Occupy What Street?

"We are the 99%" a phrase that every American, even kids my age, recognize and associate with the Occupy Wall Street movement. Although very familiar with the idea of these protests, I think a lot of students (including myself) don't know the details behind the movement. Why exactly was Occupy Wall Street started? Who composes the one percent?

The website OccupyWallStreet says that the point of the movement is to challenge "the richest 1% of people that are writing the rules of an unfair global economy that is foreclosing on our future." According to this CNN article, in 2009 if you had an average income of $343,927 or above, you were considered to be in this top 1%

I had always believed that it took a much higher income to make the 1%. My estimated number was closer to a million dollars. Knowing that the average income of Winnetka residents is well above $200,000, I now think that it is not unlikely that many families living in this area qualify for the top 1%.


My preconceived judgment shows the lack of knowledge there is about the Occupy movement among students. About something that has even begun to take place within a half hour of our homes. Occupy Chicago has been going on for a few months now. We should be more informed about these protests, being that they are occurring so close to us. How informed are you?


In order to help spread awareness, my friend is actually working on a documentary about Occupy Wall Street. Watch the preview and see footage of Occupy Chicago here! 

Protecting their Country or Protecting their Jobs?

In response to Mr. O'Connor's post Perilous-er and Perilous-er...

I'd like to believe that contacting the representatives and voicing my opinion would a very effective way to make the Senators reconsider their decision. Unfortunately, I don't think this is the case. It is clear that the Senators have made their decision to prioritize getting re-elected, rather than ensuring they are sticking to their political values.

The American Civil Liberties Union is an organization dedicated to protecting our civil rights. The ACLU even has a process of looking at politicians' voting records on civil liberty issues and then using this information to calculate a "score," which indicates how pro civil liberties each politician is. You can view this scorecard on the ACLU website here. After the most recent session of Congress, our own Illinois Senator, Dick Durbin received a score of 91%, placing him among some of the most pro civil liberties politicians on the list. This is why it is strange that he passed a bill that as Doc O'C mentioned in his post, is "the greatest threat to civil liberties Americans face" according to Forbes magazine.

Why would a politician who is notably pro civil liberties pass such an act? Did he simply change his mind about our civil rights?

The most glaring explanation is that he was afraid of being labeled as a candidate who does not support the defense of our country, jeopardizing his chance of being re-elected in the upcoming election. Is this a justified fear? Would this be a justified label? Is this a proper excuse for passing this act?

Fighting for your Foe?

The other day in class we talked about Stockholm syndrome, a case in which hostages develop an attachment and positive feelings for their captor. While reading the Narrative of the Life of Fredrick Douglass this weekend, I came across a statement that reminded me of this condition. 

On page 12 Douglass explains how slaves in America would sometimes fight with one another "each contending for the superior goodness of his own" master. This is certainly not a severe case of Stockholm's syndrome, but is similar enough for me to be reminded of it while reading. 

At first, the thought of this idea surprised me. Why would the slaves defend the people responsible for their pain and suffering? I thought maybe because the enslaved people had such little personal identity that they began to use their masters as a part of their own identification, feeling that the "greatness of their masters was transferable to themselves" (12). 

I soon realized that I really should not have been all that surprised with this form of identification. In fact, it is not so different from the way Americans identify themselves today. The things one belongs to whether it is a school, a town, a team...etc. becomes a big part of their identity. My peers like to take pride in and defend New Trier for an example, because it is what they belong to. Slaves will defend their masters, because they are who they belong to. Not that the Peculiar Institution and the Institution of New Trier is the most accurate comparison, but they are both used by a group of people to further identify themselves. Therefore, if one of them is being criticized, it is only natural to become defensive.

A Closer Look

My favorite segment of Saturday Night Live is always "Weekend Update," when Seth Myers gives a funny twist to actual news. In a recent episode Seth took "A Closer Look At Europe" regarding Greece's current economic state. A clip of this segment can be watched here.

