Meta-Post

I think this semester, and the fourth quarter especially, I have written more about things that are of personal interest to me. Blogs in general are written by people who are trying to release their thoughts, and really show how they feel about a topic. This quarter, I tried to do just that. I found ways of writing about sports, and writing about movies, but at the same time trying to focus on topics with more significance, like gay slurs. Blogs can be used for pleasure, such as ranting about a favorite basketball team after they lose a game, or they can be used to express thoughts on political issues, or to make comments about issues that can influence others' opinions. News shows and other media outlets will often mock blogs, but blogs are, after all, an outlet for free speech. Although not always factual, and sometimes ridiculous, blogs allow people to openly express their beliefs which is an important American right.

When I write a blog now, I look at what I write as something that is open for debate to whomever is willing to listen. Writing about topics that I am more comfortable writing about, like the NBA, allows me to feel that I am really putting something out there that is valuable. At times while blogging I found myself getting carried away straining to write something that had real meaning, but was frustrated because I did not know enough about the topic. It became clear to me that to have real meaning, the blog topic needed to be about something I felt some passion for. When writing about  enjoyable topics, and integrating things that hold political or social value, the end result is something that actual holds value and in my personal opinion could help sway a reader's opinion on the topic. 

If I am writing about shows I like, the NBA, or corn, I find that my knowledge gives me confidence in what I am saying. Writing without confidence is completely useless in swaying another's opinion, or sparking a discussion, because if the writing does not have confidence and a point of view, then it seems half-assed and nobody will be influenced by what I write, or feel the need to write a comment. I feel that by the end of the year I finally became attuned with intent of blogs, and felt more comfortable with the writing. Writing blogs is unique to other types of writing I have done in the past because the audience is much larger than just a teacher, or even a class - it is ultimately the entire world, as I have experienced first hand. Writing in a more casual way, while still trying to create an argument that is serious, can be challenging, but when writing about things that truly interest you, it can become effortless.

Note: Please Read-Pardon the Interruption, but what CAN be Done?

The Theater

Movies are often put into two categories: entertaining, and not entertaining. Movies are also looked at, and maybe more fairly, as either deep or transparent. Ironically, 3-D movies frequently contain less actual depth than movies without this level of technical sophistication. The Tree of Life, a movie written and directed by Terrence Malick, has been reviewed as a movie fitting into the "deep" category (watch trailer here)]. Unfortunately, the high level of depth of this movie seems to link it to the "not entertaining" category by some critics. It's a movie thought to potentially be difficult to sell to an audience, even with its star power of Brad Pitt and Sean Penn. The LA Times says that, "Few prominent releases in recent years present the marketing challenges of 'Tree of Life'".  A critic from Slam Magazine slams the movie by saying that it, "belongs more in the abstract section of an art museum than a movie theater". This brings up the key point, what should be shown at movie theaters? Why is it only appropriate to show movies that are transparent or broadly and obviously entertaining at theaters, and not allow the audiences to see movies with more depth, that involve serious thought? The answer really lies with the consumer. When people do not show their support by buying tickets to a movie, many believe the movie should not be in theaters in the first place. This movie should be considered to be a good movie because it won the highest prize at the Cannes Film Festival, but without winning at the box office it is deemed a failure. It is hard to believe that a movie with this star power, and actual success at Cannes, would not be popular with an American audience. But even if it is not, the movie must still be shown in theaters.

Going to the movies should not be just about kicking back, relaxing, or having a laugh. People should occasionally go to movies to expand their minds. Although one must pay attention for around two hours, it hardly seems like an enormously difficult task. We need to treat some movies in the same way people treat some books - pay attention to every line of dialogue, and look at the movie critically. Although this could seem challenging to some, it's just for a couple of hours, and for many it can actually be an enjoyable experience to think. 

Finally, movies can be shown at movie theaters that are not just comedies everyone can understand. People will go to movies that involve thinking, and enjoy them, even if the bulk of the audience is at "The Hangover 2". Movies are, after all, works of art, and although some really could be shown at the abstract art section at  a museum, all of them should be shown at the movie theater. The movie theater draws  mass audiences to see these works of art, and just like real art, occasionally pushes the viewer to think.

