Meta-Favorite Post

After looking back at my blogs from this year, something that I've noticed is the difference in quality of the posts that were inspired from a personal experience of mine, and the posts that weren't. It is probably not hard to guess that the posts inspired from my experiences were the higher quality of the two. This is why my post titled, "Pressured by the Press,"  which  is about the news coverage of the NATO protest, is one of my favorites from fourth quarter.

The idea for this post originated before I sat down at my computer. This made it a more enjoyable writing experience compared to the posts which I began by searching around online for a topic to write about. Not to mention it was less time consuming because I already had an idea of the point I wanted to make. My points are also infused with more passion as can be seen at the end of the third paragraph in which I voice an inner monologue. Along with passion there is more clarity. 

I think that clarity of the posts help determine whether or not someone will comment on it. This is why I was not surprised when I looked back at my post "More Celebrity Help," and saw that it had no comments on it, as it was one of those posts in which I had found after searching my computer, and was consequently not as clear as posts such as "Pressured by the Press-" in which I did receive a comment. A comment in which Leah suggests the media took a "safe angle" while covering the protests, which was point I was trying to portray. Because of this comment I know that my post was clear in portraying my idea (even if it is only to one person).

Blogging this year has really helped me realize that writing about something that has inspired you will result a more positive writing experience as well as a higher quality writing. Although these may seem to be obvious correlations, the latter of the two was not apparent to me before this year.

Pressured by the Press

This post was inspired by the footage of the NATO protesters I saw on the news yesterday as well as our class discussion today. Someone who saw the story on ABC mentioned how rather than focusing on why protesters were there, the news reporters highlighted the "struggle," as my peer put it, between the protesters and the police officers who were there for crowd control. I watched this story on NBC and noticed the same thing.

For the half hour (at the least) that I was watching, the reporters failed to mention what the people were protesting. There was however, a lot of talk about how the state police were putting on their gas masks, as a sort of threat to protesters. Reporters repeated this very often, only dramatizing the situation. They seemed to want the audience to continue anticipating the use of tear gas, so they would keep watching-a strategy not unlike the kind drama screenwriters use.

There was also plenty of reporting that put the police officers in a very positive light. I heard multiple times how the officers were "actually" handing out water bottles to the protesters because of the high temperatures. Because of the use of "actually" what I really heard was: "Despite the fact that the police officers appear to be stomping on the protesters' freedom of speech, they actually are encouraging it! Why else would they be giving them water?"

Not only were are the police made out to be the good guys in these reports, but they protesters are made to look foolish. This news clip is from a report of some of the protesters today, who were now front of Boeing Headquarters. The reporter says that the protesters were "singing songs" and that "silly string," "kazoos," and "glitter" "all over the place." These words portray the protesters as childish. I also think it is not a coincidence that phrases such as "all over the place" have become used to describe both the NATO and Occupy protesters, as they appear so often of the lips of new reporters.

Why isn't the media more objective when covering protest stories?

A Timeless Theme?

One of the most obvious themes that appears in Orson Welle's Citizen Kane, and Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby is that money can't buy happiness. By now some may consider this to be a cliche, but that was not necessarily the case the time these works were released.

The Great Gatsby was published in 1925, during the roaring twenties. World War I was over and the economy was flourishing. America experienced major industrial growth and prosperity was widespread- leading to a new lifestyles of indulgence and partying. This is clearly portrayed in the novel, as Nick Carraway attends many parties among the wealthy communities whether Tom's apartment in NYC or at Gatsby's mansion. It is no secret though,  that despite their luxurious lifestyle, the upper class are not happy- as Tom has an affair and Daisy has her share of emotional episodes. Not to mention Gatsby, who is made out to be a fool who spent his life trying to use wealth as a means to love, resulting only with him dying unsatisfied and alone.

Charles Kane faces a similar fate. Although one of the richest men in the world, he clearly longs for the happiness he possessed when he was a child, as his last words were "rosebud"- the name of his sled he had as a boy. Perhaps this is Kane's version of Gatsby's green light. Citizen Kane was released in 1941 which just like the twenties, was a time when money was one everybody's minds- only in a different way. It was the very end of the Great Depression, and with many struggling to make ends meet, money probably did sound like a solution to Americans' happiness. Maybe Orson Welle's felt obliged to challenge this mindset, leading to the creation of Citizen Kane.

