Meta Post: The End of The Year

During this semester, I noticed that my blog posts varied a lot in style, but followed the in-class discussion very closely.  This mostly happened because I really enjoyed continuing the conversation in class.  I find that when we have to stop discussing an issue that I feel strongly about, I have a strong desire to make my voice heard.  This is one of the beauties of blogging.  I can voice my opinion without forcing readership and attention, but at the same time, anyone can join the conversation.

While I enjoy continuing conversations from in class, I realized that I have a few different ways to do that.  If I feel very strongly about a topic, I might be tempted to rant about it.  Normally that entails a long post with lots of facts about the subject.  One example that is leaning towards ranting is my post entitled, "The Big Move."  My point is, "Even though there are these differences, I would argue that Bloomingdale is still more similar to the North Shore than Belmont, where the truck logistic center is, or most of the other stops along Mr. Bolos's route."  However, it took a lot of time to set up my argument so that the reader would be informed and this makes it seem like I was rambling a bit.  It doesn't help that my thesis comes in the last paragraph either.

Another type of post that I am more proud of is my research type of post.  In class, sometimes a topic is brought up very briefly that holds my attention, but that we don't have a lot of time to discuss in depth.  My most outstanding post like this was the one entitled, "Debt and America's Consumerism."  I researched the topic online, then wrote an informative post that expressed my opinion but left room for discussion.

My favorite type of post is one that I will call the spontaneous post.  I enjoy writing these kinds of posts more than any other because they deal with what is going on in my life and then connect it to what we were talking about in class.  These are the majority of my posts, including, "Why So Strict" and "Dishwasher Blues."  In the first, I speak about an event that happens at school, and in the second, I connected an event that happened in my home to our in-class discussion.  I also enjoyed writing about my junior theme because I enjoyed learning about my topic.  I put this under the spontaneous post category because it is a kind of "slice" of where I was in the writing and researching process at that point.

I found that over the course of the semester, my writing changed from a style that asked a lot of questions to one that stated the information, an opinion, and maybe a question or two.  I found that this allowed the reader to formulate their own opinion and have a directed comment, rather than trying to address multiple questions at once or not having a clear idea about what to comment on.  I also tried to bring up more controversial topics, instead of re-using topics that have a socially "right" answer, that would elicit very little creativity from the readers.

I found that over the course of the year, I enjoyed blogging more than writing in a different medium.  I felt that this was best suited for me and gave me freedom but also some basic guidelines.  The only problem was that I wish the comments could have flown a little more "fast and furious" between us students.  It also would have been nice to have outside readers comment, but I found it very difficult to attract hits from outside our class (I still don't have a substantial comment from anyone that I don't know well).

Why So Strict?

During the end of May, every year, the seniors go a little nuts.  They don't have any more academic challenges, or they just stop caring about them.  Since college is just around the corner, they get a little stir crazy and have mentally already moved on.  Because of this, some feel the need to introduce a certain amount of disrupting chaos into their fellow student's days and cause their senior class to be remembered.  This comes usually in the form of senior pranks.  Each year, different groups of seniors decide to rebel against the school's rules and throw something down the largest stairwell, cause a disturbance in the cafeteria, or cause another form of mischief.  Every year, the administration of the school needs to have some kind of consequence ready for misdemeanors.  For one thing, police surround the school for the last two or three days of class for the seniors, just to make sure that nothing out of hand happens.  Last year they rode around the school on ATVs.

This year, there were only 3 senior pranks.  One guy dumped pornography down the largest stairwell in the school, another guy put on a gorilla suit, went down to the cafeteria, and danced on a table before being caught by the security people and teachers, and another duo printed dozens of copies of a list of the most attractive girls in the school.  All were clearly out of place and distracting; no one can deny that.  However, none of the pranks directly disturbed classroom learning, and were meant to be amusing.  

The pranks this year were not as large scale as some in the past.  For example, last year students dumped thousands of bouncy balls down the stairwell.  It was funny, but the janitors had to clean it all up.  The reason for the weaker pranks this year lies in the potential consequences.  I heard from multiple students that if they did a senior prank, they would be suspended for a week, not allowed to walk at graduation, and arrested.  Then, colleges could revoke their admission.  I heard from my adviser that the police couldn't arrest you unless you broke the law, so I'm not sure about that part.  

All of the students that I have talked to agreed that pornography is never an appropriate or even slightly amusing prank.  In addition, it is illegal to distribute adult material like that to minors.  The guys who made the list could have hurt a lot of girl's feelings, but I don't think that it is illegal to print such a document, even though posting it without the school's permission may be against the rules, sort of like graffiti.  But the guy in the gorilla suit still perturbs me.  I don't see how what he did warrants the same punishment as the guy who dumped BBs down the stairwell and hurt someone when they slipped on them.  What the gorilla guy did was not illegal, did not hurt anyone, did not damage school property, and did not require cleanup.  It only served to make others laugh and have some fun.

So why can't the administration determine punishments for senior pranks on a case-by-case basis?  It would allow fun, innocent, and harmless pranks to continue, while the illegal, dangerous, and destructive pranks would be eliminated.  How could the administration handle the situation better to allow a reasonable amount of freedom here?   

Debt and America's Consumerism

Debt is almost as American as hamburgers and drive-thrus, if not more, but it has people of all classes in a stranglehold.  What could have lead to such a thing?  While this could be a junior theme all unto itself, as some people in our class investigated, I will cover a few ideas.  First, I read THIS article, by the New York Times, which explains the history of American debt.

