus didn't influence or tell other explorers and conquistadors to treat the natives they encountered in the same way. Everything that happened to the Native Americans in the rest of the Americas was exactly the same as what happened to them in Hispaniola. So it is impossible to blame Columbus for everything that happened to the Native Americans, because it was not Columbus who told Cortez to conquer the Aztecs, or told the Continental and British armies in the American Revolution to have Native Americans fight for them and then kill them off.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Reflection: Prioritizing

I’d like to address PTJ’s question from class today about whether or not addressing climate change is something worth focusing our efforts on.  
The problem of climate change is important but addressing it doesn’t yield immediate results by any means and there are things just as important, and I will argue more important, that need immediate attention. Eradicating poverty, guaranteeing access to clean water, and providing education to all are what I believe should be top on the priority list. We cannot be concerned only with ensuring a sustainable future when we don’t even know if we’ll make it to the future.  Because we presently face numerous threats to our existence, we could potentially die off before even reaching the time when efforts addressing climate change would show results. If we don’t focus on what’s important now, like ensuring a fair distribution of resources or providing access to clean water, then our population will die of starvation and disease.  So yes, there are many issues that deserve attention, such as climate change, but since we cannot realistically or efficiently address all of them, we have to pick and choose based on which are the most pressing and which will yield most immediate results.

Monday, November 15, 2010

Reflection: The reality of what circumstances can mean


During Friday’s discussion, we got to talking about education as a right vs. a privilege and how accessible higher education is to society. When some people started saying things like, “you can get anything you want if you work for it,” and “college is possible for those who really want it,” I started to get a bit annoyed and it got to me on a personal level. I was frustrated at people’s ignorance, but at the same time I recognize that some people are just removed from certain situations and thus stems their lack of knowledge. I raised my hand to voice my opinion and concluded with something along the lines of “it all depends on circumstances.” PTJ then asked, “like what?” and at that, a flood of emotions washed over me.  Since I was not comfortable sharing personal situations, and since that was all that was going through my mind at the time, I wasn’t able to verbalize my thoughts or offer any examples as to what circumstances I was talking about.  I’d like to try again.
While victorious stories like those of Chris Gardner’s in the Pursuit of Happyness can and do happen, for many people, such a rise to success through hard work and determination is not always a reality. To echo what Katrina stated, there are countless circumstances that factor into the chance for someone to obtain a higher degree, including both social and economic factors. If, for example, the eldest child of a family acts as the caregiver for younger siblings, and the parents (or parent) cannot afford to hire someone else, then that teenager will likely be forced to forgo any college opportunity. If the mother of a family is illiterate and her daughter is the one who pays the bills, reads the mail, and sorts her mother’s prescriptions, then whether the daughter gets accepted into college or not doesn’t matter because there’s no way she can leave her mother. It doesn’t matter how much he/she may want to get a college degree and it doesn’t matter how hard he/she works to earn the chance to get a college degree, there are always going to be circumstances for some people that pose an impassable barrier.  

Reflection 12

We had a very interesting discussion in class this week about who deserves an education and what it means to attain an education. A few people brought up the point that it is possible for someone to attain higher education, and if they could not afford it, that they would find a way to pay for their education. And I could not disagree more. In this country, to go to a good university, it can cost up to $50,000 a year. To a good percentage of the population, that is more than a yearly salary. It is not possible for those people to send their children to a school like American University. Some would respond: Well what about financial aid? It is true that schools offer financial aid to students who need it, but it is simply impossible to offer full scholarships to everyone who needs them. And even at Ivy League institutions, where the average gpa of an accepted student is 4.0 and SAT scores are close to perfect, it is not possible to offer every poor child who gets those figures full financial aid, and there is not even a guarantee of getting in to that school when every single applicant to that school has a perfect gpa and perfect SAT and AP scores as well. It simply is not fair that a student with a 3.0 gpa, 1670 SAT score and no AP's can go to college because they can afford it and a student with a 4.0 GPA, 2300 SAT score and all 4's and 5's on several AP's cannot go to that same school because they cannot afford it, even with financial aid.

