It's America

American Studies Day and Junior Theme Reflection

2010-05-21T21:37:00.004-05:00

As I was thinking about American Studies Day (which was awesome), and doing our reflections in class, I thought about Maria Finitzo's work and how it relates to ours, specifically with junior theme. Our junior themes, which we recently finished and turned in, required us to invest a topic we found ... interesting. I know for me, the huge freedom we were given in choosing a topic put more pressure on me to find one I was actually curious/excited about. But I did, and ended up researching genetic engineering, a topic I had previously no knowledge about. We had to come up with a why question and investigate our topic through a variety of sources, without taking a side on the current issue (as many of the topics people chose had sides and controversies). After our discussion with Ms. Finitzo, I realized the process she went through in creating her documentary on stem cell research was very very similar to what we went through, like it was her own "junior theme". Her task was to illustrate stem cell controversy and how it effects us today, without showing her bias and by incorporating many different voices. Just from what we saw on thursday, she had 2 personal stories intertwined together and she interviewed a Catholic bishop. What really impressed me though, was the dedication that Maria Finitzo took to submerge herself in her topic, research and understand it, so that she was sort of an "expert" on stem cell research, just as we were on our topics after completing our junior themes. Ms. Finitzo was extremely knowledgeable on stem cells and a lot of the science, and was able to answer everyone's questions during the discussion. The work that Maria Finitzo does to create intriguing documentaries mirrors what we are taught to do in American Studies, in the regards to thinking critically about the world around us, asking probing questions, and investigating issues that are important to us.

Overall, I really enjoyed American Studies day, especially the Slam Poets at the end of the day. They were exciting and engaging and really wrapped up the day nicely. I think its cool that the day showcased a variety of talents - a journalist, a film maker, slam poets, and student/teacher panels.

Facebook...for first graders

2010-05-21T21:06:00.002-05:00

I recently stumbled across an article on Yahoo, "For Children, a Social Network With Training Wheels" (from the New York Times), about a new social networking site intended for children age 6-10 and their parents. The site, Togetherville, was created by Mandeep Singh Dhillon and according to the article, aims to " "keep children safe from cyberbullying and other online dangers while allowing them to become comfortable with online interaction". Dhillon designed the site so that it is very safe and parent/children friendly. Parents can create social circles of their friends and friends of their children, and choose which applications (games, art projects) that their children can do. Furthermore, kids can comment on their peers posts using preselected phrases.

Mr. Dhillon believes that it is important for children to develop these online social skills at an early age, as our world is becoming more and more technologically advanced. In "The Future Brain", Ray Kurzweil argues that technology is increasing exponentially, and in class, we have discussed our society as becoming more and more data driven and influenced by the media.

But is social networking for first graders appropriate and or necessary?

In the article I read, Vicky Rideout, who studied children's media use for the Kaiser Family Foundation, states, "I'm not sure what the benefit is. Believe me, kids will learn how to use technology and media when the time comes". But has the time come? At 6 years old is it important to develop online relationships and learn how to post pictures and communicate successfully on the web? After all, one could argue that it is just preparing them for Facebook and Twitter, but in a manner that is safe and controlled. But personally, I think that children should be learning how to foster real relationships with people, because interacting with humans in real life is an important skill that will be useful and needed in all aspects of a humans development. It just seems healthier for me for kids to be having playdates, playing outside in the backyard or going to the park, as opposed to sitting inside "interacting" with people online.

Image from: http://wiredpen.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/fb_togetherville_05a.png

Junior Theme update 2

2010-05-05T19:38:00.002-05:00

As I am trying to edit and revise my paper, I am realizing how hard it is to cut things. In the beginning, I found it extremely hard to condense all of my information and pick the best quotes and support to prove my point. Now, going back, I am trying to make my paper to the point and sharp. I cut out one paragraph that strayed too far from my thesis and the goal of my paper, but I am still worried that within the nine pages-ish that the reader will get lost, so I am trying to make my thesis map as clear as possible and keep everything on track.

It was also difficult to choose the best order for my paragraphs to go in. I wanted it to be logical and flow well so I played around with switching some paragraphs. I also realized how many sources I have, and still others that I didn't get a chance to use in my paper, but still helped guide me throughout the research process.

