Lizzy in America

Iceland's New Comedic Mayor

2010-07-08T22:08:00.000-05:00

After a long time away from the blog enjoying summer, I just couldn't resist posting about this:

Remember the 2006 movie called Man of the Year? In it, a satirical comic (played by Robin Williams) runs for President of the US as a joke. Shockingly, he is actually elected and has to rise to meet his new responsibilities. An implausible plot, at best.

Or maybe not. A satirical, self-described anarchist and comedian was recently elected as the mayor of Iceland's largest city. Jon Gnarr created the "Best Party" and won what the New York Times called the protest vote. (I suggest that you read their full article.)
This story made me wonder why I find the concept of someone other than an official "politician" holding office to be so strange. I mean, who decided that only the select few people who can afford to do nothing but campaign. I started to consider the roles that people try to fill in their lives and the limitations that our society places on people in those certain roles. I think that it is dangerous to believe that only a certain type of people can hold political office. Then, the government is no longer truly "by the people". (Although Iceland never made that claim.)

More from the Great State of Arizona

2010-05-24T10:56:00.000-05:00

Illegal immigration policy is not the only thing for which the state of Arizona is being scrutinized. In recent months, the state has begun auditing teachers who have accents. (Watch the CNN report here.) The thought behind this is that teachers with heavy accents should not be allowed to be in contact with students who are still in the process of developing speaking styles in their native language, English. Of the staggering 1500 teachers who were audited, 25 were found to have "issues" with pronunciation or grammar, resulting in a loss of teaching privileges.
       For obvious reasons, these audits have come under fire. Assuming that the state of Arizona truly has its students' best interests at heart and is not merely trying to discriminate against immigrants (which may be a big assumption, given recent immigration laws), the method behind the policy is simply flawed. These audits are clearly not the best way to determine whether someone is fit to teach. They might have perfect grammar and pronunciation, but if the students are not learning anything, it does not do any good. And who is responsible for judging which pronunciations are correct? As Irish teacher Ian Kidd states, "There is no one correct way to pronounce anything in America". A less subjective test of teachers would be to test the students on what they have actually learned.
       Some of the best teachers that I have had speak with heavy accents. This does not make them worse in the classroom. If anything, it adds much-needed diversity and better prepares students for people they may come across in the real world who don't have perfect OED-approved English. Most people in the country, myself included, fall into this "lesser" category.
       One school's superintendent says, "You can have a diploma and still be a bad teacher". Now, I completely agree with this statement, but it relates to a totally separate issue. You can also be an excellent teacher and not have a diploma. He supports the audits on the grounds that children will miss out on important education if their teachers have accents, which is understandable. However, any teacher with a teaching certificate has already been evaluated and approved. Why can the state change its mind years later? Also, according to the video, studies have actually shown that non-native English speakers make better English teachers.
More and more, I feel as if I am living in a deeply racist and biased society that preaches equality and practices discrimination. This latest development only solidifies my opinion.

Conquering the Land

2010-05-17T10:57:00.000-05:00

In class, we watched Working in a Coal Mine, an episode of Morgan Spurlock's documentary TV show, 30 Days. In this particular episode, Spurlock voluntarily descends into a coal mine to do hard labor every day for a month. After watching, we had a class discussion about why we mine coal.
     The relatively obvious reasons of financial gain and having few other options came us pretty quickly, but then a factor that I would never have considered was brought up: Many of the miners, despite all of the safety risks and terrible working conditions, actually enjoy spending their days down below the surface of the earth and could not imagine a life for themselves where they do anything else.
     Sitting in a comfortable classroom, I could not fathom how anyone could actually think this way and want to support themselves by mining coal if they had any other options.
    Then, on Saturday morning my perspective changed and I came to understand these coal miners on a new level. For extra credit in biology, my class went to cut down Buckthorn trees, an invasive species that chokes out the local forest. After working for about three hours, we were all able to look around at the new clearing we had made and feel a real sense of accomplishment. Even though it was simple labor and did not require much thought, there was something refreshing about having "conquered the land".
    Finally, this all relates back to The Kentucky Cycle. The Rowan boys are always going on about how much they love owning and farming the land. They feel a bigger connection to it, as Patrick says, "IT AIN'T JUST DIRT! It's land" (Schenkkan 92). He truly sees a deeper meaning in it.
     After my Buckthorn cutting experience, I am convinced that every human has a deep desire to make an imprint on their surroundings and leave something behind for future generations. That is why the Rowans love their land and that is why coal miners are willing to venture into the earth every day.

Men Who Hate Women and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

2010-05-09T20:06:00.000-05:00

Ah! The first non-junior theme blog in over a month!

So this afternoon I saw a Swedish film at the Wilmette Theater. It's English title is The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. The direct translation of the Swedish title, however, is Men Who Hate Women. (Thanks to Therese, our Swedish exchange student, for bringing this to my attention.) This second title is quite fitting, since the plot has a lot to do with sadistic rapists.
I found the change of title very interesting, mostly because it never occurred to me that the titles of foreign films would be changed for American releases. After my initial surprise, my American-Studies trained self began to wonder why the title would have been changed.
Seeing as the purpose of the movie industry is to produce art and to make money, I imagine that the change is due to one of those factors. The author of the original book from which the screenplay was adapted is now dead, so it could not have been due to his artistic wishes. (Although, interestingly enough, the book is called The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo in both countries.) This leaves the financial reason.
I do not believe that a movie released in the US with the title Men Who Hate Women would do very well in the box office. Someone out there, however, thought that such a title would do very well in Sweden.
Maybe the concern was that such a male-driven society would not tolerate such a title, and that no one would go to see it.
Under any title, it was a very intriguing movie with an interesting plot and very well-developed and complicated characters. I would highly recommend it.

"So by the way, it's due in a week." (yikes)

2010-04-30T11:21:00.000-05:00

So about five minutes ago we learned that the junior theme is due next Friday, May 7th. This means that we have exactly seven days to put the final touches on our papers, annotate our bibliographies, and dream up creative titles. I am personally feeling a little bit pressed for time, but my intro revisions have finally fallen into place and I think that I am nearing the conclusion of my research.
      In the time that we had off of school yesterday I called Lenore Skenazy, my interview subject, but she was unfortunately not around. Hopefully I will be able to talk to her over the weekend. On a slightly more successful note, I just completed my "fellow scholar" interview with none other than Nick Steen. His topic is American cars and the auto industry, which may not sound very similar to the topic of internet privacy. But we did find a connection that served both of us well. Part of his topic has to do with bumper stickers and the tendency of Americans to broadcast themselves by means of their beloved automobiles. We talked about why Americans feel the need to do this, and the effect on interpersonal reactions. I have a few good quotes from him that I will be including in my paper. (Although it just occurred to me that I might want to give him a copy of the paragraph that his quotes will be included in, just to make sure that I am not putting words in his mouth.)
The one other thing that I have to do is annotate my bibliography, which shouldn't take way too long. I do have to make sure that my annotations are not too generic and "cheesy" though, since that seemed to be the main concern of our teachers.
      I have quite a bit of work to do this weekend, which will be challenging, seeing as I am going to Grosse Point for a regatta. I am going to have to put in some serious work during the five hour car ride there and back.....and probably after racing on Saturday night. I am confident, however, that I can get it all done by Friday.