The University of Oxford in England costs 3,375 pounds, or approximately 5418 dollars a year to attend. The University of Tokyo in Japan costs 535,000 Yen, or approximately 6446 dollars a year to attend. Australian National University in Australia costs 8859 australian dollars, or approximately 8723 US dollars at the most to attend. It is highly unlikely that in these countries, there is a big issue with money when thinking about going to University. And in these countries, education is no joke. You have to work unbelievably hard to get into University in those countries as well. The people who are informed about the educational situation in these countries would say that the only reason it is so cheap to go to school in these countries is because the government funds education. Exactly. In most of the modernized world, the government subsidizes education, and there is no reason why it shouldn't be done in the US as well. the privatization of education does nothing but drive up the price of education, causing it to be nearly impossible for the poor to attend a very good university. A person should not have to choose what school they go to based on the amount of money they get from that school. Some of the best minds come from the working and lower classes, and they are being deprived of many opportunities because they cant afford higher education.

Friday, November 12, 2010

Reflection 12—

So as we left class about twenty minutes ago, PTJ brought up the question we will be addressing next week regarding the aim and intent of international aid, and how those should be configured. All my life I have wanted to be involved with some sort of NGO or aid organization that helps people on the ground, in the field. On a human plane this is extremely rewarding for both the anthropologist and the receiver of aid.

However…in light of some strong points in today’s discussion, it seems as if the best way to facilitate general well-being is to interact with governments rather than individual civilians. If someone builds a school in an African nation or even a school district, that affects what…10,000 people max? Instead if the government is supported and solidified fiscally, economically, and in terms of security, there is a far higher probability that the nation as a whole will experience great benefit, rather than a single community. The gap between funds and efforts that it takes to reform a government is certainly extreme, but even partial reforms will have a larger umbrella effect than educational engagement in a individual community.

This is not to discourage anthropological efforts because in terms of human relationship personal efforts are far more valuable. However, there are two levels of foreign aid that need to be addressed and the first is undeniably macro engagement. Once fundamental government responsibility is established, from there NGO projects and the kind of aid we would normally consider to be “aid” becomes more sustainable and eventually can be built upon. That is why a country like Kenya with a more stable government is far more capable of sustaining development, than a country like Chad, whose government is merely a means for leaders to steal enough from the people so that they can experience a comfortable European exile. Governmental structures are what international aid should first address.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Acknowledging perspectives

It is always important to analyze situations from different perspectives so that you can get the truest sense of what’s going on and then be able to address a situation accordingly. Especially when dealing with historical events, in which we cannot really ever say what actually happened with one hundred percent certainty, examining alternative perspectives allows us to put the pieces together and come to the most accurate story possible.  Since current world affairs are much a result of everything that’s ever happened in the past, the way in which we view history is relevant when analyzing global politics. We need to look at the past from different angles to understand how states were formed, how relationships between states were created, how culture, traditions, and beliefs of a people developed, etc. It is also important to listen to the voices of the marginalized and understand their intentions before making an assumption.
Most of the news we hear about Afghanistan, for example, revolves around the Taliban and other terrorist regimes. Yes, it is true that many Afghan boys join the Taliban, but is it because they want to? Is it because they have a desire to kill? Or could it be because of social pressures… or for a lack of any future in any other sector of the “career world”…or ignorance and lack of education? Also, there is a whole population of people living in Afghanistan outside of the Taliban, people with human needs and desires much like our own. There are also people who are willing to work with Americans for a common purpose. Do we consider these people when analyzing world politics? Or do we just focus on our national security and the threat of terrorism as if it were coming from the country as a whole? I was reading an article the other day and a quote from a shura left an impression on me:  “God does not like terrorists. Terrorism is not promoted in the Koran. They are not only the enemy of America; they are our enemy. All of us have to work together to stop them.” When we view the situation from this perspective, we realize that the Afghan people are just as determined to fight terrorism as we are. They see it as something they need to unite with America against, but do we analyze it that way? If we were to view terrorism from their perspective then we might change our “We are the almighty global police force and will win this war with military superiority” view to one grounded on understanding and cooperation. Who says we can’t have strength in numbers without military force? The Afghan people want to work with us and they need our support. Maybe if we listened to these marginalized voices we would be able to work together with them to reach a common goal.
I acknowledge that it’s hard to listen to all voices and all perspectives all the time but sometimes it’s worth putting aside the guns and weapons to listen to the civilians of a war-inflicted country. Analyzing the situation from their perspective will help eliminate mistrust and encourage cooperation.   

