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?