It starts the history by saying that Americans have had a lot of debt in the past.  In the 1800s, farmers used credit, a form of debt, to buy items for their farm and survival.  Debt was used as a tool to get what you needed, then to be repaid in a predictable fashion.  It was looked down upon to have too much debt or to not pay back your debt.

In the 1920s, debt was used to pay for appliances.  Debt was used to keep workers in order, and give them an incentive to work harder.  Citizens bought houses, cars, and other things on credit.  This kind of debt was used to promote a certain lifestyle, and to own what was in style.  People did not use it for survival, but rather for personal gain.  This is similar to what Americans do today.

Today, the average amount of debt per person in the United States is about $15,000, mostly on credit cards. How do people manage to accumulate all of this?  It is mostly due to a flaw in the American dream.  This ideal usually the message that you can go from rags to riches in America, and make life much better for your kids.  However, some baggage that comes with the dream is the idea that you can make yourself happier by buying large amounts of things.  This is the foundation for consumerism.  This is the socioeconomic trend that causes people to want to buy an ever increasing amount of new possessions.  Consumerism has lead to a huge amount of debt for individuals, who struggle to pay it all and have gone bankrupt.  At my previous church, there were financial helpers and advisors who could help families pay off and get rid of their debt.  This is clearly a huge problem in our culture today.  I don't think that happiness can come from buying more things.  If you think it can, watch Madame Blueberry, a VeggieTales production.

So, debt was useful for survival in the past, and people depended on it in order to pay for their food before their crops came in.  Now, debt is used to try to gain happiness in the form of stuff.  I find this very empty and meaningless.  But some may not.  Are there are any times when buying things can make you happier?  Can this last in the long run?  Won't all material possessions break or become useless eventually?

The Big Move

The other day we talked about Mr. Bolos's daily commute from the station in Wheaton to the Indian Hill station near the school.  Some of the differences he notices are glaring because he travels through so many different communities in order to get to work.  In some ways, I made the same change of location only 3 years ago.  My dad commutes into the city to work.  He rode the Milwaukee district west line, and now rides the Milwaukee district north line, which is similar to Mr. Bolos's commute.

Right before freshman year, I lived in Bloomingdale, which is in Dupage County (area code 60108).  For your information, Bloomingdale is a sizeable town, with about 22000 residents.  I went to church there, elementary school there, etc.  I was very familiar with the area.  When we moved to Wilmette, area code 60091, there were many stark contrasts in how the town was constructed.  My first thoughts were that Bloomingdale was much more spread out than Wilmette or Winnetka.  There, large groups of homes were built together, usually by a single housing contractor.  These subdivisions were separated by geographical barriers, such as a golf course, a four lane road, a shopping center, or a school.  There was also more yard space, which in conjunction with these other factors, makes Bloomingdale more spread out than Wilmette or Winnetka.

Some other differences are that Bloomingdale has more gas stations, more fast food restaurants, more large chain stores, and more strip malls.  There is also a large shopping mall in Bloomingdale, called Stratford Square Mall.  It is a very large mall by any standard, and I still could get lost there (but hey, I'm a male).  It also has less tall trees, and the ones that are tall are distanced more.  Since buildings and attractions are farther apart, most people don't walk or ride their bikes places.  There are more obese people there too.

It is obvious that Bloomingdale is a newer suburb, and was structured in an area where land was plentiful and flat, while Wilmette and Winnetka seem to have been built in an area where they had to cut down more trees for buildings and land was limited on two sides by Chicago and Lake Michigan.  Bloomingdale  has more town homes and apartment style living than Wilmette or Winnetka, but the majority of what I saw were single, unattached houses.  In the subdivision where I lived, there were four groups of living arrangements with a club house in the middle, where there are swimming pools, a workout room, and banquet halls.  Single homes, luxury homes, townhomes, and luxury townhomes, which were pretty much houses, but sort of small, and attached to three others.  They had two car garages and were relatively new.

Since Bloomingdale is a more recent suburb of Chicago, it has attracted greater diversity of cultures and races.  There are large populations of Italian, Indian, Irish, and Polish people.  Here, there are more Jewish people than I have ever met in one place.

There are more differences that I notice, but I think this post is long enough now.  Even though there are these differences, I would argue that Bloomingdale is still more similar to the North Shore than Belmont, where the truck logistic center is, or most of the other stops along Mr. Bolos's route.  It is clean, the sky is still blue, and the people are mostly middle class because of their education and job opportunities.  Do you think that my experience was totally different from yours if you lived on the North Shore for a longer time than I?  Have you lived anywhere else?  How was that different?  What can we learn from studying these different suburban communities?

Diswasher Blues

This weekend our family got a new dishwasher.  The old one was 8 years old and deposited sediment on our glassware and didn't clean our china.  It would have required a $300 repair bill, and then more over time, or we could buy a new one and experience the joy of not wasting water to pre-wash, run the dishwasher, and then re-wash the dishes.  Needless to say, we were able to buy a new one and had it installed by some men from the appliance store.

One of the men was Hispanic, and assisted an older guy (maybe in his 50s) who was Caucasian and did most of the attaching, drilling, and actual installation under the counter.  It occurred to me that they were probably not upper class citizens because they serviced appliances for others.  I immediately was ashamed of myself for thinking like that.  All my life I have been taught never to judge others, and that all other people are my equals before God, and therefore I should treat them as equals.  By thinking that they were in some way below me socioeconomically, I felt like I had violated not only what my parents had taught me, but my religion as well.