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Addressing the root cause

So I didn’t answer the blog question about whether or not having troops in Afghanistan made me feel secure but in reading through other people’s responses I decided that there is something I want to say about our current deployment of troops in Afghanistan. While I’m not going to discuss the issue of security, I am going to explore the reasons why I don’t think we are gaining anything by having troops deployed there.  
While I do not deny that an immediate military response was necessary after 9/11 when the welfare of our nation was threatened, military presence in Afghanistan 9 years later is unnecessary and counterproductive.  
To deal with the Taliban most effectively, we need to address the root of the problem. The cause of religious extremism and distortion of the Koran is ignorance, illiteracy, and joblessness. Many teenage boys join the Taliban because there is no other job for them to do. Providing educational opportunities will address all of these issues and for the cost of an American soldier stationed in Afghanistan for one year, you can build 20 schools.  Most people think that education and development are impossible in areas of Afghanistan where there is a dominant presence of Taliban. That view is wrong. Greg Mortenson, along with many other humanitarians, have proven that it is quite possible to build schools even in the most insecure parts of Afghanistan. The key to the sustainability of the schools is engaging individuals and communities. Many times the schools that are built by governmental organizations are burnt down or attacked by the Taliban. This is because they are seen as alien institutions built by outsiders. Once you involve the people of the community, once they begin to feel ownership for what they are doing, then support and trust will grow and schools will be able to withstand Taliban opposition. Insurgents are less likely to oppose projects backed by  large groups of people. But in order to gain the respect of the village it is imperative that the locals are the ones directly involved in the process.  When ineffective institutions interfere with the Afghan way of life it creates a dispiriting lack of progress and locals will be reluctant to risk a relationship with foreigners. Education is possible and is the most effective way to address the current situation. This war cannot be won with superior military equipment or manpower; the root issues needs to be addressed first in order to build mutual respect and understanding. 
Military force is limited in what it can achieve, but education yields invaluable results.

Monday, November 8, 2010

Reflection 11—

So yesterday I was watching this comedy skit by John Oliver, who is Jon Stewart’s senior correspondent on “The Daily Show.” Oliver is British, so his material is mostly concerned with how ludicrous people in America are, and how ridiculous our government is. At one point in the routine he tells a story about when he was watching TV one day he saw an advertisement for an inflatable barbeque. The idea of this marvelous invention is that you can cook while you swim. Oliver pointed out that only in America would you find this toy. He talked about how the Chinese could certainly make it and for cheap, but no Chinese family could ever “pull off” an inflatable barbeque.

This joke taken lightly is hilarious, but when one really considers the fact that American companies are investing even a cent in the production of inflatable barbeques you have to be a little worried. As we go into the next couple weeks discussing poverty, the disgusting material whorishness of Americans should certainly be on our minds. This last week we talked about an income gap in America. The global income gap and rift in standard of living is far more pronounced and far direr. It may be worth exploring alternatives to inflatable barbeques in the interest of promoting some semblance of balance across the globe.

Saturday, November 6, 2010

Reflection 11

Since we have been talking about Security and Insecurity all this week, I would like to take some time to point out the slightly alarming things I found when we went to the pentagon on Wednesday. First of all, I may just be over reacting, but I feel a little uncomfortable at the fact that the Pentagon has its own metro stop. Sure, it is the pentagon, and it is, to some extent, a tourist site. But it is also the center for security of the entire Nation, and I just can't help but worry how easy it would be to just run out of the subway station and cause major damage to the tourists and the guards on duty. I also found it even more alarming to learn that the escalators leading out from the subway station came right up inside the pentagon. First of all, whose smart subway planning was that? Second of all, it is unbelievably easy for a very dangerous person to walk right into the Pentagon and detonate something (this might be an exageration, but it's not completely impossible.) Last of all, what? just, what? I'm going to stop thinking about it now because I'm hoping there was some form of SUPER STATE OF THE ART security technology to prevent things like that from happening.
I also found it unbelievably ironic to find that they actually sold Pentagon shot glasses. I spent a good half hour cracking up at the idea in my head.

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Security?