"There can be no success without failure" --The Junior Theme Story

2010-04-23T00:39:00.000-05:00

A brief update on my junior theme progress:
    I have emailed Lenore Skenazy requesting an interview and she very kindly responded promptly and positively. I am in the process of narrowing down the actual questions that I am going to ask her. Doc Oc helped me with that during class today. Almost all of my questions were way too broad and therefore would not have helped me learn information specific to my topic. I also spent a long time today grappling with freeconfrerencepro.com, which is a service that is supposed to allow you to record an conversation (in this case, an interview) online. I am not sure that this will end up working, so I may have to resort to asking the questions over email or finding another way of recording the exchange.
     Today I also finished up my very, very rough first draft of my introduction. Since I will not be in class tomorrow, I am going to meet with Mr. Bolos second period to discuss the intro. Hopefully I will get some good tips and insight from the meeting.
   All in all, the stress level regarding the paper is not way too high. Maybe I would call it about a code yellow.
I wonder what our final due date will be?

Junior Theme Update

2010-04-16T15:09:00.000-05:00

So it's a bit after three on a beautiful Friday afternoon. As might be expected, the old work ethic has been somewhat hard to find today. I am going to plan out my research via blog to direct myself and budget my time over the weekend.

     The first order of business is to lock in my interview subject. I think that I am going to try to get an interview with danah boyd, as I have been reading her blog and latest book, but according to Mr. Bolos and common sense, she will probably be a difficult person to get an interview with. One of my friends suggested the founder of the website Zillow.com, which is a site that helps the owners or prospective buyers of homes check how much the home is actually worth. This ties in to my theme of privacy very well. One other candidate is Jesse Schell, the speaker in a DICE conference video that I watched. The video had a lot to do with gaming, privacy, and the future of technology.
     The next thing is to finish reading my book and pick out the most important passages and sections to use in my paper. (This task takes much longer to complete than to type out in my list.)
     After that I am going to finalize my thesis and write my introductory paragraph. Neither of these will be in their final form, of course, but it will be good to finally get something written down on paper.

The Jr. Topic Search

2010-04-07T10:43:00.000-05:00

After a few weeks of trying to pick junior theme topics, I think that I finally have narrowed it down to three general areas: ageism in America, the evolution of privacy in America, and the use of sex in American advertising. I am very interested in all three of these areas, so I am having a lot of trouble deciding which one to go with (the burden of choice).
      The topic of ageism is really a problem of whether or not I will be able to quantify it. I suppose that I could quantify a housing trend, such as if families welcome their grandparents into their homes or if they chose to send them to a retirement home. I might also be able to explore the value of youth in celebrity and in popular culture.
     In terms of privacy and the internet, I was thinking that I could explore the seemingly recent trend of Americans not caring about their personal privacy. This is very closely tied to online networking websites like Facebook and Twitter. Mark Zuckerburg, the founder/inventor of Facebook recently said "privacy is dead" in an interview about the changes in privacy settings on his website. In a rebuttal, danah boyd argued that privacy is in fact not dead. I think that this would be a particularly interesting topic because it very directly affects my daily life and is a raging debate in today's world. It would be cool to go back in history and see how Americans protected their privacy back then.
     My final option is the use of sex in advertising. I have actually already written a blog that is similar to this topic, but specifically about the Go Daddy commercials. (See the blog here: http://lizzyinamerica.blogspot.com/2010/02/superbowl-commercials-and-feminism.html) For this topic I can research the evolution of advertisements over the years. One question that this raises is whether this type of advertising is a result of our male-dominated society and culture, or if it is actually just a result of the way the human brain is wired. This subject could also be particularly hard to quantify and find some concrete evidence about.

Writing this all down has actually been surprisingly helpful. I am now leaning towards exploring the evolution of Americans' views of personal privacy.

North.East.West.South.

2010-03-19T09:59:00.000-05:00

In light of our recent John Dos Passos writing assignment, I have been thinking a lot about newspapers and how our means of receiving media have changed so much in the past hundred years. Traditional newspapers used to be the only way to stay up to date on current events. Now we have TV, radio, internet, and a much faster word-of-mouth network due to the rise of cell phones and instant messaging. In the future, each of us will probably just have a little transmitter in our head that beams news stories directly into our brains. (This may seem far-fetched, but imagine what cell phones would look like to someone from the 1800s. It'll happen.)
Whereas before we had a few major newspaper corporations that decided what stories to report on and what angle to take, we now have every person with an opinion and access to an internet connection. But getting news from the internet only provides the illusion of a wider base of reporters.Those same big corporations still tell us how to think and feel about what is happening in the world today, but now they have several additional means of doing it. Now, instead of going out and buying a newspaper, the news comes right to us at home or in our pockets via cell phone. This is an even more dangerous way of being taught how to think because we are not always on our guard and conscious of it. Sometimes I just want to go online to play sporcle games, and my homepage blasts me with twenty headlines.
News in today's world of instant communication and sharing is an even bigger part of life than it has been ever before.

Everything's An Advertisement

2010-03-17T10:44:00.000-05:00

What is an advertisement?
I have been grappling with the answer ever since that question was raised in class. According to dictionary.com, the word has a few different definitions:

1.a paid announcement, as of goods for sale, in newspapers or magazines, on radio or television, etc.

2.a public notice, esp. in print.

3.the action of making generally known; a calling to the attention of the public: The news of this event will receive wide advertisement

The first part of the definition seemed like the most obvious to me. It is the definition that people think of as soon as they hear the word "ad". These are the conscious commercials, the ones that we are aware of when they assault our brains. When you hear or see one of these "paid announcements", you know that they are trying to sell you something because they are relatively obvious about it. Any billboard or TV ad is there for the sole and explicit purpose of raising awareness and tempting consumers to buy, buy, buy.

The second definition is used less and less in today's modern America, most likely due to the fact that the first and third definitions are so widely referred to. In fact, under the word origin and history section the mid-fifteenth century definition was "'written statement calling attention to' something, 'public notice' (of anything, but often of a sale)". The English word comes from the French stem avertir, which means "public notice".

Finally, we come to the third definition, which is "the action of making generally known". In contrast to the first definition, this is the one that the average American needs to worry about. Everywhere we look, we see logos and pictures and brand names. These are the 6,000 ads that most Americans will see every day (according to Jimmy's most recent blog post). Even those who don't watch a lot of TV and don't listen to hours of radio and don't drive down billboard-lined streets will see thousands of commercials aimed at them (although most of us do all of these things daily). Each of those little images that represent a brand or company sends our brain a tiny message that says "recognize me! buy me! consume!!!!".

This third definition most clearly captures what an advertisement is. In the article from the LA Times titled "Mapping the Mind: Searching for the Why of Buy", Robert Hotz explains why we recognize brands so quickly and easily. He wrote about a modified Coke-Pepsi challenge in which test subjects were given cola to drink without any indication of which brand it was. There was no real preference towards either brand. Next, he they were given a sip of cola while they were shown a logo, but not necesarily the one matching the drink. The preference for Coke was staggering.

What this means is that advertising is everything. It determines how we think and creates associations in our brains. Every time we see a logo or picture or brand name, we are being assaulted with ads.

Is this a bad thing?

Probably, but welcome to the free-enterprise system.

The Importance of Artistic Education: Blogging Live from Piano Lessons

2010-03-02T08:28:00.000-06:00

I am currently seated in a pink armchair, listening to my brother take a piano lesson, having just finished my own. Our teacher, Barbara Rubinstein, coaches him on the different chords that make up his latest jazzy endeavor. Musical terms that have become so familiar to me over the years drift past, reminding me of how much we have learned.