Seth pokes fun at Greece saying that they "are not good at changing their ways." Not only does he make fun of Greece, but of every country "who though lending the Greeks money was a good idea." This segment was very well written and definitely made me laugh, but it also made me wonder how other countries would respond if they see this.

Would they also find it funny? Or would it be taken offensively, creating strong feelings of dislike towards our country? This video certainly doesn't help with America's reputation of thinking we are the most superior country.

Also, not to get too sympathetic on you, but how would Americans respond to videos from other countries making fun of us? After all, we currently are having a little bit of an economic low ourselves. Does this make Seth a hypocrite?

What do you think, is this video harmful or harmless?

RIP

Growing up, I have spent many of my Sunday night dinners in front of the t.v. while watching 60 Minutes. This is why I was sad to hear that Andy Rooney recently passed away. Always closing the show with a new complaint of his, Rooney was often criticized for his negativity. I'm all for optimism, but for some reason I was never bothered by Rooney's complaints. 

I think this is because I respected him for stating his honest opinion, rather than trying to sugarcoat the truth, as Americans often do.

We saw an example of this in Clybourne Park, performed at the Steppenwolf Theater. With minorities moving into a racially homogeneous neighborhood, the last subject the characters wanted to talk about was race. In the second act the character Steve points this out, claiming that they are all "dancing around" the subject. Ironically he is not even able to say the exact word "race" himself.

This scene showed how even today, although Americans claim to be past racism, we still sugarcoat the way we talk about it, in order to avoid discomfort.

Andy Rooney certainly did not sugarcoat the subjects he talked about on 60 Minutes. You can click here to see some quick clips stating his honest opinion. Do you think we could all learn something from Andy?  Or was he just an old man who liked to complain?

Happy Halloween!!

With Halloween coming up, I found myself thinking about the American tradition of trick-or-treating, and wondering why we are one of few countries with this custom.

To try to answer my question, I researched a bit about the history of Halloween. It turns out that it originated from an old Celtic festival called Samhain. November 1st first marked the end of summer for the Celts, and the beginning of the long dark winter, which was a time associated with death. To recognize this transition of seasons, people would have bonfires and make predictions about the future, usually wearing costumes made from animal skins during the process.

As for trick-or-treating: Hundreds of years ago in England, people believed that spirits would come back to earth on Halloween. In order to prevent them from entering their homes, people would put bowls of food outside their house. There were also festivals in the beginning of November called All Souls' Day parades. Poor people would ask for food, promising to pray for the dead relatives of whoever gave them some. Churches encouraged people to make this the new practice of Halloween, rather than trying to please ghosts with food outside your home. With the combination of the Celtic festival and England's customs, the American version  of celebrating this holiday emerged, consisting of costumes and trick-or-treating.

Other countries, such as Mexico use October 31st through November 2nd to decorate graves of family/friends who have passed away, calling it Day of the Dead. In parts of Italy, kids wake up on November 2nd to find candy and toys left for them by their dead relatives.

With other countries' versions of Halloween clearly focusing more on the death of loved-ones, America's version focuses on costumes and candy. This leads Americans to collectively spend about $6 billion a year for the holiday. Did America stray too much from the origin of this holiday? Have we gone too far in commercializing Halloween?

Death of Complexity

Tonight I watched a story on 60 Minutes about Steve Jobs. While talking about the incredible technology he left behind, they stressed repeatedly how Jobs main focus for Apple was simplicity.

This made me realize that this was the reason Apple products became so popular. Americans like things simple and easy. The less effort, the better. Maybe this because we think less effort requires less time and of course, time is money.

I also began to worry because although in some cases simple may be better, it can also lead to laziness. If we can reach virtually anything at our fingertips with just a screen in front of us, won't people be less likely to go out in the real world? Communication with friends has become as easy as sitting in your house in silence and typing a quick message on their wall. People can buy entire books by just clicking a few buttons. 

Are people eventually going to stop calling up their friends for a verbal conversation or going to bookstores to purchase physical text because it is just too complicated or takes too much effort? I worry that Americans' thirst for simplicity will ironically kill off some of the simple pleasures in life just because they are more complex than what has become the norm. 