Having troops deployed to Afghanistan was a great way to make people feel secure back in 2001, when people were scared and they knew that the organizer of the attack was in Afghanistan. Not only did it help people feel secure, but it also had a clear purpose. Troops were sent in to help break up Al-Qaeda and find Osama Bin Laden.
But that was nine years ago, and it is questionable wether there is still as much use to the US being in Afghanistan as there was back then. The US has lost track of Osama Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda insurgents are now being trained and sheltered in Pakistan and it is also believed that Osama Bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan. If the US really wanted to make headway in the fight against Al- Qaeda they would force Pakistan, a supposed ally to the US, to give up all known Al-Qaeda leaders and insurgents in Pakistan, or at least have them do a thorough search for those leaders and insurgents. But I myself no longer see how we can make headway in Afghanistan.
Not only that, but the war in Afghanistan is the last thing on people's minds anymore. It is no longer heavily covered in the news and people are more concerned with the Economy as well as other domestic interests. The US's campaign in Afghanistan no longer effects people's sence of security because it has been going on for so long that people have simply gotten used to their current security status. No one can survive being scared for nine whole years, so everyone just goes on with their lives as normal.

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Blog 9—

In terms of our perception of our own security, there is something inherently comforting about knowing that our troops are off somewhere fighting a bad guy. This is our natural reaction to foreign intervention before we logically assess the impact of waging a war in a country halfway across the globe. Another way to conceptualize the affect of the war in Afghanistan on our security is that it really has no impact. The Taliban isn’t about to invade the United States, they don’t have a stockpile of nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of destroying western ideals and democracy. So why do we care?

In the Krebs article he makes the case that the War on Terror is a rhetorically formulated idea that allows the U.S. to intervene in places like Iraq and Afghanistan under the guise of subverting terrorist operations that are threatening America. In reality, Afghanistan may be harboring Osama bin Laden, but how important is that to our security? Not very. Having thousands of troops deployed in the Middle East does very little to prevent a terrorist attack on the United States, and is hard pressed to have any sizable impact on stemming the growth of existing terrorist organizations.

The primary result of indefinite engagement in the Middle East is the utter waste of American capital and resources. When Mayor Giuliani spoke during parents weekend he attempted to make the point that war was stimulating to the economy. Well welcome to the 21st century Mayor, because war no longer creates millions of jobs in weapon production because it doesn’t take 10,000 tanks to fight Al Qaeda; one might even be too many. War simply saps the strength of our nation, as illustrated beautifully in Diplomatic Risk when armies were removed for active wars. If there were any way to categorize the war in Afghanistan as it relates to our security, it would be dangerous. It is harmful to our economy, which according to our President is an integral factor to our stability and security as a nation. The former administration got us all wrapped up in warfare, which ended up threatening our sovereignty rather than strengthening it as was hopefully intended.

Monday, November 1, 2010

Reflection: Rally!

The rally on Saturday was definitely one of my most memorable college experiences thus far. Not only was it an absolutely beautiful day outside, it was so exciting to be on the National Mall with thousands of other equally excited and energetic people. Getting to the rally was part of the adventure. Elana, Dayna, and I decided not to go with the super early group but we still left campus fairly early. We got to the Metro Center stop just as the train was about to close its doors. It was packed with people, and there was already a crowd in front of us waiting for the platform. The doors closed but then opened again. After a few times of opening and closing, the conductor asked all passengers to check if an article of clothing or something else was in the way. About five minutes and a few more unsuccessful tries later, the conductor announced that the train was shut down for service. A swarm of people bolted out of the train joining the crowd on the platform as they started rushing up the stairs. At first I thought the walk would be too long but since it was such glorious weather and since we were walking with a purpose, I didn’t mind at all. (Coming back on the metro was even worse, but that’s a whole other story). 
As we drew closer I could feel the energy. We made our way towards the front, stopping to read signs and take pictures, and found a spot somewhere in the crowd. Minutes before the rally started, one brave soul decided to climb a nearby tree. He kept going further and further until the crowd’s worry stopped him. A few friends followed him up the same tree and then people started climbing up other trees around us. They probably had the best seat in the house and to be honest, they looked pretty comfortable.
It was exhilarating to be in the presence of Jon Stewart, and so many other great performers, even if we weren’t very close to them. Putting Stewart and Colbert together was bound to create a laugh and I definitely enjoyed hearing the two of them. During the rally I kept thinking about how incredibly lucky I am to be going to school in the nation’s capital which has so much to offer. Just two weeks ago I spent the day engrossed in the National Gallery of Art, followed by a trip to the National Zoo that same day. I’ve been here two months and already I’ve had so many extraordinary opportunities and rewarding experiences, more than I would in high school and more than I would have had at a college outside of a big city. Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed going to the rally and am grateful for the opportunity to have done so.