After today’s class discussion about the way our society values the arts, I began to wonder how much different my own life would be if I had never been exposed to music in the way that I have. The first thing that strikes me would be a real sense of loss. Music seems to be the basis of many other aspects of my life. Music education has taught me how to focus and set goals, how to be creative while being disciplined, and how to keep a sense of constant discovery while learning.

When you learn how to play a musical instrument, much of the study is self-driven and self-motivated, so the student must understand how to keep themselves practicing. The teacher is not present and monitoring all of the time, unlike in other classes that a student might take.

      A second point is that of inspiring creativity. Learning music requires a lot of rules that have to be followed at first, but most of them can be bent or broken as the student progresses to higher levels. As the saying goes, “You have to learn the rules before you can break them”. This enables students to be creative while providing them with some structure and foundation, rather than just saying "do whatever".
     Finally, music teachers seem to truly understand the value of learning for learning's sake. They have always preached to me that no one should ever stop learning or stop appreciating the journey of discovery.
     Learning music, similar to learning a foreign language, is best started at a young age. This is why every school should give their students the opportunity to experience music education. American society currently does not place a very high value on artistic education, saying that "America's business is business". But as we have seen in light of the recent economic downturn, that is not really working very well. Why not try to change the system at a time like this, when it is clearly not working anyway?

Fantasea: My Childhood in Ruins

2010-02-28T23:57:00.001-06:00

Okay, so maybe the title is a bit melodramatic, but a few fond childhood memories did take a bit of a beating today. My family and I went to the Shedd Aquarium with our foreign exchange student, because we could not in good conscience let her leave Chicago without experiencing the museums.
     My excitement at reliving some of the magic that I remembered from my visits to the aquarium when I was younger diminished slightly as soon as the dolphin show, now known as "Fantasea" began. I remembered a pretty cool display of dolphins doing tricks and trainers explaining a few things about the animals. What we got this time was a flashy, dumbed-down show with little actual substance. They removed every remotely educational aspect from the script and replaced them with actors dressed up in white jumpsuits, which were supposed to look like beluga whales, I guess.
      I also felt like a was being brainwashed the entire time, because they kept flashing their logo (see picture) and mentioning that they are sponsored by ComEd (which is another issue altogether).
Maybe somewhere along the line the director of the program decided that they needed to draw in a younger audience and, in an effort to make everything more kid-friendly, made the show into something fit for Cartoon Network rather than the Discovery Channel. My own qualms about preserving my youth aside, I think that the revisions made to the show demonstrate a real lack of faith in today's young people. We have begun to assume that no child can be interested in learning without adults dumbing it down and making it fun and colorful for them. This is so wrong. It is quite limiting on creativity, since it gives kids an already-packaged story behind the show, rather than letting them absorb it in their own way.
    Whatever happened to learning for learning's sake? If kids cannot appreciate the world as it is now, instead of as some fake construction created by a corporate sponsor, how will they ever? Do you think this kind of thing is helpful or harmful to children?

Benefits of Life Advice?

2010-02-16T10:08:00.000-06:00

In discussing Huck Finn during class, we talked about the life advice that Huck gives and receives throughout the novel. He seems to take in the opinions and views of everyone else, while never actually processing it or thinking for himself. From an outsider's perspective, this is pretty easily recognizable. However, I thought about it a little more and realized that this directly applies to my own life.
There are little "helpful quotes" everywhere, all telling me how to live my life correctly. They cover the Trevian Tracker (the little school assignment notebook) and they plaster the walls of the hallway. When I was in sixth grade I read the "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step" quote by Confucius. Not gonna lie, it got pretty old after the first fifty times.
Personally, I think that getting life advice crammed into your ears is not helpful at all. In fact, it is actually harmful to a person's morality. If an institution wants to impress students with some sort of life lesson, they have to find a more effective way of doing so.
The reason why sayings like this are not a good idea is the same reason why we try to discover knowledge rather than receive it in class. If one is simply told something, the message often does not stick. But, it they truly learn it for themselves, it will be ingrained in their minds for a lifetime.
It is wrong to shove quotes like this at young children and to tell them that they have to live by them to have a successful and moral life. It is not true and it is far oversimplifying ethics. If we cannot honestly trust kids to discover their own moral fibers, then out society is pretty far gone. I believe that ethics should be discussed and discovered, but never wraped up neatly in cute little wall posters. Thoughts?

The Color of Band-Aids

2010-02-09T22:43:00.000-06:00

Today in class we examined an article by Peggy McIntosh called "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack". It was about the ways that our society favors people who are white over people of color, whether or not it is intentional and purposefully racist.
         The article consists of a lost of fifty different examples of this phenomenon, some of which I agree with and some of which I do not. That aside, number 46, which I do agree with really caught my attention: "46. I can chose blemish cover or bandages in "flesh" color and have them more or less match my skin."
         I think that the reason why this particular example stuck out to me is because it is something that I take for granted. Of course a flesh-colored band-aid would match my skin color. I also have never really considered the matching a bit deal. Sometimes I even wear blue band-aids with little glow-in-the-dark Spongebobs on them. But the practical applications of a band-aid's color are not really in question here.
The real issue is in the assumptions that our society makes based on race and color of skin. We like to call ourselves a "post-racial-America", but even if direct hate crimes and racial profiling have come to an end, all of these little things, like white band-aids add up to a very uneven society. I think that these small, seemingly unintentional and harmless discrepancies are often more damaging to race relations than the larger, deliberate examples of racism.
My reasoning is twofold. First of all, I explore the phenomenon of right-handed scissors. Obviously, no one hates left-handed people for being left-handed, yet the average lifespan is shorter for these few. Why? Many things, like scissors, are built for people who are righties. This can make life more dangerous for the minority of people who are not. This is similar to the band-aid story. Small things can add up very quickly.
   The second argument is that when racism takes such a subtle form, it becomes ingrained in society without people noticing it. If we accept these things as normal, we are accepting that one group of people should live with more privilege than another group. Things are overlooked that should not be.
     After reading this article, I think that I have already become more aware of this sort of racial bias in my personal experience.

Superbowl Commercials and Feminism

2010-02-08T00:03:00.000-06:00

Like most Americans, I spent this evening sitting around the TV with family and friends, eating guacamole and watching the Superbowl. As much as the football game itself fascinates me, I have always been intrigued by the commercials. Several years ago, I started keeping track of the different categories of ads. For example, a few of the most common types from this year were TV shows, cars, and beer.
   Out of the 113 commercials that aired between the kickoff and the end of the game, 30 were for CBS shows. But the ads that I found the most interesting were far from the most common. They were the two godaddy.com commercials, featuring the "Go Daddy Girl".
    Both the ads depicted a woman being recognized as the Go Daddy Girl. Another woman in the ad then asked if she was "go daddy material". Then she ripped the front of her shirt open, and the commercial ended, directing viewers to visit the Go Daddy website if they wanted to see more.
       My question hardly even needs to be stated. Are these commercials inappropriate? I would say yes. The Superbowl has been branded as a family show ever since the Justin Timberlake/Janet Jackson fiasco a few years ago. In the years following their "wardrobe malfunction", CBS has tried to make the even more family-friendly by having much older bands play the halftime show. So why ruin the efforts with such sexist and provocative ads? The network chose to deny other ads on the grounds that they were not in keeping with the station's values. Why on earth did they not deny this one too? I am all for the funny ads, but this one made me feel more like I was about to see pornography.
If we keep portraying women as sex symbols in media, true equality can never be achieved. C'mon, CBS.