The same kind of feeling came over me at prom, when I noticed that all of the servers were wearing basic serving attire, and were Hispanic and didn't say much, only served us.  I felt like an upper class citizen.  But I don't think I should.  I shouldn't feel this way.

The strange thing to me is how recent this feeling has been.  Only since we started talking about class differences in American Studies have I begun to sense a difference in the way I live against the way others live.  I think that I never wanted to learn about any of these differences.  I shouldn't feel guilty or anything either.  I like the way I live.  I don't believe there is anything wrong with that.  So why bring it up?  I know that we should understand that the North Shore isn't the norm, but trust me, I get it.  Most people don't live a life of privileged.  I understand.  I even found THIS great article on class mobility (warning, its long) to learn about how it is harder to move up in social class.  I think the point has been driven in.  So why does the course have to amplify all of this?

Classy? Or not?

Today in class, we watched a documentary about how to act like an upper class person.  It was a little ridiculous, because as most of the class saw, the person who was trying to learn just acted awkward around the people she tried to socialize with.  She didn't seem comfortable, even though she looked like she fit in.  I looked for more tips on how to "be classy" online.  I figured that they would give basic tips to help a person in any social situation, and I was right.  HERE is what I found.

To me, being classy is just acting mostly refined and proper, as well as being clean and dressing with good taste. However, classy means "having class," which seems like saying that one has what it takes to be upper class.  According to the Wordle that Mr. Bolos made, upper class people have wealth, power, high levels of education, and use their wealth to buy expensive stuff.  None of that information was on the website about how to have class.  In fact, the only mention of money is in two out of the 16 tips.  Number 8 and Number 9.  8 says to be clean and look good.  Wear clothes and accessories that flatter your body.  Number 9 says to not be a slave to trends, and don't look high-maintenance.  So one says to spend money to look good and the other says not to spend excessively.

I find this advice to be so neutral that it almost doesn't help at all.  It fails to advise the public about how to do upper-class-ish things, like shop, go places, not act awkwardly, and assimilate to an upper-class lifestyle.  Also, it doesn't mention anything about race.  It doesn't say that most non-whites will most likely have a hard time fitting in to a white-dominated upper class.  I believe that this is to maintain neutrality, but in doing so, important information is lost.  While this one article may not be the best to analyze in this manner, I believe that it would be more helpful to give advice other than basic guidelines on how to interact with others.  How does this article and its problems/solutions reflect our societal class system?

Standardized Testing: A Necessary Evil

Today the Junior class just finished the second day of Prairie State Testing.  Let me tell ya', it was quite a test.  One of the most difficult parts was sitting for 8 hours in the same room, in the same desk even, performing the same repetitious task.  Read the passage.  Read the question.  Find the answer.  Fill in a circle with a number 2 soft-lead pencil.  (If you use any other writing utensil, you clearly have a hearing issue because the proctor had to say it about 10 times over the course of the test.)  I personally found the monotony almost mind numbing, and I took a nap as soon as I got home.  While I realize that taking this test (which includes a full ACT, with writing) is necessary for college admissions and maybe even graduation in the state of Illinois, I had to wonder why they needed this kind of test.

I looked on ACT's website to find out what the intended purpose of their test was.  A link can be found HERE.  One interesting fact that I found out was that ACT also makes tests to test the workforce of a company for competency.  I found that the purpose of the ACT was the following: "The ACT^® test assesses high school students' general educational development and their ability to complete college-level work."  Now, I have to wonder, is the ACT actually the best way to measure a student's total cumulation of education?  It seems as if it only tests certain subject areas.  It mostly tests one's ability to read and comprehend it, as well as basic grammatical skills and some math skills.  If that is all that one learns in high school, isn't school then a waste of time?  Those skills are important for college, but that's not all I have learned so far.  I have learned more than what was on the test, like how to think critically, analyze sections of text or actions, how to make movies, and how to interact socially with other students.  Are these things not important? (Ok, most colleges probably won't ask us to make movies.)


The Prairie State day two test was even more frustrating, because it asked us questions that would "test our readiness for the workforce."  It asked us things like how many people should be in a picture if you and your 6 friends wanted to have a picture taken.  I understand that in some parts of Illinois there may be a school where the student struggle with this, but I don't think that this kind of test is necessary to show that.  Why couldn't colleges be content with a copy of our transcript and a detailed report of what kinds of classes each student took, along with a school's reputation?  Why must students be reduced to numbers?

The Future is Now, but Why Weren't We Here Earlier?

This weekend I watched a fascinating documentary for the second time called Who Killed the Electric Car?  It traces the history of an all-electric car produced by General Motors in 1996 and literally destroyed by its makers  by 2005.  The film researches the causes of the death of the electric car at this time by interviewing many people involved in its sale, distribution, and production, as well as politicians and people who influenced the decisions of CARB, the air resources board in California.  It turns out that a mixture of forces, including Big Oil companies, Big car companies, and government organizations failing to keep the car manufacturers to a high standard killed the electric car.  One interesting thing is to see how other car companies killed their electric vehicle programs from the same era.  I found a lot of information about that here.

However, each of these groups has a very strong reason to kill the electric car: profits.  But there is one factor that was completely unexpected to me.  Hydrogen power.  For years, car companies have been researching hydrogen power as a source of clean energy to power their vehicles.  For over 15 years, researchers have said that the technology to produce such a car is about 15-20 years away.  The issues with this technology are that it is not very durable, uses more energy than battery powered cars, and lacks infrastructure to support it.  However, the technology for battery powered electric vehicles exists now.