What CAN be done?--Part 2

On the famous comedy TV series from the nineties, "Seinfeld", an episode called "The Outing" mocks the idea of being homophobic. The characters George and Jerry see someone eavesdropping on their conversation, and for fun, decide to make up a story that they are gay. To their displeasure, the person who overhears them happens to be a reporter, and publishes a story based on their supposed homosexual relationship. Throughout the episode, the characters show their dislike for being mistakenly thought of as gay, but quickly follow with "not that there's anything wrong with that". This particular line of dialogue is used several times to emphasize that even for people who support gay rights, being labelled as gay still carries a stigma for many men. (To watch the main plot of the episode, and these scenes, click here).

After Joakim Noah's gay slur during the NBA playoff game, I wrote a blog on the inappropriate, yet somewhat common use of gay slurs. Guys make gay slurs to each other all the time, not intending to offend gays, but more as a way to tease or insult the other person. However, it is considered by many as offensive, as it should be, because it assumes that by using it as a put-down, it assumes what underlies the word is derogatory. 

As I reflect on that post, I think that it is crucial to understand that people who use gay slurs often say it as a gut reaction, almost subconsciously. Gay slurs are common for boys and men during friendly interactions, and even on the progressive North Shore we hear them often. Although speaking these words can be offensive, many people don't see a problem with using gay slurs if they are used in a joking way between friends. I think this is similar to what "Seinfeld" mocked, in that guys use gay slurs even when they truly believe "not that there's anything wrong with that". I wonder how others feel about using gay slurs, and if it matters at all if it said between friends, or said in the heat of  the moment.

The Movie Interruption

I recently read over some blog posts in our class, and Henry’s blog post inspired me to write this. I originally considered commenting on Henry’s post, but found my first comment to be too long, and slightly off topic. The key idea in the post that I agreed with was the way movies are being watched like TV. In fact, movies are often shown on TV. Watching a movie on TV, for me, is close to impossible because of the constant distraction of endless commercials. To take the distractions a step further, commercials have recently begun to be shown while the movie is being played on TV on the bottom of the screen. This not only blocks what the filmmakers originally intended the audience to see, but it draws attention away from the screen to see the advertisement.  Also, some TV movies actually delete scenes to fit in more commercials, which completely ruins the integrity of any movie. I do watch movies on TV, but when any movie is remotely serious, I make sure to watch it on DVD or in theaters.

When I think of talking during movies I specifically think of the TV series, Seinfeld. In one episode, "The  Restaurant", the three main characters wait in a restaurant before the sixth movie in a famous series. When two of the three characters, Elaine and George, comment they may not go to the movie, the main character, Jerry Seinfeld, expresses that if they don't go to the movie, then he cannot go, because he would not have nobody to talk to during the movie. This reminds me of our conversation in class where we concluded that there are certain movies you cannot talk through at the theater, and others, like "The Hangover", that are actually complimented by talking during the movie. The Seinfeld episode also makes fun of not paying attention during movies, as Jerry and his girlfriend are called out for "making out during Sophie's Choice", something that clearly should not be done. 


 To me, there are boundaries when watching movies, and although some movies beg for open discussion, most do not. By talking during movies, specifically at the movie theater, people are ruining the experience not only for the people around them, but themselves as well. To be confronted with unsolicited interruptions caused by another audience member as he responds to the movie is distracting and interrupts am individual's experience. In the end, being interrupted during a movie by an advertisement, or a friend, is not much different than making out during "Sophie's Choice".

Pardon the Interruption, but what CAN be done?

This Sunday, Bulls power forward Joakim Noah was seen on camera at a playoff game directing a gay slur to a fan-- and it resulted in a $50K fine. As a Bulls fan, I have great respect for Joakim Noah as a basketball player because of the passion and emotion he displays on the court. However, this emotion lead Noah to make a decision he admits was "disrespectful" (TMZ). Noah apologized immediately after the game by saying, "What I said wasn't right. I don't want to disrespect anybody. That's not what I'm about" (ESPN Story). The emotions felt by a professional player during a playoff basketball game is something I will never be able to comprehend, and in the heat of the moment it must be very hard to control the emotions that lead to what can come out of a one's mouth. Teammate and league MVP Derrick Rose said, "Being a basketball player you're going to be emotional sometimes. On the court, people can say some foul things" (ESPN story). Also, although what the fan said to spark Noah's reaction is unknown to me, it is probably something you wouldn't say to your grandmother. Noah's teammate, Luol Deng, said of the fan who sparked Noah's reaction, "He should've been thrown out" (ESPN story). However, even with the apology by Noah, and considering the heightened emotional state he was in, using the gay slur was not an acceptable thing to do.