Have You Seen Our Finals Schedule?????

2010-01-31T23:31:00.000-06:00

Earlier this afternoon, I was looking up dates for the end of the school year and I discovered some shocking information. According to the official New Trier Calendar, our first day of second semester finals is on a Friday. The weekend after is Memorial Day weekend, so we have the following Monday off. Then exams will wrap up on Tuesday and Wednesday. Oh, yeah. And the commencement ceremony for the seniors is on that Sunday.
      Aside from the problems this causes for my personal calendar, this raises some issues.
      First of all, I think that having three extra days in between the first and second days of finals is awkward and possibly harmful to students' studying. The end of school is a distracting enough time, and to draw finals out for a time longer than necessary encourages end-of-year slumps. Will students really be able to use those three days effectively? I don't think so.
     Also, having a weekend surrounded by finals really defeats the purpose of a weekend. We are supposed to have those two (or three) days to catch up on work and sleep, and maybe to have a social life. But if students spend the weekend stressing about what is to come on during the next week, we can't rest.
    The lack of a true weekend also means that many New Trier students and their families will not observe Memorial day at all. Especially in light of the current war, every American should make that extra effort to acknowledge our armed forces.
     Finally, Memorial Day weekend has traditionally been a family-oriented time. It is the last major block of freedom most people have before everyone parts ways for the summer break. Without it, a lot of annual events and family vacations will likely be forgotten.
    I have a feeling that the reason for this strange schedule is to make extra time for the potential construction over this summer. Is it worth it? What are your opinions?

The Virtue of Incentives in Education

2010-01-25T23:45:00.000-06:00

After watching Barry Schwartz's speech in class today, one of the thing that he said stuck out to me in particular. (You can view it here.) He told a story that served as a warning against relying on incentives to live a virtuous life. Apparently, in Switzerland citizens would ask if they would be opposed to having nuclear waste stored in their neighborhoods. Somewhat surprisingly, about 50% of them said that they would be okay with it because they felt like it was their duty as citizens. Here comes the crazy part. Another group of people were asked the same question, but they were also offered six weeks' salary as a compensation for the waste storage in their neighborhood. This time, only 25% accepted the plan.
   This story clearly demonstrates a very interesting aspect of human behavior. We will agree to do something on strictly moral grounds until financial gain is brought into the picture. Then we suddenly take on a much more self-serving attitude and can no longer do the right thing based solely on what we believe is right an wrong.
Since I do not live in Switzerland and no one has ever surveyed me about nuclear waste storage, this specific example does not directly pertain to my daily life, but its message does. Our education system today is largely based on providing students with the incentives to learn. We receive grades for almost every assignment and we make a huge deal about final semester grades. For almost every student at New Trier, grades are a huge motivator to learn.
   But why not learn just for learning's sake?
To take myself as an example, I genuinely like to learn. I think new concepts are pretty cool. In Spanish, we are supposed to be learning how to speak another language, but sometimes I feel as if all that I am really learning how to do is get a good grade in the class. If we are assigned two pages in the workbook, I always do them, but I usually do not really put much thought into it. I do the minimum amount of writing so that I can get all of my homework points. I know that I am not the only person in my class who is guilty of this. But when I try to make myself feel guilty about blowing off my homework, I realize that the incentive of getting a good grade in Spanish really hurts my ability to learn properly. I truly believe that if I didn't have to waste so much time trying to get a good grade, then I could properly learn the language, which is something that I am interested in doing even without the grades (which is why I signed up for the class in the first place).
       My final point comes from the Chicago schools. Recently, they created a program that paid students for getting good grades. (I don't know what the current state of the program is, but the basic idea is still relevant.) I think that the problem with adding extra, unnecessary incentives to things is that the new incentives actually undermine the original ones. This "money for grades" program is telling students that getting good grades is not enough reward in itself. For that matter, grades in general send students the message that learning for learning's sake is not worth it. We need that extra validation from an outside source, rather than just being able to be proud of ourselves. I'm not sure that this is healthy.
      What do you think??

One Grain of Rice (Slightly Belated)

2010-01-09T16:39:00.000-06:00

When I was younger, one book that both my brother and I enjoyed very much was One Grain of Rice, a folktale by Demi. It is a picture book with beautiful illustrations depicting a historical India. The story goes that a Raja thought that we was wise and fair to his people, most of whom were rice farmers. He took most of their harvest each year to keep safely in the royal storehouses in case of famine. Then, one year, almost all of the crop failed and the starving peasants went to the Raja, begging for the rice that he had promised. But in the interest of self-preservation, he denied them, not knowing how long the famine would last and needing rice for his own feasts. So the people continued to starve.
Then, one day a young girl was walking past the royal rice-carriers when she noticed that one of their bags had a hole and was spilling rice. Being very clever, she walked beside them and caught all of the rice in her skirt. When they arrived at the palace, she was so honest that she returned all of the rice to the Raja. He was impressed, and offered to grant her any wish. She explained to him that all of the people were starving, and asked that he give her one grain of rice that day, then gave her two the next day, and four the next, doubling the amount each day for a month.
   The Raja agreed immediately, thinking that the girl was foolish to ask for so little. Of course, he had not mastered the subject of mathematics, and by the end of the month, he had given the girl all of his rice. She then turns around and distributes it the the hungry people. One thing to take note of is that despite the fact that he realized that all of his rice was disappearing, the Raja kept his word and did not go back on his promise.
     There are a few different messages in this story. The first is that generosity is key to success in life. The Raja will not give his people rice, and he loses big by the end of the story. The main protagonist is very generous. She does not keep all of the rice for herself, as the Raja did. I think that this is a great message to send to kids, especially in our material age. The other good message is that anyone can change the government and that even the seemingly smallest person can have a bearing on a ruler.
      A final positive moral is that education is quite important. If the Raja had had as good of a grasp on simple math as the girl, the story likely would have had a different ending. It is clearly saying that knowledge is power.
   In fact, I could not find any examples of bad morals or "brainwashing" in this whole book. Not all of the messages that we give children in media are negative. There are good ones too!

The Ethics of Advertising

2010-01-05T10:11:00.000-06:00

The short clip that we watched in class yesterday really got be thinking about the ethics of targeting children in advertisments. Personally, I do not think that there is any ethical problem with targeting the age-group that the prodct is designed for. That is, after all, the most effective way to sell something, which is all any company is trying to do. If the "nag factor" is what makes adults more likely to buy a product, then the realy problem lies in parents' attitudes toward their own children. If a child learns early on that they can get anything that they want from their parents merely by nagging them, then that lesson will stick. The parents are allowing this cycle to begin the first time they cave in to their child's wanting. The lessons that parents teach the children can have much more bearing on the way that their children develop than the media that they absorb. However, sucessful parenting may include limiting this media.
This said, I did find one study that shows that advertising a certain type of product very negatively effects children, both mentally and physically. This is the advertising of food. A study by the Kaiser Family Foundation that I came across (view it here) suggests that the main reason that childhood obesity has become such a problem in the past few years is due to food advertisements directed at children. It says that the average child will spend almost six hours in "screentime" (TV, computer, gaming) every day. It also said that every year, each child will have seen over 40.000 commercials on TV alone. I found this to be the most telling sentence: "The majority of ads targeted at children are for food: primarily candy (32%), cereal (31%), and fast food (9%)". Although advertising for toys and chuckie-cheese's is not really that harmful, this clearly is.