The problem is, we should already have battery powered cars on the road!  It is only because the car companies and oil companies killed the program that we don't already have access to the technology that we should.  As Chelsea Sexton said in the movie, "This is the technology of the future, but it shouldn't have to be. It should be the technology of now."

Working on Writing

In the process of writing my Junior Theme, I have thoroughly enjoyed researching electric cars.  I love to find out new information and to understand just what happened when, and all the chemsitry of why each battery works even better than the previous.  However, that is not the point of this.  While I love to gather information, it will be nothing unless I can express what I learned in a way my audience will understand.  Frequently I have a hard time coming up with the right words to explain everything that is in my head, which is why I see Junior Theme as so daunting.  But its time to bite the proverbial bullet and just do it.  So here is a sample intro I'm working on.  Please comment and tell me what you think.

The year is 2100.  What will it look like?  Will the world be a green utopia with flying cars and happy people, or will we languish on a destroyed planet filled with our own waste?  Largely, the answer to that question lies with our choices of energy.  Out of all the energy that humans use, about 30 percent of that energy is used for transportation, so it is imperative that transportation pollutes the least amount possible. (eia) One alternative to gasoline is an electric car that runs off of battery power.  While there are many benefits and advocates of using this type of transportation, it has been stopped from having clear successes every time it was introduced to the market.  Even today, when citizens of nearly every country agree that global warming is a serious problem, electric cars were still denied access to the roads.  The electric car didn't succeed in the United States because of unrealistic consumer expectations, lack of infrastructure, shortsighted companies, and poor government decisions.

Any thoughts?  Maybe a clear plastic binder will help... ?

The Research Process: Up, then Down Some More.

So far, my research has been semi-fruitful.  I read my whole book over break, and I have a bunch of great articles, but I realized today that most of what I've been reading towards will not answer my why question.  So now I am doing a speed-research.  I've found about 7 more sources, in addition to the others, which I have converted to my goal.  But I still don't really have a person to interview, nor have I looked at questions yet.  This is becoming a little stressful.  However, I do have some interesting information concerning my theme.

Ford came out with a small electric delivery van around the same time that GM came out with it's EV1.  Only 100 of these vans were built.  They were not produced because the sodium sulfur battery sometimes burst into flame during charging.  That seems like a bit of a problem.

Ford then stopped looking into batteries and started investing in hydrogen powered vehicles.  The problem is that hydrogen fuel cells are fragile, and the alternatives to them are much easier to continue in.

Basically, we are nearing the end of our ability to make gasoline more efficient.  But Europe has changed their cars to diesel, which is more efficient.  While diesel does produce some pretty nasty gases, there is technology available to sequester them, even use them to help power the vehicle!  That wouldn't take any additional infrastructure; we already have gas stations that offer diesel.  Also, bio-fuels are greener and can be blended in with gasoline to help improve greenness, performance, and doesn't take additional infrastructure.

Basically, the car companies don't want to produce an electric car until the infrastructure to support the car and fuel it are in place, and there is a significant demand for them.  The infrastructure won't get there until there are actually cars on the road that need that service.  It's a vicious cycle.  And while hydrogen seems like the greenest and most helpful, it requires different kinds of filling stations, new technology and new mindsets of consumers.  And that just isn't viable right now.  But we can take steps, like using hybrid technology.  Would you be willing to buy an electric car, knowing that the infrastructure to support your car would pretty much just be in a plug in your house?

Why Can't We Be Color Blind?

I was on vacation and listened to a song called Color Blind, by Michael W. Smith.  The lyrics really made me think about what we teach about race.  So here is a link to where I got them, and here they are.

(Michael W. Smith / Wayne Kirkpatrick)

There's not a world of difference
Out in the world tonight
Between this world of people
Red, Yellow, Black and White
But instead of riding a rainbow of love
We still are fighting with prejudice gloves
Of anger
With something to claim
But nothing to gain so
Chorus:
Why can't we be color blind
You know we should
Be living together
And we'd find a reason and rhyme
I know we would
'Cause we could see better
If we could be color blind

Somebody's just assuming
He's up to nothing good
'Cause he's not like the others
There goes the neighborhood
What kind of world are we living in
When we judge a man by the tone of his skin
It's crazy
'Cause he has a heart
Like you have a heart and

Chorus

Bridge:
It'd be so fine
To be color blind
To open our eyes
And see color blind

I know this world would be a better place
The only race would be the human race
All of those barriers would be erased
Why can't we be color blind

Chorus


What Smith brings up here is a very interesting concept.  That instead of looking at people as different, we see them as the same.  This seems to go against the normal educational pattern.  Most teachers teach that we should celebrate differences.  But what if we just treated each other like fellow human beings?  What would the world be like?  Also, the idea that becoming blind to one thing actually opens up our eyes and allows us to see seems like a contradiction, but after a little thought, it seems true.  We would see people as equals, without the visual barrier of color, and the best part?  We wouldn't even know the difference, and would treat every person equally.


But what would others think?  Would they like having their cultural heritage and differences from others ignored or not noticed?  Would that be a big deal in comparison to the positive treatment that all people would receive?