Bye-bye Miss American Pie

While listening to music earlier today, I came across one of my old favorites "American Pie" by Don McLean. (not a well known name in my generation, kind of a one-hit wonder) There was a reason why this one song did make it big though. Not only is the eight and half minute song catchy and easy to sing to, but it has references to what was going on in America musically as well as socially and politcally during its time period.

Reaching its height in popularity in 1972, the song talks about the shift of American culture from fifties to the sixties. America went from being a conformed, happy place to a harborer of radical movements and rebelling citizens.

McLean thought that this transition correlated with the shift in music that occurred while all this was going on. According to McLean the day Buddy Holly died, (February 3rd, 1959) was "the day the music died." I think he would also agree that the innocence of America expired right around that time as well.  Referencing other musicians such as Bob Dylan, The Beatles, and Elvis Presley, McLean clearly felt strongly about a new kind of music taking over.

I think that like the sixties, this past decade has been another major turning point for the music Americans are listening to. With rap and hip-hop becoming the most common choice of music for our generation, I wonder: Is American culture changing along with the music?

Stealing Sushi?

Last night my friend and I decided to try a new Japanese restaurant in Evanston called Kuni's. We were pleased with the traditional food, (I'd definitely recommend it to any fan of sushi) and were also pleased with the price. A little too pleased.

Upon receiving the bill, we discovered that they had forgotten to charge us for the tempura, the most expensive dish we had ordered. We quietly debated what our next action should be. Should we notify our waitress of the mistake? Should we take advantage of this opportunity to save some money? It wasn't in fact our fault that the restaurant miscalculated the bill.

If we walked away without paying, we wondered where then, are we drawing the line of moral relativism? Say we saved ten dollars if we chose not to point out the faulty bill. Would it be any different than stealing ten dollars out of a woman's purse? What about watching someone drop a ten dollar bill and choosing to keep it for yourself rather than telling them? 

In all these cases, you gain ten dollars while someone else is losing ten dollars. Doesn't this make them all equally wrong? How do you decipher which acts are more or less morally correct than the others?

If you are curious, we ended up not telling our waitress about the mistake. It's not something I'm proud of, but can you really say you would've acted differently? Unfortunately, I think many other Americans would've made the same choice. Americans like to see how much they can get away with by spending as little money as possible.

In other countries, this situation would've been viewed differently. Mr. Bolos pointed out to me that in China there is an old saying, "Don't tie your shoe in a melon patch." Meaning that it would look like you are stealing a melon if you did so. The Chinese believe it would be wrong to even appear to be a thief. Americans on the other hand, would wait until the most extreme case before considering themselves thieves. I think Americans tend to draw the line of moral relativism later than other countries, which is too late. 

Positive Vulnerability

My cousin recently sent me an interesting video called "The Power Of Vulnerability." {The whole video can be watched here} In this video, a woman named Brene Brown gives 20 minute speech about her research on human connection. After years of conducting studies, she has concluded that the basis for forming strong relationships is vulnerability. At one point in the video Brown says, "In order for connection to happen, we have to allow ourselves to be seen, really seen."

When she said this, I was reminded of the conversation in class we had about people putting on a different persona depending on the situation they are in and the people they are interacting with. According to her statement, it seems that the people who have the strongest relationships in their lives are also who wear the fewest masks. This video explains that those who are happiest with their lives were the ones who embraced vulnerability, rather than trying to cover it up (by putting on a mask).

It makes sense to me that a relationship with feelings of vulnerability is stronger than a relationship without any. Although vulnerableness generally has a negative connotation, I think that when regarding a relationship, it directly correlates with genuineness. If one is feeling vulnerable about a relationship it can only mean that they truly care about the other person. The one with whom the relationship is being formed was able to make a real connection to the person behind the mask, rather than a superficial one by connecting only to the mask itself.

We're Number One?