Welle's and Fitzgerald's works seem to be reminders or even warnings that money can't buy happiness to Americans who clearly had an obsession with money during these decades. How relevant are these warnings today? Would they have been just as applicable in any other decade of American history?

An Unclassy Comment

While looking into the debates over class separation in America, I came a across an interesting quote from former Presidential candidate, Rick Santorum. In responding to Governor Mitt Romney's use of the term "Middle Class." Santorum explains how he avoids using this term because "There are no classes in America. We're a country that don't allow for titles."

Really? One read of The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald strongly convinces me otherwise. Fitzgerald  shows 3 distinct, separate classes in just a small area of Long Island: The East Eggers with "white palaces" that "glittered", the West Eggers with "less fashionable" housing (5) and those who come from the "valley of of ashes" where "ashes take the form of houses" (23). I think the closest America would ever come to having "no classes" is if it turned to communism. Even then, I doubt a truly classless society would exist. 

I also think America is country that not only"allow[s] for titles," but a country that allows for titles to have great influence. Just today in class I saw this while reading about the history of Winnetka's "Big Ditch" railroad system. This supposedly safer system was not implemented until after the wife of the "director of the Community House" died in a train-related accident, despite the many previous fatalities. Winnetka also  received government funding for this project from the Public Works Administration (PWA) even though it was during the Great Depression. How did the village manage to do that? Perhaps this had something to do with the title former Winnetka resident, Harold Ickes, held: "Secretary of the Interior" and "Administrator" of the PWA.

Is Santorum really blind to this clear class separation of America, or was he just getting a little to optimistic in saying that America has no classes? How is it possible for America to achieve a classless society? Is it?

Afghanistanization

*title credit to Mr. Bolos
President Obama just delivered a live address to Americans explaining some changes occurring regarding the Afghanistan war. It is worth noting that today marks the one year anniversary of the launching of mission that killed Osama bin Laden. Obama spoke from a U.S. military base in Afghanistan, traveling there in order to sign a "Strategic Partnership Agreement" with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
                                                                                                              Watch full address here                          

This agreement established that America will no longer have permanent military bases in Afghanistan, but is going to still support Afghan troops. The goal is to withdrawal all U.S. troops from Afghanistan by 2014. In the meantime, America is going to work on "delivering justice to al-Qaeda," with the "light of a new day on the end of the horizon."

This plan reminded me a lot of Nixon's "Vietnamization": the process that replaced American troops with Southern Vietnamese  troops, during the Vietnam War in order to bring  soldiers home (as I learned from my junior theme). Hopefully this plan is the only similarities we will find between Nixon and Obama's presidency, but it does sound promising. Not too passive, not to aggressive, but just right: The Goldilock's plan.


However Vietnamization was not necessarily successful. It did bring home the U.S. troops but this lead to  South Vietnam succumbing to North Vietnam, meaning we did not win the war. How does this precedent affect your confidence in Obama's plan? Why should the outcome of this plan be any different today?

Army Anxiety: Have They Had Enough?

Early in March there was a popular news story about U.S. soldier, Robert Bales, who went on a "shooting rampage" in a southern Afghanistan village. Bales slipped away from his base early one morning and went from house to house, killing 17 Afghans- most of which were women and children.

Bales is a married man with two children back at home. An interview with Matt Lauer can be viewed here, in which Bales' wife defends her husband, saying that "he would not do that." Bales was unexpectedly deployed a fourth time, which his wife says was "a big shock" because he was not on schedule to do so. Lauer asks the question: "Is it possible that this is just the stress of war?"

This incident reminds me of some research I came across while working on my junior theme. During the Vietnam War, there were over 500 incidents of "fragging," an episode in which U.S. soldiers murdered their own officers. Although a different situation, "the stress of war" was regarded as the main factor behind these episodes. 