Batteries

So for my Junior Theme topic, I decided to research why electric cars have recieved a lot of opposition in the past and especially in the last 40 years or so.  And one of the reasons why it is so difficult to market an electric car are the batteries.  In the past, only lead acid batteries were used.  They are very heavy, expensive, and have short lives, but they deliver a  lot of charge and are rechargable.  Since this clearly isn't going to work in the future, there are a number of other alternatives.

Henry Ford had an idea for a sodium sulphur battery, but it only works at about 600 degrees F, and the containment device for this battery would be too heavy, but it would give a lot of energy.

Here is one of the lithium ion batteries that will power the Nissian Leaf.

I read a great article about a Nickle Metal Hydride battery that would give long life, lots of power, and is pretty light.  There is another battery that has been a huge success in the mobile communications business, the lithium ion battery.  They are light, give pretty good charge, and last a while and are also environmentally friendly.  I read in an article by MIT that describes how they are making the lithium ion battery even more powerful and longer lasting.  The only problem with all new technology is that it will cost a lot for the first few models.

In addition to these technologies, there is also a lot of research done so that we can move towards thin film battery technologies.  This will allow batteries to be printed on plastic or metal sheets and then used to power items.  Using this technology, electric cars could go up to 4x the distance that they can now. (The leaf is marketed that it can go 100 miles on a single charge)

So would you buy one of these cars that may be a little on the expensive side?  I mean, wouldn't it benefit us all?  Or would the cost of all the things involved keep you away from the new technology?  Would a hybrid work?

Who Should Choose?

In the Wall Street Journal, I read this article about how a school in California was changing.  Basically, it was a really bad school.  Less than half of the students graduate, and only about 3% are elegible to attend California's public universities.  When I looked up, "Compton, CA," the town where this school is located, I saw that the top two related searches were ,"Compton ghettos," and, "Compton gangs."  No wonder the schools are bad.  Notice that the photo is from streetgangs.com.

So since the schools are so bad, the parents decided to petition the district to invite a charter school to take over their failing public school.  Needless to say, the public school administration and teachers and all the people involved are not happy.  This is the first example of "parent trigger" scholl reform.

The school is fighting the democracy of the people as well as it can.  It has urged parents to take back their petitions.  Next they sort of cheated.  They came up with a new petition processing method, which requires each person to show up at the school at certain appointed times and show IDs and stuff in order for the signature to be valid.  Then a judge issued a restraining order on the verification process, because it must have seemed just a bit unconstitutional to him (it certainly does to me!), and then the school disqualified all of the petitions on technicalities.  Just because they weren't all stapled or something.  It seems pretty shady to me.

Shouldn't the people get the right to say how they want their children educated?  And if the public school isn't up to snuff, shouldn't the people get to choose a better education for them?  Or should the government be allowed to say how people are allowed to be educated?  This seems like an abridgement of some rights to me, maybe not civil rights, but definitely some rights.

Free speech and Copyrights

I get mail from a certain website that posts information about iPhone updates, products, software, and mostly jailbreak information.  What is Jailbreaking an iDevice you may ask?  Basically, someone who owns an iPhone or iPod or iPad can run a program on their computer and device that allows you to run other programs, apps, and such, as well as change the appearance of the stuff on the screen.

For the past few weeks I have been receiving e-mails about controversy surrounding a hacker who's online name is Geohot.  He develops jailbreak software to jailbreak all kinds of devices, like the PS3.  He is being sued by Sony for helping software pirates, claiming that his actions would allow people to play pirated games.  Geohot claims that he supports people who want to create their own games, not those who steal games.  In any case, Geohot says that he never hacked a device that he didn't own or that somebody didn't ask him to hack.  But with so much gaming being done online, is a device that you own really yours?  Should you be able to do anything you want with what you bought?  I think so, but is that legal?  As long as it doesn't harm anyone, I don't see the issue.

Save the Written History!

I was reading this article that my dad saved for me from the paper, and it was about a kind of graffiti.  A teacher encouraged his students to write their name and a favorite quote on the classroom wall every year.  Some students came back and saw their names on the wall and were inspired, others were inspired by what their predecessors had written.  In any event, the teacher died of cancer, and the school is planning to rennovate the building, including the walls of that classroom.  I can't get a good picture, so please go to the link and look at the slide show and the descriptions.  Very interesting stuff.

The article goes on to say that in the past, such as at a certain ROTC center, they cut the signatures on the wall and part of the wall away and brought it with them to the new location so that the people on the wall would still be honored.  The school decided not to save the wall, but to make a record of the cinder block wall by photographing each block.

Does this seem like an appropriate solution?  Isn't there something more secure about having your name printed on concrete as opposed to paper or special cardstock?  Paper is easily destroyed.  What will new members of classes do?  Will they get an opportunity to immortalize their names for a few years?  Will the tradition stop?  Is this decision appropriate?

Deconstructing Wisconsin

During the debates over the past few weeks about the Wisconsin strikes, I have been able to look at what is going on and what the problem seems to be.  I just read two articles about this subject.  The article by USA today seems to lean towards the side of the republicans and the state of Wisconsin in this issue.  Governor Scott Walker says that he wants to balance the budget of the state by cutting the funding from a number of government funded organizations like Medicaid, as well as the salaries of government employees, and removing some of their collective bargaining rights.  Collective bargaining rights are simply the rights that an employee has to request higher pay or better benefits from their employer.  Some of these rights are being taken away from the unions, leaving only the right to request higher wages and strike for them.  In addition, certain regulations are being placed on unions that would cut their income by about 1/3.