The world is evolving, and more and more people are starting to finally come out and say that gay slurs are unacceptable. Very recently, the NBA in particular has been taking a stand with gay rights. Athletes, such as NBA guard Grant Hill, have been in commercials saying that gay slurs are unacceptable, and teammate and NBA All-Star Steve Nash recently spoke out in a video saying New York should legally allow same-sex marriage. In fact, the CEO and President of the Suns, Rick Welts,  recently announced publicly that he was gay. This is a man who has been influential in the NBA for decades and has "created the NBA All-Star Weekend, invented the 1992 Olympic Dream Team and cofounded the WNBA" (Forbes article). 


I believe that although Noah made this mistake, fining him $50K will hardly make a difference to him, and for that matter suspending him will also make little difference. Noah seems to have good character, and analysts have said they believe he was sincere in his apology. I, too, believe Noah was sincere in his apology, but this matter is much much bigger than the 6 foot eleven inch center on the Bulls. Noah may have wanted to take back what he said, but he still said it, not as much a reflection on him as on society as a whole. People say gay slurs without thought, but the "N-word" is much less often said without thought. People know that saying the "N-word" is unacceptable, but fewer recognize gay slurs as such. To prevent people from using gay slurs, it starts with what is acceptable and not acceptable while children grow up, and although the NBA must take a stand and fine Noah to show they do not support that behavior, it will do little to help. Very recently NBA All-Star Kobe Bryant was fined for using a gay slur in a basketball game, and that didn't stop Noah from using a gay slur only weeks later. The only thing that can be done to eradicate this behavior is to show kids at a young age that this word is unacceptable and harmful, and maybe then we won't have to fine kids' sports idols, and grown adults, for their behavior.

America's Identity

Last week during group presentations on AIS Day, my group presented on Americans' connection to cars, their lawns, and fast food. We found that these topics contribute to three significant factors in the American identity: speed, freedom and class. We also talked about the way these factors are included in American literature, such as "The Great Gatsby'. However, the topics are ingrained in our current culture more than I at first thought.  Watching the NBA Playoff's Eastern Conference Finals showdown between the Chicago Bulls, and the Miami Heat, I decided to monitor the commercials during the breaks. I tabulated the number and type of commercials played during most of the first two quarters. Out of twenty seven commercials, ten were car and fast food commercials. The dominating amount of commercials from just these two topics shows how important they are to the American consumer and to our identity.

Commercials are not randomly shown; marketing experts choose which time slots to play their commercials. Nielsen Ratings shows that the median age for the NBA is 39.3, and most likely the majority of the audience is male. Although this could contribute to more fast food and car commercials, I would believe that has a minimum effect. Learning through my partners' presentations, I learned that the car was hugely important to the freedom of women, and therefore, I would assume that females also are large consumers of cars. I know personally, my mom is the one in my family who chooses what car we should buy.

When I was a kid, my mom was the one to choose what I ate.  When we went out for a quick meal, it was ultimately my mom's decision if we ate fast food or not. Commercials for fast food must also be for the audience of mothers as well, because mothers often choose what we eat when we are young. These commercials are not only popular commercials during NBA playoff games, but popular commercials in general. This is further evidence that cars and fast food, as advertised during the basketball playoffs, are directed at both men and women and are further proof of the importance of cars and fast food to the American identity.

Celebration?

After the recent death of Osama Bin Laden, many crowds have gathered in the U.S, and chanted “USA! USA!”. At baseball games, or at the White House, in Tweets, on Facebook, and on college campuses, people have found the death of Osama Bin Laden to be a reason to celebrate. Talking with some people about this, I have found that this jubilant chanting is not welcomed by everyone. 