Ads for non-food items will bombard the average American daily for the rest of our lives. What better time to prepare for this than during our childhood, when our parents can help us to regulate our purchasing and consuming? Food advertising, on the other hand, is quite harmful to children, many of whom have parents who also struggle with obesity and overeating. This habit will cause even more health problems later in life that are tied to obesity, causing the health care system billions every year.

This may seem like overkill to some, but after reading this study, I have come to believe that food products should not be advertised on TV to anyone, regardless of age. Thoughts?

To Change a Name

2009-12-17T10:10:00.000-06:00

One aspect of names that interests me very much is the way that they can change over the course of a person's life. When children are very young, people often refer to them by nicknames or "pet" names. These names can be closely related to the child's actual name, or have no relation to it at all. This phenomenon seems to coincide with the philosophy behind modern childhood, as defined by the prologue to Huck's Raft. Stephen Mintz says that children were considered "innocent, malleable, and fragile creatures who needed to be sheltered from contamination". I believe that when a parent or other adult calls a child by a pet name, they are treating them as if they are not yet mature enough to bear their full name.This said, I think that nicknaming a child helps adults to become closer to the child on a more personal level earlier on in their life. I do not think that this is necessarily a bad thing, so long as the nicknaming ends before adolescence.
       On the topic of adolescents, we also use nicknames, but I think that it is for a diferent reason than parents do. The reason why teens give themselves and their friends nicknames relates to the first question on our childhood opinionaire: Are children their parents' possessions? Teens make efforts to become their own people, and therefore feel the need to remove themselves from their parents and take charge of their own lives to a greater extent. Giving alternate names does exactly this.
        I have personal experience with this. When I was in third grade, I decided that I wanted to change my name from Nicole to Lizzy, after my middle name, Eizabeth. I went to my parents one day and informed them of this, and I must admit that I think they thought it was just a phase that I was going through. So, to make sure that I really cared about doing this, they told me that I was allowed to change my name, as long as I wrote personal letters to all of my teachers and relatives, explaining the situation to them. Apparently, I really did care, so I wrote the letters and everyone now calls me Lizzy.
     I was a very independent child, and although I do not remember third grade very well, there is no doubt in my mind that I did this to take more charge of my own name, and therefore my own life.
       The final instance when a name changes is usually around the time that a person gets married. In America, the norm is that the woman takes her husband's last name, and his name is passed on to all of their children. To me, this seems to go back to the times when a woman would go off to join her husband's family (along with a dowry) and often never see her family again. It implies some ownership and dominance that the man has over the woman.
      One of the adults in my life that I think has the coolest name actually changed his first name, then took his wife's family name when they married. Against the grain? Yes. But it defines him as a person and I believe that he would be a very different person today if he had not done this.
     So, what's in a name? Quite a lot.

Tom Deluca

2009-12-13T11:02:00.000-06:00

Did anyone else see the Tom Deluca hypnotist show last night? I did, and I would highly recommend it to everyone in our school, and not just because it was hilarious. As soon as the show started, my disbelief vanished. There were about twenty seniors onstage for whom the hypnosis had worked (it wasn't effective for about five people, who returned to the audience).   The subjects went to sleep and Mr. Deluca told them things to do. He would then say the trigger word to wake them up and they would begin to act however he had instructed. At the conclusion of the show, he woke them up and they remembered nothing of what they had done.
     Weird? Yes.
     When I got home, I did some internet sleuthing to find out more about what hypnosis is exactly and how it works. (To view the site I did, click here. I also corroborated my findings with a few other sites.) The main misconception that I found was that the hypnotist is actually controlling his subjects and could make them do anything that he wanted them to do. This is false.
      For starters, a hypnotist cannot hypnotize someone who is unwilling. This is not some moral code of conduct. It is just physically not possible to do. This is because the hypnotist is not actually employing any type of mind-control. He is really just serving as a guide to help the subject tap into his or her subconscious mind. What happens during hypnosis is that the left side of the brain slow down while the left side (the imaginative one) begins to take control. It is really a state of "heightened suggestibility" when adults will throw themselves into playing pretend, the same way that children do, without much fear of embarrassment. This said, you still maintain your moral code and some social inhibitions. For example, if the hypnotist said to take your clothes off, almost no one would actually comply.
    So what I have gathered is that hypnosis is really one way to tap unused imagination. Even the most unimaginative people can come up with the most interesting things while under hypnosis. This has interesting implications for the world. What if hypnosis were more widely used, and not just for stage shows and therapy? With all that untapped human potential could we accomplish much more than we currently do? I think so.

Interesting Words

2009-12-13T10:16:00.000-06:00

Recently a foreign exchange student from Sweden moved in with my family and I. English is her second language, and although she speaks excellently, some things just don't translate well. While explaining slang phrases such as "epic fail", I began to wonder about the nature of slang and how languages evolve over time.
     One main thing that I noticed was that words like great, awesome, and epic have very positive modern meanings. They all signify that something is very good and tend to have positive connotations. If you read any older English literature, however, these words simply mean "quite large" and have neutral connotations.
    This phenomenon strikes me as strange, and I have been trying to think of a valid explanation for it. One theory is that America is the land of "bigger and better" so maybe our language has started to reflect that. We always want bigger cars, bigger tvs, and bigger cheeseburgers.
    Any theories?

Stars Coming Out

2009-12-07T09:05:00.000-06:00

Earlier this week, Meredith Baxter, former star of Family Ties, publicly stated that she is a lesbian. The press, of course, accepted her story with open arms, eager for some hot new gossip. Here is the article that I found: Coming out in Hollywood not always easy. One interesting point that the article brought up was that gay or lesbian actors might not be able to play a straight character after they come out, depending on how public their declaration was. The logic is that their sexuality will detract from the overall movie. Girls won't swoon over the heartthrob in a romantic comedy if they know that he is gay.

      My question is, Are famous people who have more media coverage more or less obligated to be open about their sexuality? Do they have a responsibility to the public to share things like this, that are so socially volatile? Or do they deserve to keep more secrets, since their lives are already so public?
      I believe that Hollywood stars to are not straight have to responsibility of being public about their sexuality. Since they live so much of their lives in the spotlight, they get immense media coverage (maybe more than they should). Many Americans consider the lives of Hollywood stars to be perfect, ideal, and sometimes even normal.
So when a person who is widely known, liked, and respected declares publicly that they are gay, it becomes much easier for the average struggling teen to do the same. If a teen's family sees a celebrity coming out, it could make them more comfortable with the idea of their own child being different.
       I agree with the article that coming out might effect an actor's career, but so might many other things, such as marriage, divorce, having children, or scandal. If someone chooses to live their life under the public eye like these people do, they should have a better career plan then one that could be ruined by a single headline. They have a moral responsibility to use the media to its fullest advantage and make coming out of the closet something that no one should be afraid of.
     What do you think?