However, there is a big difference between the Afghanistan War and the Vietnam War; The Vietnam war had a draft. To me, this makes the incidents with the Vietnam soldiers less surprising because I would expect that a greater number of soldiers were fighting against their will--making them more susceptible to well, going crazy.

But if incidents like Bales' are still occurring, what does that suggest about our military today? With an absence of a draft is there the same amount of stress amongst soldiers? Maybe this war has just dragged on too long?

War Today: A Shared Sacrifice?

"Society is set up in such a way that it's the poor and the uneducated who suffer the main impact of natural and man-made disasters" (112), Jack Gladney tells his wife, Babette in Don DeLillo's White Noise, in trying to reassure her that their family will not be affected by the "Airborne Toxic Event," the large amount of toxic chemicals which have recently been released in the air. Jack believes that families who are not among "the poor and the uneducated," are safe from "disasters."

While researching my junior theme, I found this to be true when it comes to the "man-made disaster." My question is: Why hasn't America had a military draft in the past thirty years?

Part of the answer to this question is that the military largely recruits economically suffering Americans. This shown in Michael Moore's documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, when he captures recruiters for the army approaching high schoolers in Flint, Michigan. This is a town in which the public high schools had a graduation rate of only 54.6% in 2008 (source).

Moore also makes a point when talking with Congressman John Tanner in Washington DC about the War in Afghanistan:"There's not that many Congressmen that've got kids over there, and in fact, only one." Moore makes the point that affluent families are not being affected by the war nearly as much as poor families. 


When there was draft, every family in our country felt the weight of war, not just the "poor and the uneducated"ones. How does this affect your opinion on whether or not America should have a draft?

More Celebrity Help

A couple days ago George Clooney was arrested in Washington, DC, at the Embassy of Sudan while protesting the actions of Omar Al-Bashir, the country's president. The Sudanese government is still bombing and attacking innocent civilians, confirming Al-Bashir's status as an alleged war criminal.


Clooney's plan is to use his celebrity status to draw as much attention as possible to this issue. He says, "I don't make policy. I can just make it louder." Upon hearing this, I was reminded again of the Kony 2012 video we talked about in class. Celebrities such as Justin Bieber and Oprah Winfrey used their star power to draw attention to this video and the issues surrounding Ugandan war criminal Joseph Kony.


I found it interesting that in the past week the only things I have read about both these problems involving war criminals, it has been in regard to the celebrities involved with the issues. It seems that celebrities are becoming America's number one source for providing awareness of global conflicts. Awareness of issues is certainly necessary in order to solve them, but what does is say about our society if the path to this awareness is celebrities? 


Does the way in which we become aware of issues affect if how we go about solving them? Would learning about the war in Sudan through George Clooney talking about it on a talk show vs. learning about it from a newspaper article yield a different response from you?

Public Awareness: The Key to Kony?

The viral video Kony 2012 has certainly reached it's goal of becoming widely known, being that it has received over 64 million views. I wonder though, if this large view count is what will help to reach the video's apparent goal: stopping Joseph Kony. Kony, a Ugandan guerrilla troop leader, has been responsible for the abductions and murders of thousands of Ugandan children for over twenty years.
A man by the name Jason Russell created this video in order to raise awareness about the issue, in order to stop it.

Still from Kony 2012

Raising awareness is clearly a large theme in the video. In it, Russell says, "It’s obvious that Kony should be stopped; the problem is 99% of the planet doesn’t know who he is. If they knew, Kony would have been stopped long ago." I question Russell's implication that the reason Kony hasn't been stopped is directly related to the number of people who know about it. Of course spreading awareness couldn't hurt, but I worry that the people who are sharing this link/spreading word about the video has less to do with taking action against Kony, and more to do with people's obsessions with disasters covered by media.


Don DeLillo has this fascination with disasters a running theme throughout White Noise. In chapter 14, Jack narrates a scene of him and his family are watching floods, earthquakes and other disasters on TV and says, “Every disaster made us wish for more, for something bigger, grander, more sweeping” (64). Not that I am saying those who watched the Kony 2012 video are happy that such a calamity is occurring, but perhaps they got a sort of twisted excitement in sharing it with other people. How effective can this way of spreading the video around be?