I have heard from some that “we should be remembering those who have passed because of this man, not celebrating his death” and that “it is kind of sad that it takes someone to die for our country to unite like this”. It seems very unlikely that the death of Osama Bin Laden will lead to the downfall of terrorism, but the death of the figure head of Al-Qaeda does bring a symbolic sense of closure to Americans. Some of the older people I talked to about this believe it is “a generational thing” and that the youth “does not understand the importance of this issue and they should not be chanting and celebrating. It is, after all, not some sporting event. ”. I believe that although it may be a little strange to celebrate another human’s death, it is not a bad thing to celebrate. Americans are united in the celebration of the death of the symbolic head of a terrorist group that killed many Americans, and brought sorrow to countless others. Although he got away from us for almost a decade, we finally got closure, and although we never had the satisfaction of a trial, it was a relief to many Americans that a man who wished for the America's demise was punished for his wrongdoings. Something seems very right about finally being able to punish this man. Although we will never get back those we lost, it is just that Osama Bin Laden was killed. What do you think of celebrating his death? Is it right of us to celebrate the death of any man?

The American Dream

Last week, in a poll during class, a question was posed about how hard it is to move up the in the ranks of class in America on a scale of 1-10 (1 being easy to move up in class, 10 being almost impossible to move up). For me, it was hard to answer this question because I have always pictured America as the land of opportunity. When I was younger, I felt anyone could get anywhere based on their intelligence, and work ethic. Now, I am finding reasons I to believe this theory is not true.

First, the wealthier one is growing up, the better colleges they are likely to gain entrance to.  Mr. Bolos told us what is already common knowledge, that almost all New Trier students (about 98%) will be going to college. In other not so affluent areas the college attendance rate will be much lower. A reason for this is that many people simply cannot afford college. From the class rankings we saw in class last week, we know that people who graduate from college are considered to be in the top-tier of class. Another reason so many New Trier students go on to college is because of their ACT score. New Trier students typically do very well on their ACT, but this is hardly a coincidence. When I had a short chat with my ACT tutor, he told me that the best indicator of ACT score is family income. This seems particularly unfair, since this score is supposed to measure one's intelligence and future success in college. People who can afford tutors will do better on the ACT by around 4 points, clearly not a fair way to compare students' intelligence.

Also, I have found that one must "get a dollar to catch a dollar". With money to invest, there is more opportunity for entrepreneurship and potential for successful careers. In a documentary called "To Catch a Dollar",  I learned about the practice of microfinancing  (a system where small amounts of money are lent to poor individuals to use in some form of entrepreneurship, and is paid back in small increments over a period of time) developed by Muhammed Yunus. This process helps lower class people produce more money. Still, microfinancing in America is limited at best, and is not the complete solution to give the poor equal opportunity as the rich.

I believe moving up in class is difficult in America, although still easier than many other countries because of things like affirmative action. I feel that "The American Dream" does not exist as it once did. There clearly is much opportunity in America, but depending on class opportunity it can be limited. I wonder how other people felt above this poll in class, and what they gave as their answers.

Too Much

Earlier last week I saw a program I occasionally watch called Top Chef. In the after the season reunion special, there was an awkward and uncomfortable debate between a contestant on the show, Elia Aboumrad, and a judge on the show, professional chef Tom Colicchio. The debate was over Tom Colicchio's commercial endorsement of Diet Coke, and whether or not that was something a chef of his caliber should endorse. The contestant had said to the press that the chef was "selling out". There was also an implication by Ms. Aboumrad and others that Chef Colicchio should not be selling corn-fed beef in his restaurants, but should support the ethical treatment of cattle by selling grass-fed beef only (the clip is the top video on this link). I also saw an ad last week for an episode of Oprah, and I Tivo'd the show which included many food experts, including Michael Pollan. Michael Pollan wrote the book that I am reading for my Junior Theme, The Omnivore's Dilemma, and is one of the leading experts in the world on the politics of food production. During the week, I also interviewed a corn and soybean expert who told me that corn prices were currently at one of the highest levels ever, if not the highest. The reason I originally chose "food" for my Junior Theme are the current controversies that make the topic all the more interesting to learn about. Every day I learn something new, such as the reasons meat is so cheap, where commodity corn comes from, or how beneficial organic food really is.  With all sorts of interesting current news about food in the media, I am having a hard time knowing what I will and will not include in my Junior Theme.  I wonder, is anyone else having a hard time knowing what not to include in their paper?