While watching Obama's speech to congress on September 8th, I took note of something he stated at the end of his speech. {The whole speech can been watched here} After laying out his plan for increasing employment in the U.S., President Obama concluded with, "Let's get to work, and let's show the world once again why the United States of America remains the greatest nation on Earth." I found myself wondering if this was a statement that I agreed with. Of course I agree that we should work hard to improve the status of our country. It was the latter part that I questioned. Is the U.S.A. truly the "greatest nation on Earth"? Coincidentally this point was brought up in class today, while we discussed the stories that we americans tell ourselves. One of the stories we had on the board was "We're number one."

Although we like to tell ourselves that, I know that in certain situations, the United States is not the best. In fact in some cases we can be the worst. According to these energy statistics for an example, the U.S. is the largest consumer of oil. And in this circumstance bigger is certainly not better. We also have the highest obesity rate in the world, indicating that our health is not the best. Not to mention we have the highest rate of alcohol related deaths, despite the fact that we have the oldest legal drinking age.

Clearly, the United States is not the best at everything. So why do we and the President tell ourselves we are the best, if it is not entirely true? This is not meant to criticize President Obama in any way. I think I would be saying the exact same thing to our country if I was in his position. He is just telling the people the story they want to hear, that Americans are superior. To answer my own question: Even if this is not always the case, I think it is what will help motivate citizens to work hard and create success for our country.

Did You Hear?

one of the yahoo's 25 most powerful 9/11 photos
click here to see more

As I signed onto to Facebook this morning, I was not surprised to find many statuses reading "Never Forget," or something along those lines. Being that it is September 11th, of course these are all to acknowledge the ten year anniversary of the day the World Trade Center was attacked and 2,983 lives were lost. On the news this morning they listed the 2,983 names off, and I realized how fortunate I am to not have known a single name on that list.

Although I was personally unaffected, I still find myself very touched by the many news stories they have been showing recently. This got me thinking back to the conversation in class we had inspired by a Henry David Thoreau quote from Walden in which he says that "all news...is gossip." He also questions: "if you are acquainted with the principle, [of a news story] what do you care for myriad instances and applications?" (69). This made me wonder if Henry David Thoreau had been alive on 9/11/01, if he would have been disappointed in the media for featuring hundreds of stories about the attack. Would he have accused the news reporters of being gossips? Also, when I heard about the london bombings in 2005, should I have shown no interest because I was already familiar with the concept of terrorism due to 9/11?

I think that Thoreau perhaps thought that people like to talk about the latest news stories with a secretly selfish motivation. Sort of confirmation that they are with it, or in the know of what's happening these days. I think there may be some truth to this, whether we do it consciously or not. However, I do not think that I or anyone else talking about the 9/11 attacks should feel that they are gossiping. There is nothing wrong with taking part in conversations about these stories in an effort to pay respect to those who were unfortunately affected or even trying to make sense of the evil that occurs in the world today.

While looking at the Chicago Tribune, the headline 'Bad mothering' lawsuit dismissed caught my eye. Eager to learn about some mother with horrific parenting techniques, I took a look at the article. Surprisingly, I found myself to be on the mother's side of the argument. It turns out this poor woman's kids were suing her with ridiculous claims such as harassment for threatening to call the police if they did not wear their seat belts. The claims only became more laughable as I read on. Some of them including "inappropriate" birthday cards, fighting about dress prices, and not buying enough toys.  More surprisingly, the children who filed the lawsuit in 2009, are now aged 20 and 23 years old.

I could not get over my shock after reading the article. It was very hard for me to understand why these kids would want to intentionally harm their own mother both financially and emotionally. The article suggests the motive came from the father of the children and ex-husband, who was seeking revenge on the mother who filed for divorce years earlier. Although this may have partly been the reasoning behind this absurd lawsuit, the alternative motive was obviously money.

The moment these kids decided to contact an attorney, they also made the decision to value money over  family. It was truly worth it, in their minds to potentially sacrifice their relationship with their mother in order to make some money. I think this story shows how much control money can have over people. The children's' desire for money was greater than the concern for their mother's feelings, most likely putting a large strain on their relationship. It is so sad to me that someone jeopardize their family ties to become that much richer. This story proves that money has become too large of a priority in America (for some people), to a point that more important values are being left behind.