"Obama, Afghanistan"

2009-12-01T23:57:00.000-06:00

Just a few hours ago, President Obama delivered a long-anticipated speech on his plan for the future of the War on Terror. (If you missed it, click here to view part of the speech.) Obama spoke from West Point, New York. Personally, I liked his speech very much. Aside from his incredibly beautiful rhetoric, which we have come to expect from our Commander in Chief, the speech really demonstrated a clear plan of what actions the government plans to take overseas in the next few years. Rather than being a lot of pretty phrases and words inspiring the public's patriotism, Obama went into some detail about troop deployment and even provided a timeline. That in itself is a bold move--providing the public with actual dates that we can hold him responsible for.
Despite all of these positive points of his speech, Obama faces many critics, as always. CBS News has posted a few of the "early responses" to Obama's speech. I would like to repspond to a few of these.
        The first of these took issue with the fact that Obama has set a date when he is going to pull the troops out of Afghanistan and send them home. Senator McCain said, "Success is what dictates dates for withdrawal and if we don't have that success and we only set an arbitrary date, it emboldens our enemies and dispirits our friends." I think that the exact opposite is true. If you do not have clear goals and a known destination, no matter how quickly you go or how much you accomplish, you will never achieve something if you don't know what exactly you are trying to achieve. In other words, running as faster than all of the others in the race only ensures victory if you are aiming yourself at the finish line. We, as a nation, got so used to having ambiguous causes for going to war, that it seemed as if we might have troops overseas for all the foreseeable future. A definite timeline is refreshing and gives our troops hope that the end is in sight. It tells our enemies that we are sure of ourselves and confident.
       The second main objection to the new plan was the cost. Independent Senator Bernie Sanders said, "I agree with President Obama that it would be a setback for democracy and stability if the Taliban regained power, but I have serious concerns…why in the midst of a severe recession – with 17 percent of our people unemployed or under-employed and one out of four kids on food stamps – are we going to be spending $100 billion a year on Afghanistan when we have so many pressing needs at home?" One thing that Obama said in his speech that really stuck out to me was that we, as a nation, have forgotten the connection between national security and out economy. Despite the cost of the war, I believe that our current government is responsible with our tax money and that this war will really help our economy in the long run. There is one thing that I really don't understand, though. It seems like wars used to be amazing for our economy, even bringing us out of the Depression. Why is the opposite now true?
      I am sure that there are some problems with Obama's plan, but shouldn't we be glad that the American people have been given any plan at all?

The Hazards of Facebook and Health Insurance

2009-11-29T22:26:00.000-06:00

As I logged on to Comcast the other day, I cam across a disturbing article. (To view it, click here.) It describes a Canadian woman who was out of work, battling severe depression, and receiving sick-leave benefits. The money from her insurance company stopped coming this fall, and she was informed that the reason for this lack of benefits was that the company had seen pictures of her on Facebook partying and vacationing.
     The company's rationale was that a person who was actually severely depressed would not party or go on vacation, but the woman's doctor specifically instructed her to do both of these things in an attempt to battle the illness. She is now suing the insurance company in a case that will go before the judge on December 8th.
     The main question that the court will be addressing is whether or not the insurance company can make that sort of decision based solely on pictures off of Facebook or similar sources. They have made a medical judgment from pictures, which seems to me to be an ineffective method.
     The company did release the statement that, "we would not deny or terminate a valid claim solely based on information published on Web sites such as Facebook." Despite this blanket statement, any other method of gathering evidence against the woman has been unclear.
     My main concern while reading this article was that of personal privacy. How disturbing would it be to have your insurance money taken away after agents merely saw pictures of you on Facebook?
      It seems to me as though we feel like there is some anonymity on the internet, and that therefore we use much less caution online than we would otherwise. This is just one more cautionary tale for those of us who cannot seem to get that through our heads!
     Do you think that it is acceptable for an insurance carrier to search their clients on Facebook?

Knowlege, Recieved and Discovered

2009-11-28T23:30:00.000-06:00

In the spirit of always questioning the world around us...
       In class, we have been talking about the benefits and downsides of different methods of learning. The main argument seems to be that the most effective way of learning is to discover things for yourself and not to rely on others to hand-feed you every little fact.
      The challenge of this method is that it is quite time-consuming. It also cannot really be tested in the standardized tests (which are currently so vital to success in school) because the outcome of such personal discovery cannot always be predicted or controlled. Personally, I quite enjoy learning by discovering the knowledge for myself, and I tend to remember things better that way.
      In school, the main way we learn is through received knowledge, simply for time's sake. During American Studies, however, we try to discover things for ourselves as much as we can. We tend to do this via class discussion, and I believe that this poses a few problems.
      First of all, when there is a certain piece of information or a certain conclusion that our teachers want us to arrive at by the end of the discussion, they tailor the conversation to meet their wishes. Sometimes it seems as if the class is having a discussion that has taken on a life of its own and that is yielding new discoveries, but then, the invisible hand of one of our teachers will come down and ask a question or make a comment that directs the conversation towards the exact place that they want it to go.
      As the discussion draws to a close, the point that they are driving at becomes clearer and clearer, until finally, it is revealed.
      The point that I am trying to make is that even though the entire class is contributing and participating during discussions, Mr. Bolos and Mr. O'Connor are always there in the background (and sometimes in the foreground) guiding the learning. So, even though we are "discovering" the knowledge for ourselves, they are determining what exactly we are going to discover.
     There are, of course, some exceptions to this, and I do not think that it is an incorrect teaching method. In fact, I think that it makes for very interesting classes. I just think that we all have to bear in mind the fact that even discovered knowledge can be helped along by a teacher, and therefore, does not depend solely on the student's own discovery. The problem this poses is that

sometimes, received knowledge can feel like discovered knowledge.
     Just something to be mindful of.
    Any thoughts?

Afloat in the Ocean, Expanding Islands of Trash

2009-11-10T15:43:00.044-06:00

Today when I read the Science Times, one article in particular stuck out at me. It was titled Afloat in the Ocean, Expanding Islands of Trash. (To view the full article, click here.)

In short, the article discussed gyres, which are areas of the ocean with very strong currents and weak winds. There are about five large gyres in the world, two or three of which are in the Pacific. Here is the astounding part: One of these gyres in the Pacific doubles in size every decade and is currently twice the size of Texas.
The trash that swirls about these massive pools consists largely of fishing refuse, toxic chemicals, and tiny plastic shards that have been broken off of larger plastic forms. Not only are they unsightly, but they also cause health risks to any person who eats fish that have swum around in these areas.

The final line of the article struck me: "For the captain’s first mate, Jeffery Ernst, the patch was “just a reminder that there’s nowhere that isn’t affected by humanity.” (Lindsey Hoshaw)

Needless to say, I found this article to be, on the whole, exceedingly disturbing. I have always thought of the Pacific Ocean as an impossibly huge expanse of water, largely untouched by people.

One of the main problems with our attitude towards the world is the fact that it has not adjusted recently enough, despite the fact that our role as a species in the world has changed significantly. In just a few hundred years, humans have filled in the corners of the map and explored and conquered most of the planet. Despite this, we still subconsciously feel like the underdogs.We seem to think that our actions make little to no impact on our surroundings.

If we humans cannot rectify our world view, we are going to destroy our planet in a very short amount of time. Americans especially produce an excessive amount of waste per capita. This means that we are even more to blame for the havoc being wreaked on the Earth.
Our frontier is gone, and we now must preserve the space we have.

An Aversion to Sadness?