Just Right

I have found my Junior Theme research to be difficult. There is a plethora of information about different facets of my general topic, food in America, but it has still been challenging to find the "just right" article. I have found many articles related to my topic, but not as many as I would like that are over a page in length, and under 25 pages in length. Also, many articles I have found are either too simplistic, filled with basic facts that appear everywhere, or too technical, with complex graphs and analysis that includes many words I do not know. Although I have been able to understand more of the more complex articles than I first thought I could, when I do understand them they are often only indirectly related to the specific area of the topic I intend to pursue. It is not impossible to do the research by any means, but some periods I can only find one article that really is good for my topic. At times it can be discouraging to have few articles than I would want, and to have articles that seem perfect in the first two paragraphs but then stray off into another topic for the rest of the article.

Even though I was at first discouraged I now find it extremely helpful to know all about the different facets of food, even though my topic is more specifically focused on the reasons the government is subsidizing the production of corn. Knowing about all the different topics can help me understand more about my own. Articles about corn could also include information on soybeans. Soybeans are not obviously helpful to my topic- without knowing anything about soybeans on the other hand, would detract from my research because there are many parallels in these two plants, such as the fact that they are some of the the largest crops in America. I also learned a lot about meat, which may not seem very relevant to corn production at first glance. In the food world many things, like meat and corn, are connected. I learned that the reason meat is so cheap is because animals are being fed corn (which is generally very cheap) to make them cheaper to produce. It did take time to sift through the long articles, and the shorter ones, but in the end reading articles that may seem too long, or off topic is ultimately beneficial.  Articles can be short or long, simplistic or complex, but there is no such thing as the article that is “just right”.

Favorite Blog

"All Black Everything"

Double Standards

Last week, according to the New Trier News, the New Trier Board of Education voted to dismiss a New Trier teacher for an inappropriate relationship, and unprofessional relationship, with a student. Incidents such as this occur around the country, and when there is a female student involved with a male teacher, the female student immediately becomes a victim in the eyes of the public. To many people, this is not necessarily how they view it when a female teacher and male student have an inappropriate relationship. On the NBC  sitcom 30 Rock this week, a character on the show was found to have had an affair with a teacher when he was 14. (You can watch the clip here four minutes in). The show mocks the relationship of a female teacher and male student and even calls a male teacher’s relationship with a female student “wrong”, but a female teacher and a male student having a relationship is “awesome”. This to me is an unfair double standard. I wonder if many others would agree.

Junior Theme #1

The week before I began to work on Junior Theme a family friend came over. While at dinner she talked about giving up corn,  wheat, and other food in an attempt to improve her health. She claims this diet works. I knew then that I wanted to focus on food and food's impact on health for my Junior Theme. After working with the librarians, I found some books, articles, and the movie Food Inc. for more information on my topic. I was surprised to see the relationship between the government and the food industry, and how corrupt this relationship is. I then posed the question, "Why does the government support the production of one kind of food over another?". In my Junior Theme I hope to further explore this relationship between the government and food industry and how it impacts the consumer. Something I find unique and fascinating about my topic is how little the average person understands what is going on in the food industry. Before I had done research all I thought was that some food is unhealthy. I have now found that there are significant issues in how the food we eat is made. People do not know much about this topic because the food industry does not want people to know about it. The food industry is even trying to create laws to prevent the publishing of photos of any livestock facility. The animals are treated poorly, the workers are treated poorly, the food products are being treated poorly, and us as the consumer are being treated poorly.

A few individual writers and reporters have shown light on the food industry. Because of their work, I have been able to find a fair amount of research for my topic. Most articles I read or find, however, are either bashing the food industry or defending the food industry. I hope to find in my research answers to why people do not know about what is going on in the food industry. People know of E. coli and Salmonella outbreaks (still not enough), but nobody really knows what they are eating. People just accept that the food they eat is unhealthy because the food that is available (especially affordable food) is unhealthy. In my paper I hope to explain the answers to these questions, as well as my main question, and get to the root of why we eat what we eat, and what exactly are we eating.