I know that personally, after watching the video I was inspired to take action to help stop Kony. My action only went as far as telling some friends about it, however. I have a feeling that many other video viewers did the same. 

A Stroke of Genius

Yesterday I had a Genius Bar appointment at the Apple Store for the first time. I was having two issues: 1) When trying to buy a new song on iTunes I now always receive the message "Your session has timed out. Try again," and 2) My iPod recently stopped synching with my iTunes library. Lucky for me making a Genius appointment was as easy as clicking a few buttons on Apple's website.

When I got to the store, I was told to report to the "tall man with the beard and iPad"-- I didn't even have the burden of learning his name. The iPad man told me that one of the "Geniuses" would be with me shortly, and in the meantime I could look around the store. I was drawn to the new iPhone 4S, and entertained myself by checking out the apps. One, by they way, was called "Airport Sounds"with its description being: "This app contains a set of various sounds which are sure to entertain you." Maybe Don DeLillo is really on to something- Being that his characters in White Noise are often comforted by sound.

By the time my "Genius" came to help me, I had almost forgotten why I was there in the first place. How could I forget that I was there because I was unsatisfied with their product? After explaining my issues I quickly learned that they had no fix for the first problem of not being able to purchase music, and that I would have to call iTunes support for that. As for my iPod, the "Genius" played around with a couple different cords to plug it into my computer with and looked at the connection port with a flashlight. All of which took less than five minutes. She then asked me, "How would you like a new iPod, no charge?" Of course I told her that this would be great. 

I caught myself feeling very satisfied after leaving the store, thinking that I had even had fun. This soon  went away however, when I told my dad the exciting news of getting a new iPod. He told me he wasn't surprised because Apple's profits have recently been more than $1 billion a week, that they must have more money than they know what to do with. I was then reminded of the horrible Apple factory conditions we talked about in class. How many other customers received free iPods this week? How many factory workers received a higher wage? 

Why was I so easily distracted from these negative thoughts until I left the store? What does my experience reveal about the culture of consumption?

Fallacious and Malicious

With the topics we discuss in American Studies (more specifically regarding Don DeLillo's White Noise) becoming increasingly relevant to my everyday life, I was not surprised to hear a story on the news tonight with which I found myself relating to a class discussion. 


Sandra Fluke, a student at Georgetown University, has been trying to persuade the administration for the past three years that birth control should be included in religious institutions' health insurance plans for students. This, of course, caused a big controversy because many believe that this would be violating Freedom of Religion, being that certain religions are against the use of contraceptives or pre-marital sex. Part of Fluke's argument included that a number of women use birth control for medical reasons, such as preventing ovarian cysts. 

More info and Limbaugh's message to "Feminazis"
can be viewed HERE

One of Fluke's biggest critics is Rush Limbaugh, a radio talk show host who is a well known conservative. In his argument to opposing Fluke he stated that the fact that she wants the school to cover birth control costs suggests that she is trying to promote casual sex. He says another reason for her wanting contraception coverage is that she is "having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills" and goes on to call her a "slut." As if it couldn't get any worse, Limbaugh later offers up his own compromise stating: "Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives ... we want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.” (!!!)


Upon hearing Limbaugh's argument I was immediately reminded of our recent class discussion about fallacies. His claims are teeming with hasty generalizations as well as ad hominem (when one attacks the arguer rather than the argument). It is not a logical assumption that because Fluke thinks religious institutions' insurance plans should cover contraception, she must sleep around. It also certainly does not advance his argument to dub his opponent a "slut." Sadly for Limbaugh, I believe he is only weakening his own credibility by stating such absurdities and becoming a victim of his own demise.

TV Tokenism

Private Practice:

--on abc Thursdays at 9, spin off show of Grey's Anatomy, started in 2007, has been running for 5 seasons

--IMDb--

Brown v. Board of Education Round II

This morning on the news the words "Brown v. Board of Education" caught my eye. Being that we just learned this historical event took place over fifty years ago, I was not expecting to be hearing about it on today's local news. As it turns out, this story was entirely separate from the famous 1954 decision to outlaw segregated public schools and was a very current case.