2009-11-08T22:34:00.000-06:00

When we attended Lit Fest as a class on Friday, the woman from the Handsome Family group said one thing that particularly stuck with me. She said that she only liked to write songs that had some sadness and melancholy feelings in them. She also critisized Americans on the whole for having what she called "an aversion to sadness".

     Now, I personally would consider myself a very happy person on the whole, and I must admit that I pride myself on the fact. I like being happy and I feel better when I am smiling. Is everyone else not the same way? Isn't one of the goals of living to be happy?
      Scientists have shown that the simple act of smiling releases endorphins in your brain, which chemically improve your mood. Alan Hirsch, neurological director of the Smell and Taste Treatment and Research Foundation in Chicago, says, "Endorphins are neurotransmitters produced in the brain that reduce pain...They have also been known to induce euphoria." (from your total health)
      Reducing pain. Sounds great, right? Maybe not. "Creating" happiness just by smiling might make you feel good, but after a while it can feel a little bit shallow. Even simple happiness is a strange thing. "Happy" is one of those "easy" adjectives that most English teachers tell their students not to use in formal writing due to its lack of true description and depth. It's like the Froot Loops of describing words.
     My personal theory of why Americans in particular have such a love of happiness: we have short attention spans. Being happy is easy, as we are attracted to bright lights, laughing people, and funny commercials and pop-ups. Actually taking the time to experience some "real" emotion is something that we might not all do.
    But maybe it would be worthwhile.

Nicknames

2009-10-27T23:29:00.000-05:00

Why the recent explosion of nicknames being doled out in our American Studies class? I cannot stop thinking about it for some reason, so I came up with three theories as to why Mr. Bolos and Mr. O’Connor refuse to call anyone by their given name (a habit which I find quite amusing, don’t get me wrong).

Theory number one: they do this simply as a method of lightening the class atmosphere and to give us students something to laugh about in the midst of the fusion of English and history. I do not believe that this particular thought has much merit, though. We would find ways to smile in AS even without the periodic interjections of humorous names.

Theory number two: when someone gives another person a nickname, they are simply projecting a bit of their own personality onto the other and making a construction of them. This new construction better suits the one giving the new name. For example, a nickname might represent only one small portion of the person's personality, or just be an embellishment on a particular part of their name that is fun or easy to say.

I don't believe that there is anything wrong with putting a little bit of yourself into another person that you have to be able to relate to and nicknames help you to do this. Provided that the projection and constructions do not stray so far from the truth as to be inhibitors to perceptions of the real world.

Finally, theory number three: Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Bolos are using the nicknames as a teaching method, encouraging students to further question our world. Nearly everyone in our lives call us by the same given name. And who gave us this name in the first place? Our parents. So instead of making the atmosphere of American Studies exactly the same as every other aspect of our life that uses our "real names", our teachers decided that they would shake things up a little bit and through students off their guard by not assuming anything, including our own names.

Now, once we come to question our names, questioning our identities follows soon after, seeing as almost anyone would respond to the question "Who are you?" with simply their name. And that is what American Studies is all about, of course! Question EVERYTHING!

Am I reading too far into this? What are your thoughts?

Illegal Aliens on Halloween and Free Speech

2009-10-21T08:31:00.000-05:00

This evening I read an article about a new Halloween costume that hit stores a few weeks ago and has already caused quite a stir in the media. (To see the full article click here.) The costume consists of an alien mask with an orange jumpsuit that says "Illegal Alien" on it. It also comes with a "Green Card", which actually makes the "alien" legal. The debate: Is this socially acceptable under the freedom of speech right, or politically incorrect and rude beyond words?
     The costume has been pulled from the shelves of Walgreens and Target, but some groups want the federal government to actually force all of the stores to eliminate the costumes. These groups claim that the costumes will increase anti-immigrant sentiments and possibly even dehumanize them. A speaker for the immigration coalition, Jorge-Mario Cabrera, said that this costume "perpetuates this idea we have about undocumented immigrants as alien foreigners, strangers, scary." And he has a valid point. Seeing someone in a mask already takes away some of their most human qualities and makes us regard them as not-quite-real. To have the mask in the shape of a remarkably inhuman face and to make it represent a certain type of people does seem unfair and racist towards this group.
       On the other hand, our Bill of Rights declares that every American has the right to freedom of speech. So shouldn't we be able to create and purchase any type of Halloween costume that we want? Most Hispanics, when interviewed by the Associated Press, even said that it was simply a joke and that it did not offend them.
     In my personal opinion, the government should not be able to make stores remove an offensive Halloween costume from their shelves. No one complains about Playboy Bunny costumes, which are at least equally offensive to women as this costume is to immigrants. If the stores themselves feel that the costumes are harmful to their patrons, they can get rid of the costumes themselves without any governmental aid.If the government can regulate Halloween costumes, what else will they begin to censor? Opinions?

Race, Defined

2009-10-12T20:54:00.000-05:00

Every since we discussed the definition of race in class, I have been pondering it myself quite a bit. I have come to the conclusion that every human on earth must have a unique definition of race. If we all believed it to be the same thing, there would not be nearly as much argument about it.

My own personal definition is: a combination of a person’s heritage and ancestry, which are usually observed in terms of beliefs, religion, and customs, and are often visible in more physical traits such as skin color, complexion, and mannerisms.

Out of curiosity, I asked my parents for their own personal definitions after writing my own. My dad said he thought of race as, “a categorization of human beings based on genetic differences.....I think of it as a subset of species.” My mother agreed with him.

The main difference in these two views lies in whether you believe race to be purely physical or to be a combination of physical and non-physical attributes. One perspective is not necessarily better, only different.

People use race to classify others, but also to label themselves. In the midst of a crushing population of over six billion on earth, we each need at least a few things to make ourselves seem special and significant.

Some people are defined by their race. They connect so strongly with it that they cannot develop much individually. This is not healthy because it does not allow for any growth on the part of the individual. Conversely, others do not relate to their race at all, with is also not optimal. Without knowledge of one’s heritage, you have only yourself as an individual to relate to, rather than caring about any other people.

How do you define race? Does your race define you?

Obvserving Columbus Day

2009-10-11T17:17:00.000-05:00

Tomorrow is Columbus Day, which, as we all know, is to celebrate the day when Christopher Columbus "discovered" the New World. Now, where I live we do not really observe Columbus day other than taking a long weekend, but I began to wonder how those of us who might not be so happy about this discovery would treat the holiday.

     Seeing as Columbus's arrival in America was not a good thing for any of the native people currently living there, I find it a little bit upsetting that once every year we insist on reminding their few remaining ancestors Columbus discovered the land that they were already living on and that over the next four hundred years or so, they were systematically driven out to make way for the white settlers.
      We tend to think that Columbus Day marks the beginning of a new era of colonization and world powers, but we try to forget that it also marks the end of a multitude of cultures. These cultures were largely undisturbed by outsiders.

      I learned that in many Latin American countries, the holiday is actually more of a celebration of culture and such, rather than that of a deceased European. I was especially fascinated to learn that in Venezuela, it is actually called The Day of Indigenous Resistance.
   This brought a smile to my face, knowing that not everyone agrees with the Europeans. It's nice to know that at least one country would rather recognize the civilization that was destroyed and make some effort to preserve it.
      Why do we celebrate Columbus Day? Wasn't it a triumph for Spain, and not the European countries than most Americans are from?