Upbringing's Effect in Politics

Earlier this week in the library I overheard a girl and boy sitting next to me talking about sexism. The girl went  on about how female politicians, or females involved in politics, are being treated completely unfairly. She brought up the fact that in politics you may hear that "Sarah Palin is good looking", or that "Michelle Obama is overweight", but people never criticize how the men look. People just accept a ratty old looking man, but a bad looking woman stands out. I found this particularly interesting because in my last blog, I brought up how very often only the people who are being unfairly treated realize sexism or racism.

In the blog before that I wrote about how Rahm Emmanuel deserved to be a mayor regardless of his privileged upbringing. After what I heard in the library I began to wonder how much someone's perspective actually depends on things like how they grew up.

Earlier today,while watching The Colbert Report, I heard something else relating to how a person's upbringing changed his view. The video can be watched here one minute into the clip. Basically Mike Huckabee claimed that Obama was born in Kenya (which is not actually true) and has different perspectives than any other president because of this.

This again got me to thinking how someone's childhood effects who they are as an adult. I was reminded of my earlier belief, and now again believe that regardless of how people grow up, they can change their opinons. Even if Obama had grown up in Kenya, would that really make him unqualified to make decisions as a president (even though a president must legally be born in America)? It is too simplistic to judge someone on how they grew up, and politicians especially should be judged on their policies and decisions, not their childhood.

Seeing sexism and racism

At the end of The Academy Awards last week, my mom noticed that when all the winners were shown together on the stage, there were significantly more men than women represented. I was already aware that there was a noticeable lack of black nominees. What I found most interesting about this was that my mom noticed this, and my dad and I did not. I find that it is much more difficult to notice sexism or racism when you are not the one being personally effected. Maybe this is why there is talk of society becoming less racist or sexist, yet clearly, even in subtle ways as in TV tokenism, there is. I also wonder how many boys in the class chose the topic of gender for the Huck Finn Paper. Girls are effected by sexism more, and because of this, they are more passionate about the topic.

All Black Everything

Earlier this year, while I was searching for a blog for a to comment on, I came across a blog from Carolyn Arden (a student in my class).This blog focused on how music was used in Vietnam protests as an anti-war tool.(For more on this blog click here.) My comment was based on how few artists today actually focus on something that has to do with social or political protests. Valerie Caeser (another student in my class) gave examples of some bands that do focus on controversial topics, yet none of those bands were especially mainstream. Although still popular, I was focusing on artists that would be on the top of the itunes charts, or played on mainstream radio. Today I came across a song that will be released in a new Lupe Fiasco album, Lasers, called "All Black Everything". Looking at lyrics to this song proved how wrong I am. The song is about a dream Lupe Fiasco had in which there was no racism. One verse goes:

"Uh, and we ain’t get exploited
White man ain’t feared so he did not destroy it
We ain’t work for free, see they had to employ it
Built it up together so we equally appointed
First 400 years, see we actually enjoyed it
Constitution written by the W.E.B. Du Bois
Were no reconstructions, Civil War got avoided
Little black Sambo grows up to be a lawyer
Extra extra on the news stands
Black woman voted head of Ku Klux Klan
Malcolm Little dies as a old man
Martin Luther King read the eulogy for him
Followed by Bill O’Reilly who read from the Quran
President Bush sends condolences from Iran
Where FOX News reports live
That Ahmadinejad wins Mandela peace prize"

I found it fascinating that there was mainstream rap that involved politics, and history. I know that other rap, of course, has commentary on racism, but I was surprised to see a song that didn't have just a verse on racism, but dedicated the whole song to the history of racism. Lupe raps of reconstructions, which was the period of time after the civil war that led to segregation among blacks and whites among other things. I believed historical references such as this one were non-existent in mainstream music. A few lines I found particularly interesting:

"I know it’s just a fantasy
I cordially invite you to ask why can’t it be?
Now we can do nothing bout the past
But we can do something about the future that we have"


To me this was particularly interesting because instead of talking about what was, he addresses what could be. He also is acknowledging that now, even in our progressive society with a black president, racism is still everywhere. By rapping that we can make change in our "future" suggests to me that we still have much to work on. What I noticed from Carolyn A.'s blog post was that the songs were obviously referring to a problem with Vietnam War, and with music now that talks about racism, artists like Lupe are making it clear that racism is still a very important issue, although sometimes forgotten by the public.