Now, some of these measures make sense.  I  think that bills to cut spending are great.  Very necessary, any time.  I think that since only government employees are the ones affected, and since they receive pretty good benefits and pay, it is permissible to cut the ability to bargain for more, but only if they concede to not get rid of too many in the near future.  In addition, I believe that it is ridiculous that employees would not have to pay into their own pension and medical funds.  It seems like the government is just giving away the taxpayer's money and other people get it for free.  That doesn't seem right to me.

However, there are problems with this kind of law.  It seems like the governor and his party have ulterior motives that are not expressed publicly.  Weakening the unions would weaken the democratic party, which would weaken the opposition to the republicans.  This kind of power struggle is what has felled many a good country in the past, and I would hate to see a vicious fight for power between the two parties ensue.  While I see necessary spending cuts on the surface, I think that trying to pass laws that would hurt what makes America unique (democracy and the ability to lobby the government) is not right.

So where is the middle ground?  Can two parties that conflict find a compromise?  We'll soon find out, no matter the case.

Passion and Compromise: Why the need?

During the presentations this week on Reconstruction, it was very interesting to see what different groups focused on fixing the most.  For example, some groups focused on fixing the economy while others worked more on the rights of the freedmen.  Our group focused primarily on the economy, trying to create a stable working environment for everyone, and figuring that equal rights would come shortly thereafter.  But what made the groups choose these most important topics?

I know that in my mind, the economy is very important.  I enjoy learning about the carrots and sticks that the government can use to manipulate people and businesses.   I know that others are passionate about equal rights and are fascinated by the treatment of different groups throughout history.  However, I believe that a plan with only one aspect in mind will fail.  It is necessary to have a compilation of different facets of reconstruction and rebuilding in order for it to succeed.  By using our passions we can make something great, but by combining them with others and compromising them within reason, we can think up something great, that may actually work!

Racial Tokenism again??

Today I was looking at my valentines, a few of which were Disney Princesses.  It was a little strange, but I started to remember what the cards used to look like when I was little, and what they look like now.  The way I remember a typical Disney princess card looked something like this.

But now, there is a new face.  Disney's most recent princess movie was The Princess and the Frog, and the main character, Tiana looks like this.

The year was 2009 when the first African American princess appeared.  I noticed her as the one who stood out on the card.  There were two white princesses, from some original movies, like Snow White (1937), Sleeping Beauty (1959), Cinderella (1950), The Little Mermaid (1989), or the most recent being Beauty and the Beast (1991), and then a very recent addition to the princesses.  The princesses that everybody recognizes are the white ones.  Even Jasmine (1992), while sometimes shown on these cards, is not as familiar as say, Ariel. (It is debatable whether Mulan (1998) is a princess per say.)  Why the famous princesses do not stay on the cards I would argue is an obvious depiction of racial tokenism.  Thanks to those who gave me the valentines that inspired this post.

Facebook is "On Land" for most

In American Studies this week, we touched on the fact that when Huck Finn is on the raft, he is free to be himself with Jim, but when he steps onto land he feels the need to put on a mask and fit in with society, by pretending that Jim is his slave of some kind.  In the same way, I find that Facebook, and possibly the entire internet is not a place we can feel free to be ourselves.

On Facebook, I have never seen a post about an injury, emotional trauma, or relationship problems.  I see some posts that look like they were taken out of a melancholy book on relationships, saying things like, "I thought if someone breaks you, someone will come and fix it. But I was wrong. Sometimes, they come to break you more and make you feel the pain twice as before.." HERE is a link to Facebook so that you can check your own friends' posts (if you don't already have it open).  But that really doesn't tell any readers about what is happening in their life.  Most posts are completely superficial, dealing with homework, scheduling, and even the weather.  My own Facebook profile is equally boring, so it seems as if nobody is comfortable sharing what is actually going on in their lives.


The question is, is there a raft?  Is there somewhere where a person doesn't have a few billion people looking at their words or actions and where they don't have to worry about conformity?  If people put on a mask at school, on the internet, at clubs or sports, and maybe even for their parents, do they become that mask?  And is Facebook becoming what the creators intended it to be?  Is having 4000 friends and conversation completely devoid of meaning really the idea?

Why Only Discuss One Race?

In American Studies, we spent a lot of time these past few days talking about the way African Americans are treated and given attention in the book, Huckleberry Finn, as well as common stereotypes about them in modern culture.  However, by listening to our discussions, it seems like stereotypes only exist toward African-Americans.  Throughout the existence of the United States, there have been movements and racist views against many different people groups including: Japanese, Chinese, African, Italian, German, Irish, Jewish, and Latin Americans.  HERE is an article from Wikipedia about the history of racism in the United States.  It shows some cartoons that promoted racism, and an explanation of each era in which racism was applied to each people group.

So if all of these races have stereotypes, cartoons, and jokes about them, why do we only discuss racism against African Americans?  Clearly none of the other people groups were slaves, but currently Latin Americans and Middle Eastern Americans (among possibly some others) are also thought poorly of by some other Americans.  All of these peoples are portrayed differently by the media, and we could analyze any of them.  Cartoons about Asian Americans are abundant from the 1890s as well as during World War Two.  So why just analyze one group?

What ifs of Reconstruction

Last night, I went to a swim meet at Maine South.  The water was frigid and most of our team didn't have towels- we forgot them at New Trier.  However, I knew that when I got home, I could take a shower with a lot of hot water, and then go to sleep in a warm and comfortable bed.  This was not the case for the newly released slaves in the mid 1800s.