Lincoln Brown, a Caucasian teacher from Murray Language Academy in the Hyde Park neighborhood, was recently suspended for five days because he used the "n-word" during one of his classes. Brown had intercepted a note students had been passing that contained lyrics to a song including the n-word. He then took this as an opportunity to talk about the usage of the word with the sixth graders, and to have a class discussion about racism. At this point the principal of the school walks in to observe the class and  remains silent, only later to notify Brown of his suspension.


Brown says that he used the full word but "didn't address it to the students. [He] was very careful about that." However, the principal charged him with using "verbally abusive language to or in front of students" along with "cruel, immoral, negligent, or criminal conduct or communication to a student, that causes psychological or physical harm." This incident occurred last October, and Brown is now suing his school district, alleging that they violated his civil rights. 


This unfortunate case is a clear example how racial tension is still very prominent in American today. The fact that the n-word can not be used during a classroom lesson without it turning into a huge deal shows how far we have not come. This lack of progress in reducing racial tension is due largely to the message that is given out in a situation like this. That message being that we must leave issues regarding racism alone, rather than address them. Matters like these that go unaddressed will not change. So when choosing not to address these situations, we are only encouraging racial tension.


{An article and video can be viewed about this case here}

Screen Time

Throughout the course of my junior year, I've noticed that I am spending significantly more time on my computer than I have during past school years. I have surprisingly come to the conclusion that the reason for this is not because I am spending more time browsing sites or checking my facebook, but because my classes have required me to do so.

All four of my main classes this year require me to use my computer on a weekly, if not daily basis. Whether I am blogging, accessing an online textbook, checking solutions on blackboard, or completing an online homework assignment through "Webassign," I am spending a good chunk of my after-school-academic-time staring at a computer screen.

I do think that incorporating the web into the school curriculum can be beneficial to students' learning. It gives kids easier access to school materials and helps connect students outside of class (as this very blog is doing). Not to mention that working on the computer will probably be more appealing to teenage students than working with pencil and paper, increasing students' interests in their studies- which can only be a good thing.

So yes, I do see the benefits of having students do online schoolwork. However, call me old-fashioned, but I can't help but wonder how healthy all this screen time is for us. Screen time meaning time spent using a device such as a computer, television, phone, ipod, gaming system...etc. Disregarding school related usage,  I probably use four of those five devices multiple times throughout each day, which I don't think is uncommon for any American teenager. This means that on top of all that, we will spend even more time staring at screens to complete our schoolwork.

This is why I am conflicted. I know that students can benefit from doing schoolwork online, but I also know that it can't be healthy to have such a large amount of screen time. What possible solutions are there to this issue? Is it the school's responsibility to help discourage screen time?

Theaters to Thank

Earlier this week I went to the Music Box Theatre in Chicago for the first time. Opening in 1929, it's one of the oldest theaters in the city. Currently, the Music Box is a premiere venue for independent and foreign films. I was struck by theater's atmospheric architecture that consisted of a deep, cloudy blue ceiling, mimicking the night sky and eclectic, ornate decorations along the high walls. There was also an elaborate organ in the corner being played as my dad and I came in to take our seats.

The movie we saw was part of the Sundance Film Festival, called Two Days In New York. It was directed by french director Julie Delpy, who also played a main role in the film. Using her native language as a big part of the film, there were often English subtitles which I had to crane my head to read, due to the close-knit seating. After the screening, the co-writer Alexia Landeau, who was also an actress in the movie, was there to answer audience members' questions about the film. Julie Delpy was also available to answer questions via skype on the big screen, which was exciting.

Going to this theater was very different from seeing a movie at the places I normally go. It was an experience.  The theater wasn't showing twenty other movies at the same time, but focusing on one. This place truly appreciates the art of film, and is not concerned with having as many show-times as possible and making the most money. So, even though I had a sore neck the next day from the aforementioned neck-craning I didn't mind, because it was a part of this refreshing experience.