Could New Trier High School Hold Us Back?

While on the New Trier website to get my homework assignment from Blackboard, I noticed out of the corner of my eye a picture of Rahm Emanuel under the "news section" in my Google search, so I decided to take a quick peak at the link. The article, from the "NBC Chicago" column "Ward Room", describes how Gery Chico, a Chicago mayoral candidate, has been criticizing Emanuel for not being in touch with the people of Chicago because he is a graduate of New Trier H.S. If you want more on the short article Click Here. It seems strange that a political candidate could be disregarded not for his qualifications and credentials, but for his privileged upbringing. New Trier is often criticized for being a school full of out-of-touch spoiled brats. When I make new friends from other schools they are often surprised at how "normal" I am, as if attending New Trier would completely disconnect a person from mainstream society. Although I believe Chico is wrong by suggesting that Rahm Emanuel is not qualified to govern Chicago because of his high school, and not his policies and experience, he does have a point. Going to New Trier actually does separate one from real society at times. Since I have gone to New Trier I have heard a lot about a "bubble" that separates us from real world problems. Although all of us at New Trier know about poverty, it is unlikely that many of us have actually experienced it. New Trier students clearly do have many other problems, but most of us are not exposed to the issues faced by our peers in other socio-economic groups. In Rahm Emanuel's case, he is being discredited for his accomplishments in politics, because he graduated New Trier years ago. If he did not leave the "bubble" while in high school, he surely has now.

This article brought me to thinking that throughout our lives, the fact that we attended New Trier might actually hold us back. For instance, although many New Trier students have participated in Teach for America, the sister of a good friend, who graduated from New Trier and went on to a prestigious university, was turned down for the Teach for America program despite her qualifications, because this competitive program only wanted to hire graduates who "had faced struggles". Although many New Trier students live cushy lifestyles, many have serious problems in their lives, and it does not mean they cannot understand struggles that are not their own.

Also, going to a school like New Trier makes getting into colleges more difficult. Our GPA and ACT scores are compared to fellow New Trier students. New Trier undeniably has many hard-working, dedicated students, and a decile ranking at New Trier represents a different level of competition from many other high schools.

Undeniably, New Trier has many benefits. Great facilities and great teachers are just two of the examples of privilege at New Trier. I am not saying it is wrong for colleges to compare applicants to other students within the same high school, or that we have not been exposed to the struggles of many of our peers. I do though, find it fascinating that New Trier, which on the surface can be described as a "fantasy school", also has some drawbacks.

Colorblind

I just got my first college guidebook, "The Princeton Review Best 373 Colleges", and while reading a variety of statistics, on a variety of schools, I came across something that caught my attention. Each school lists the percent of each race and ethnicity that attends the school. Out of all the things to document, I found listing the students' race and ethnicity out of place. Other stats and information were certainly relevant, such as: selectivity percentages, financial facts, deadlines, academic ratings, and some descriptions of the school. To go through the process of documenting ethnicity seems strange. What could be the purpose of documenting the ethnicity of students? These statistics are probably closely scrutinized by colleges and universities. I have heard that minorities have a better chance to get into schools, because schools want to diversify. To me, this seems very regressive. By determining the selection of students for a college based on their race, are colleges actually being racist, even if their intentions are good? In the "document" we saw in class of parents requesting to ban "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn", the parents claimed that in the progressive times that we are in, literature like "Huck Finn" is offensive and should not be taught. Although the world has progressed in terms of accepting all ethnicities, there is still a focus and attention drawn to race and ethnicity. Will our world, can our world, ever be completely colorblind?

Right and Left Wing Argument

Recently, there has been much discussion in the media about the division between political parties in the United States. People often seem to allude to better times when there was more cohesion between the political ideologies, and less fighting and uncivil behavior between its members. This is simply not true. The U.S. became what it now is, a strong democracy, through serious disagreements and harsh arguments between those with different viewpoints.