When the slaves were released, they owned nothing, and the newly passed 13th amendment did not have provisions for the welfare of the slaves- ie, the food, shelter, education and livlihood of these newly proclaimed human beings.  They were simply turned out to whatever their fate may have been.  But, the freedmen were quickly hired again by their former masters and African Americans were killed and beaten all throughout the South regardless of their condition.  On letter from a former slave who is being asked to return to his old master can be found HERE.  One of the most interesting things is how Jourdan Anderson addresses his former master very politely, yet sets a requirement that is almost impossible to meet.

So, the freedmen were treated in an inhumane way, but what could have been done differently?  The whole idea of emancipation was not new, but getting it accepted by the white members of the United States of America was very hard anyway.  Should they have been given more rights, or would that have sparked even more anti-African American sentiment?  Or would less rights have been a better idea so that the long time citizens could ease into the idea of African Americans being human beings?  But it is clearly seen in Anderson's letter that he was thriving with his new family and that he had learned to read and write.  Bigger questions can be who should yield when the class in power clearly wants to keep it?  Is government set up correctly to handle issues where people are being harmed every instant?  Can it be fixed?

Interesting article

Here is a fascinating article written by the guy who writes the popular comic strip, "Doonsbury."  I read it in the Wall Street Journal.  HERE it is.  I hope you enjoy.  Any discussion on it sounds good, but I don't think that this counts as a real blog post...

My Boyfriend's Back

This weekend, I played with the New Trier Pep Band at the Second City performance and it was a lot of fun.  One of the songs that we were thinking about playing is called, My Boyfriend's Back, by the Angels, and American girl band.  The tune was written and became a hit in 1963.  It is a catchy tune that a wind band can play pretty well, and it got stuck in my head.  At home, I listened to it on YouTube, and I found that the lyrics seemed to fit what we talked about in class very accurately.  If you want to see the lyrics, click HERE.

In the song, it seems like the boyfriend was gone and the girl was harassed by another guy when he was gone.  The girl who narrates the song believes that her boyfriend will in some way be her hero and save her from this other male character.

This raises the question of what kind of gender roles were prevalent in the 1960s, just as we talked in class about the gender roles during the times that Huckleberry Finn is set in.  We talked about how Mark Twain shows his disapproval of these traditional roles by creating characters that defy that stereotype and yet are very positive an helpful characters in the book.

I doubt that the girls in the band actually had a heroic, "perfect" boyfriend such as described in the song, who fights for her and would beat up everybody who tried to take her from him.  Even the loyalty that the narrator felt toward the boyfriend doesn't seem realistic.  Instead, I believe that it is more likely that the singers were pointing out a typical stereotype, of a perfect relationship, and mocking it because so many relationships of theirs or their friends went wrong.

A similar discussion topic could be the roles of women in classic songs, because usually they are portrayed as objects.  Even when women sing the songs, I don't know if the lyrics are more equal to each gender because of the norm that has been set by years of popular songs.

A Hostage in Winnetka?

A few weeks ago, as us students know, there was a hostage scare in Winnetka.  A teacher was in his car listening to hip hop music, he "butt-dialed" his wife, and she called the police because she thought he was in personal danger.  That much we know.  A short article telling a little more about the situation can be read HERE.  The SWAT team was involved and lots of police.  It is over and all of the law enforcement interviewed said that it was a good exercise and practice for if such an occasion would occur for real.

However, this brings up larger questions.  The man's wife described the words she heard as garbled and, "gangster-like."  One has to wonder why the man had the music cranked up to such a high volume that she could hear the words at all, and why he was listening to that kind of music.  Clearly it was within his rights to listen to whatever kind of music he wants, but the fact remains that the music he chose scared his wife badly enough to call the police and affected the entire North Shore by having lockdowns, discussions, and more drills.  Wouldn't it be worth it to pick less offensive music, not just for others, but for your own mental health?

Meta Post

Over these past few months of blogging, I noticed some trends in my writing styles.  I have become more comfortable blogging, and my blogs are not very short yet.  In the future, I will work on bringing up topics in a succinct manner.

The biggest difference in my writing has come in my writing process.  Instead of looking for a relative news article, I choose instead to continue an in-class discussion on the blog and then find a news article that relates to it.  I comment using the author's point of view as well.  Since I don't always have many opportunities in class to voice my opinion, I enjoy being able to say my point of view on the blog and then get responses as well.  Since many topics in class are controversial, I have no problem picking a side and then continuing the discussion.

The post that generated the most comments was called, Do We Understand?  I stated a point of view that was contrary to many of the ideas that were discussed in class, and that showed through in the comments.  It turns out that I needed to revise my opinion, which I did in the comments.

Another improvement in my blogging is that recently I have not asked the reader many direct questions, but instead have left it more open ended so that they can comment at leisure.  However, I have been disappointed at my readers.  It seems that they don't visit my blog much, or don't leave comments, and I wish they would.  I try to make my blog interesting and opinionated so that they can have something to agree with or disagree with, but I haven't received many comments recently.

Adulthood. Where and How?

In class the other day, we talked about adulthood and how it seems to take longer to get there nowadays.  We read two articles which can be found HERE and HERE.  The first talks about how more people are waiting longer to get married, have kids, and even finish school.  The second is a chart showing a traditional breakdown of ages and their definitions, among other things.