In celebrating Columbus Day, are we hurting the Indigenous people?

Sentiments, Politics, Olympics?

2009-10-05T23:32:00.000-05:00

Last Friday, the announcement came out: Chicago will not be the host city of the 2016 Summer Olympics. The First Lady Michelle Obama even spoke to the Olympic committee with no avail. (To see her speech, click here.)
   The NBC news report covering the announcement of the location seemed to be caught totally unprepared when Chicago lost the bid. They kept showing clips of crowds of shocked people who thought that they might have been about to party for their town. Whether or not we wanted to host the games, most people in Chicago took for granted that the games would be hosted here. Now that they aren't, we ask ourselves why.
     One theory is that anti-American sentiments took over at the convention, causing the one American city to be voted out of the running first. I found it disappointing that we, as a nation, would jump to such a conclusion. We never stopped to ask ourselves, "Oh, maybe Rio de Janeiro simply had a better bid than we did." Or, "Maybe since South America has never hosted the Olympics, they decided to give it a chance."
     Rather, we immediately assumed that the whole world was out to get us and shoot down our bid. I find it frustrating that, in a situation like this, politics get in the way of what should be a fun and internationally peaceful event.
     The people out in the streets ready to party knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that our city deserved to host, so of course we would be chosen. Is it possible that Chicagoans have developed a small sense of entitlement ever since Obama was elected president? Do we think too highly of ourselves?

Being American: Self-Importance and Expression

2009-09-29T00:03:00.000-05:00

What does it mean to be an American? Seeing as this is the fundamental question of our American Studies class, I thought I would take a crack at it now. In writing these blogs, I think that we have already uncovered one very important element of the American condition.
We, as individauls, are able to reach anyone with an internet connection in the entire world. According to http://www.ipligence.com/worldmap/ , North America is home to over half of all the internet access ports in the entire world. Not only that, but our internet here is unrestricted, unlike that in China, where government regulations forbid access to certain websites.

This freedom of self-expression is one of the main factors causing the attitude of self-importance in America. I believe that in general, Americans today value themselves and their own well-being over that of the country as a whole.

This does not necesarily mean that we are all selfish and is not necesarily a bad thing. In school we learn to think as individuals at a young age, as we write "All about me" papers every year for our early life. Teachers urge children to have self-worth and good self-esteem to promote mental health. Every day we are bombarded with the feel-good message: You are special.

Personally I think that this attitidue that values the individual is good for our country. It promotes growth because everyone thinks differently, and therefore can disagree, argue, and come to a conclusion that is stronger than one reached by a single thinking entitiy. I do not mean to say that people in countries like China are like robots with no thought for themselves, only that Americans place an unusally high value on the individual.

Vauling the individual so much does come at a price, however. The younger generations of America seem to be much less patriotic than their older counterparts. We care more about ourselves and our immediate surroundings and less about American pride. Is this simply the price of thinking for ourselves, or the indication of a serious attitude issue?

Tennis at Tiffany's

2009-09-14T22:13:00.000-05:00

Recently as I was watching the U.S. Open, I was shocked at how much jewelry the female competetors were wearing. I wondered how they could hope to play their top tenis game with all of that jewelry weighing them down. One woman in particular was wearing large hoop errings, three long necklaces, and countless rings and Tiffany's bracelets. She was also wearing a very "fashionable" low-cut tennis top. Personally, if I were going to the US Open to win a major tennis championship, I would not want to be weighed down by a lot of dangling jewelry falling off of me.
      This situation made me consider a question that I think is of great importance to our society: Why do these women, who are obviously world-class professional athletes, feel the need to display their bodies in this way, even during competition?
      One theory that I have is that they feel better about themselves if they wear clothing and jewelry that shows them in their best light. They are appearing on national television in front of millions of people, so I can understand feeling a little bit insecure and maybe needing some extra support from a comfortable outfit.
      Another theory would be that these women feel as if they need to portray themselves as models and look just lika any other actor seen on TV. I find this particularly upsetting. Women should not feel the need to look their best at all times, especially if they are intense athletes such as these tennis players.
      Why are we so obsessed with appearence? Is this really a healthy way for society to behave?

Parents vs. Teachers: Who Can Censor?

2009-09-08T23:22:00.000-05:00

In class today, we discussed the issue of President Obama's address to schoolchildren. Many parents were against the speech being broadcast in schools. Others were horrified that it might not be. School boards were caught in the middle.
       All of this just begs the question: who should be in charge of the material students learn in school? Should parents be allowed to influence the school's decisions?
       While in their own home a parent's word is law, anytime that parent sends their child out under another adult's supervision, they surrender a bit of the total control that they have over their child's media intake. It may be something as small as a child seeing a newspaper headline that their parent would have kept from them, or as large as another adult allowing the child to watch and R-rated movie. In any event, this child has now gained a little bit more knowlege of the world outside their parent's bubble, whether for better or worse.
       Similarly, whenever a parent sends their child off to enjoy that public education, they are trusting the school system to make good choices for their child in terms of what they may view. Personally, I believe that the school systems around here have exceedingly good judgement.
     Generally, when a parent has too large a role in their child's life, it stunts that child's growth as an individual, making him/her dependent and self-insufficient. This is not healthy, and a good parent's main concern should be the good health of their child. Thus, the only time a parent should intervene with a school's selected media is when they feel as if their child's health is legitametely in danger. Otherwise, stand back and let the system do its job.

The 2012 Obsession

2009-08-31T22:48:00.000-05:00

Over the weekend I was watching TV with my brother, flipping channels disinterestedly, when something caught my attention. Frightened people ran around madly. The subtitles read, "How would the governments of our planet prepare six billion people for the end of the world?". The answer: "They wouldn't." Then the year 2012 flashed across the screen and it went black. I sat, stunned, hoping that what I had just seen was a movie trailer and not some ill-conceived public service announcement.

Luckily, it was no more that preview for a new winter blockbuster titled 2012 (you can view the trailer here: http://www.whowillsurvive2012.com/) but it did raise a few concerns. I enjoy watching doomsday thrillers just as much as the next person, but perhaps this last feature from the director who brought us Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow has gone just a bit too far. This day of reckoning (the exact date happens to be December 21, 2012) is over three years off, yet some groups of people are already forming cults and making survival plans.

Before we become too caught up in stocking doomsday shelters, let's get our facts right. The Mayan calendar does in fact end on the 21st, however the 21st is also the winter solstice, a day which the Mayans would have been able to predict and would have considered important (http://www.2012endofdays.org/Mayan/Mayan-Calendar.php). Some theorists say that the prophet Nostradamus also predicted the end of the world on this date, but his prophecies are vague at best and can be interpreted in many different ways. Lastly, the sun will reach the peak of its eleven year cycle, sun sunspots, solar flares, and other sun activity will be at an 11-year high. Fortunately for us, this does happen ever eleven years, so most of the world's population has lived through it before.

I have been trying to figure out why we are so obsessed with humanity's demise. Is it our own self-importance to think that we matter enough to be the last generation? About thirty years ago, many people believed that we were on the verge of a nuclear holocaust. Why then?

So we return to my initial horror at seeing the commercial on TV. I was not worried because I actually thought the world was coming to an end. My fear budded from the endless ways the other six billion people on the planet will react to this message. Will there be chaos? Suicide? Peace? Are the producers and directors of this movie partially responsible for any harm that comes from their work?