As seen during the Civil War, the Civil Rights Movement, and the War in Vietnam, our political parties have a history of being very divisive.  After the Civil War,  even while the Republicans had a huge majority in Congress, "the party was internally divided" (Foner - p 537). Disagreement about what rights to give African Americans took decades, and shockingly a full century passed before they had the right to vote.

Active and sometimes harsh debate will always be an essential part of the political process in this country, and it contributes to what makes the U.S. such a great democracy. Although sometimes it appears to take too long to accomplish goals, the will of the people is usually demonstrated through this process of debate and disagreement. In President Obama's State of the Union speech last week, he explained that our government exposes itself to criticism that other governments, like China, are not subject to because their government does not allow dissent among their leaders. The Chinese government can censor what is released by the media, and by doing this they make it seem as if they have no internal disagreements.

 In an ideal government, the will of the people will be demonstrated. Even though there are sometimes unpleasant words coming from both the left and right, they lead to decisions that represent the will of the people. All angles of different issues are explored, and therefore although we may not always agree with what the media has to say, we at least have the opportunity to hear all opinions. And that is what makes the United States such a great democracy.

Meta-Blog

I discovered this quarter to be an opportunity for me to learn the importance of empathy for the reader. Up until my last two blogs I had only received a total of three comments on all the blogs I wrote this year. I foolishly believed that my audience was my class and teachers, at best, and I needed to solely address them in my blog. I was wrong. After igniting a storm of outrage from a recent blogpost, I was reminded that on the Internet, anything can be viewed by anyone, and the world is my audience. Also, once a post is written and viewed, it can't be taken back. The response to my blog referencing Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy shocked me. For half the year, barely anyone in my class had ever commented on my posts, and then suddenly I generated about fifty comments in two posts. In the original post I wrote about a connection I considered fascinating and intriguing between marketing and a disease, Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, that I first heard about in a commercial that aired during a football game. I lacked clarity in this blog, and my audience interpreted what I wrote as an insult to the very real suffering experienced by victims of Duchenne and their families.  Although my post has been officially taken off the Internet and I have written an apology in a follow-up blog, I still have to acknowledge the initial reaction to the post. I also learned from this experience the impact an apology can have. The comments I received following my apology blog showed me how meaningful an apology can be to people who feel that they are not being heard. Still, the power of a controversial blog post can lead to good. The effectiveness of the commercial came into question, along with general discussion of this disease. Also, it was crucial to understand where the comments posted to my blog were coming from, and show empathy to the people who were writing them.

On the Internet, any topic has the potential to spark particular interest from any number of people. When you write a blog you have to question who could read it and how they might interpret what you say, and then show empathy to those people. I can voice my opinion freely, but I must watch my tone and intentions. Based on experience, I never anticipated anyone would actually read my blog, but even still I should have found an appropriate tone for what I was attempting to say. Not only was it offensive to people, but it was misinterpreted because of my flippant and arrogant tone. People were particularly frustrated with the fact that I would complain that a disease would have an advertisement. The readers did not know that my intention was positive, and I did not mean to have an offensive tone. Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy should of course be funded, and a commercial is a great way to draw public attention, and generate donations to help find a cure. From now on, I hope to carefully examine who my blog might impact and how it might be interpreted, not only to avoid causing hurt, but to get my point across.


Note: The Judge and The Teacher

A Sincere Apology

I am writing in response to Debra from CureDuchenne and other constructive writers who commented on my recent blog post. Thanks especially to Debra and Hannah for helping me realize that I clearly lacked some basic knowledge about Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. After spending some time researching this devastating disease, I have begun to understand a little more about it and to appreciate how much families are suffering from this disease that strikes young children and currently has no known cure. For those, like me, who were ignorant of the basic facts of the disease, I would like to tell you some of what I learned. Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) is a genetic disorder carried on the x chromosome that afflicts about 1 in 3,500 boys (and some girls according to http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/duchenne-and-becker-muscular-dystrophy). If any readers are interested, I found http://www.cureduchenne.org and http://www.mdausa.org/disease/dmd.html and http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000705.htm to be very informative sites. Please let me know of other sites people may visit to learn more about this disease.  My deepest sympathies go out to victims of this disease and their families.