In the first article, it says that some adults got married very early, and then told their kids that they should wait to get married because it is hard work and younger people aren't ready yet.  I was impressed that people had the patience to wait for the right person and circumstances for marriage.  Popular culture portrays a couple getting married as young as 21 and having a turbulent relationship afterwards.  It seems that realistically, many do have enough self-control to not get in a relationship that they will regret.

The second article shows the important issues that each age group faces.  However, how can one person define the conflicts that any other one person faces?  For many, the age ranges may not fit correctly.  There are definitely 18 year olds who do not know how to handle the pressures of school, despite being in it for so long.  In addition, there are people who are very old (80 years old and higher) who are still working and leaving a legacy for younger generations.  I think that some kids may be very advanced or pushed ahead psychosocially, and be interested in marrying at a young age, maybe as early as graduation out of high school.  How can these people fit a model?  Are they somehow unstable because they are ahead or behind the "normal" according to this chart?  Can this chart even be applicable at all?

The part that I didn't notice in either of these articles is an attempt to define adulthood.  In our class discussion, we decided that adulthood comes when a person takes on monetary and mental responsibility for their actions, choices, and lifestyle, as well as the ability to command some respect from others.  Responsibility and respect.  I can imagine that a middle-aged man would still seem childish if he didn't command respect and shoulder responsibility.  I can't imagine a middle aged woman acting that way, but I'm sure it could happen.  Can you have an adult who doesn't "act their age"?  Even if all the normal hoops are passed through, (marriage, kids, a job, buying a house, etc.) I think that a legal adult can still act childish and face the psychosocial conflicts that a 12-year-old might face.  In the same way, a person who is still very young, like Huckleberry Finn, can shoulder great responsibility and be more adult than the aforesaid example.  So, can a system be placed on these cases, or any case at all?

Science or Faith?

This weekend, my dad and I watched a very interesting movie called Contact.  It was about how a radio researcher finds evidence for life in outer space, how a signal is received from the other beings, and how she eventually travels to the other part of the universe to meet one of these other beings.  However, the irony lies in that she asks the people to believe that she actually went to space when all of the evidence from the monitors shows that she didn't go anywhere.  She is very skeptical and only believes in what she can test.  Another of the movie's characters is a religious man, who believes in things that don't necessarily have testable evidence.  Both the religious figure and the scientist ask others to believe them only on faith.

I find this topic very interesting.  The idea that at some point, science becomes almost religious is fascinating, and I found THIS article, which explains the concept very well.

The author writes that in science, the laws of physics are considered untouchable.  They are to be used, not questioned.  He writes, "Therefore, to be a scientist, you had to have faith that the universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin."  This idea is very similar to a religion, because in many religions, people have faith that an all-powerful deity of some kind presides over the universe.  This deity is to be interacted with, not questioned.  Both science and religion are based on the idea that some kind of immovable force or set of laws exists that is beyond human control.

It seems like, at many points in our lives, whether a person claims to be religious or not, a certain amount of faith is required.  The truth is, unless we have all knowledge, we will have to attempt to understand the rest on faith.

The Most Recent Threat to America: A Ham Sandwich

This week, I learned the hard way that America doesn't trifle when someone wants to go over the border with food.  Our family was in Aruba for Christmas, and on the day that my dad and I were scheduled to return to the US, we packed sandwiches.  We were going to be traveling from about 1:30 to 11:00 at night, taking two airplane rides and having a connection in the middle for two hours.  We needed food, but didn't want to pay for dinner at the airport, so we packed sandwiches.  I had ham, cheese, and salami on two sandwiches and my dad had turkey on one and ham on another.  We also packed lettuce and grapes.

In order to get on our flight, we had to pass through two security points.  One for exiting Aruba and one for entering the United States, even though we were still in Aruba.  When we got to the United States Customs counter, the agent asked us if we were bringing in any food items as part of a list of questions that they have to ask everyone.  Dad replied that we had some sandwiches.  He asked what kind of sandwiches we were bringing.  We said ham and cheese.  He replied that we couldn't bring ham into the US, and he sent us with an expert to another area, where the lady asked us again what kinds of sandwiches we had and we answered in the same way.  She explained that pork and beef products are not allowed to be brought into the United States.  We asked if we could eat the sandwiches there.

She said, "No, or else we would have everyone eating right here."  We asked if we could take the offending ham slices off the sandwich and take them with us.  She said no because the ham touched the bread already.  She confiscated our sandwiches, lettuce, grapes and left us with one sandwich, the turkey and cheese. 

Why does it matter whether we eat the sandwiches outside the sliding doors or inside?  Just 100 feet in the other direction, we could have eaten the sandwiches, but once we entered the building, we weren't allowed in.  In addition, we would have eaten the sandwiches before we entered the United States.  If the authorities were worried about diseases in the meat, well, I ate pork or beef for nearly every meal in Aruba for 5 days.  Would a few slices of ham make a difference?  For clarification on the intent of this law, I looked it up on the customs website.  The website can be found HERE.

The government is worried about diseases entering the United States.  Here's the problem.  Ham is a processed meat.  It is cured, salted, and cooked until no disease could possibly live.  In addition, I was not going to rub the ham on a pig on a farm and try to get it sick, nor was I going to plant it in the ground an hope that the 'diseases' would get into the soil.  In this circumstance, I do not understand the law.  I can see how it could be important to keep uncooked meat out of the US to prevent disease, but I didn't have a dead pig in my baggage.  Just a sandwich.

In American Studies we learned to think critically about whether laws are reasonable and how they are enforced De Juro and De Facto.  In this case, I think the law was unreasonably enforced.