I think it's too bad that there aren't more of these types of theaters left today. Most of them have become very commercialized, and as I said, very clearly concerned with making money. Besides the Music Box, the only other theater in the area that hasn't given way to commercialization that I know of is  The Wilmette Theater. With movie tickets a good three dollars cheaper than at most other places, it is clear that they are less worried about making money and more concerned about the customers' experience. It is places like these that restore my hope that not everyone will give in to this growing American trend of valuing money more than the quality of experiences.

Meta-Post

Looking back and reading my past blogs was an entertaining experience. I definitely noticed both changes and common threads in the topics of my posts. There were obvious visual changes as well.

Whereas some of my earliest posts lacked pictures and even titles in some cases, my more recent posts always have a picture and an attempt at a creative title. Not to mention the length of my paragraphs have become shorter. The combination of these changes were undoubtedly an attempt to gain a larger audience. I couldn't help but compare these alterations to those between the different editions of Frederick Douglass' narrative. He adds chapter titles and has shorter paragraphs in his later writing as well. The main reason for this is because we both shared a similar goal of getting as many people as possibly to read our writing.

As for the topics of my posts, I noticed that a good number of them criticize America, something I didn't realize I was doing so frequently. More often than not, my criticism involves comparisons to different countries. In my Stealing Sushi post I claim "Americans tend to draw the line of moral relativism later than other countries." In We're Number One? (the title speaks for itself), I note that the United States is the largest oil consumer and has the highest obesity rate. Even in my Happy Halloween!! post I claim other countries center this holiday more around family and question if we have "gone too far in commercializing Halloween."

At first after revisiting my old posts, I was concerned that I am sending one of those secret messages we talked about earlier in the year. That message being that America is bad country, and I hate living here- none of which are true. In reality, I think America is a great country ("Land of the Free," "Melting Pot," "Land of Opportunity" and all that). Perhaps my criticism is a sort of a tough love for the country because I know we can do better.

Heros in Waiting

Today on the Ellen Degeneres Show I saw a story that particularly caught my attention. About a week ago, a man with three children in the car was driving on an icy road and Utah and the car slid into an icy river and became submerged. The driver was able to escape but the three children were trapped inside. Immediately a dozen people who had witnessed the accident were diving in to help. Thankfully, after a lot of effort the three children were saved.

Ellen had this family on the show, along with the twelve people who helped save them. Deeming them heros, she rewarded them by giving them all the presents from her previous "Twelve Day Give Away" special, valued at over $30,000. What really interested me though was the conversation that took place prior to give away. 

The driver on the car mentioned that something he took away form this experience was that we are "surrounded by heros-in-waiting." This made me think about the conversation we had in class earlier in the year regarding heros. What motivates people act heroically? Does seeing acts such as these being generously rewarded on television perhaps increase peoples' willingness to act heroically? Are we all "heros-in-waiting" (some more so than others)?

[The full video from Ellen's show can be watched here]

Wealth-->Health

Over winter break my family visited a very close friend of ours in California who, I discovered on this particular visit, is now eighty-eight years old. With majority of my grandparents passing away before reaching eighty, it came as a shock to me that she is able to live independently and is still sharp as a tack.

To me she has always been the sweet, old lady who sends me generous checks on my birthday and around christmas time. Putting two and two together, I can't help but suspect that her long life span must have something to do with the fact that she is and always has been wealthy.

Supporting this idea, I found an article from USA Today which talks about a psychologist who has conducted experiments indicating that health is not only determined by your genes, but by "your income, education...address," and even "the status your parents had when you were small. [See article here] This notion makes sense to me because the wealthier a person, the more easily they have access to medical care. Since America is full of plenty of wealthy people one would expect the country's average life expectancy to be a high number. After looking into this, I was surprised to see that in the CIA World Factbook the United States had only the fiftieth highest life expectancy. You can see the rankings here.

Does this mean that in actuality health and wealth do not have a strong correlation? Is one's longevity based more solely on genetics? Why don't Americans have a higher life expectancy?