Jt update

2010-04-16T12:50:00.002-05:00

So far I think the hardest part about junior theme has been coming up with a direction/focus of my paper and my thesis idea. I have been finding lots of articles and at first I was a little overwhelemed about all the information I had and how to narrow it and make connections with all of it. I have found lots of articles about the history of eugenics in the US, but I am still looking for more articles about genetic engineering in our society today. I am also reading Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, which is very pertinent to my topic. It is fairly disturbing but really good!
The question my paper is centered on is why are we trying to engineer the composition of American society? And my tentative answer to that question is: While historically the American goverment has tried to shape the characteristics of society in order to maintain a certain image of America, today engineering (need a different word there) is occuring on an individual basis because we strive for perfection. I know that this is a little wordy right now and there are some words I need to change to make it a little clearer. I want my paper to reflect the fact that, in the past, the government set in place certain laws and restrictions because they were trying to control how are country looked - they wanted it to be "white", "intelligent", and "American". The laws were all set in place for the improvement of society as a whole. Now however, most people would agree that using eugenics to shape society such as allowing all humans to design their children, would not be a good idea for society and could possibly reflect a distopia (like in Brave New World). Yet, on an individual basis, parents are competitive. And they want what's best for their child. They strive to create the best baby they can, and if technologies could make their baby prettier, smarter, more athletic... why wouldn't they?

Junior Theme

2010-04-09T12:43:00.003-05:00

After much switching around, I finally found a topic that I am interested in researching and writing about. I started off thinking that I was going to do my junior theme on alternative medicine and how it has increasingly become a part of healthcare in the US. However, there were some complications with that topic so I moved on to healthcare and the new reform. After thinking about it and beginning to do some research, I decided that topic was not interesting enough for me, but now I have my final topic/idea. I am going to focus on the image we have in American of the "perfect" or "ideal" American family and how new science technologies -- like choosing genes and designing babies -- is changing the way we view the American family. I do not have a why question yet, though. However, I really find the topics of eugenics and designer babies extremely interesting!

Recess... with rules and a teacher

2010-03-16T12:52:00.004-05:00

According to an article I read, in an elementary school in Newark, recess is no longer a break for the students - instead they spend the 30 minutes under the control of a recess coach, who, with a whistle around her neck, makes all of the kids participate in organized activities. No sitting, no relaxing, no "just talking with friends". Under this new program, implemented at Broadway Elementary School, injuries, bullying, and disciplinary referals are occurring less, as the children are no longer left alone to be excessively wild, hog equiptment, or fight. Supporters of the program advocate that it is helping children stay healthy and be social. Yet when I read this article, I didn't really think about these positive aspects of giving up recess for a more gym-like class. Instead, I feel like the definition of recess goes against the structure provided by the school's new program. Kids have to sit still all day, learn, and demonstrate appropriate behavior. They need time to relax without having to continue to participate under rules, in a structured recess period. What do you think? Do the benefits of this new program out way the negatives?

I thought about this idea of structure and how it applies to New Trier. I know that there are students here who go without lunch periods, take early bird classes and then fill their schedules to the brim with classes. New Trier even permits students to skip lunch (although they do not recommend it). I think that our school and our culture value structure, because it seems to equate with productivity. And not that its a bad thing - we absolutely need structure in our lives in order to function and thrive. But I also believe that people can be productive during brief unstructured periods, or breaks. Do you think this is true as it applies to our school and culture?

Picture: http://images.allmoviephoto.com/2001_Recess:_School%27s_Out/recess_school%27s_out_013.jpg

Everyone's doing it

2010-03-14T15:40:00.004-05:00

It seems like teen pregnancy is becoming more and more apparent in the media - with the Secret Life of the American Teenager, The Pregnancy Pact, MTV's 16 and Pregnant and Teen Mom, the once taboo subject of teenage pregnancy is now making itself comfortable in our American culture. Celebrities too, such as Jamie Lynn Spears and Bristol Palin, are also taking teen pregnancy public. For the most part, shows such as the Secret Life and 16 and Pregnant show the heart break and struggles with such challenges at a young age. These shows claim to work to educate other adolescent girls so they can make smarter, more informed decisions, and not limit themselves. Yet, by focusing so much on the issue, are we making something rare and inconvenient seem commonplace and normal? Or are these TV shows sending the message that 'yep, I can survive with a baby in highschool and If Ican do it, so can you'? I personally think it's good that we have gotten the issue out in the open, so it is easier for parents to have conversations with their daughters about the realities of sex and babies in highschool. And the fact that these series' show the messier and heartbreaking sides to the story is beneficial. But what I wonder if other people get the same message that I do.

Picture: http://posting.mtv.co.nz/gsp/Music_Entertainment/Shows/16-and-pregnant-logo-281x211.jpg

Town Deals with Past Discrimination

2010-03-10T20:14:00.006-06:00

An article I saw recently from the New York Times, "Michigan Town Makes Amends for Discrimination", reminded me of many things that we have been recently discussing in class. In Hamtramck, Michigan in the 1950s and 60s, "black areas" in the town were obliterated through urban renewal projects and hundreds of African American families were displaced from their homes - just for being on the wrong side of the color line. While a federal judge found the town guilty of this racial discrimination in 1971 and ordered Hamtramck to build new houses for the families, the town did not follow through. Many of the families had to live with relatives and friends, and the effects on some children such as now 60 year old Sallie Sanders were so devastating that Sallie "has trouble recounting the ordeal without breaking into tears". Imagine having to leave your house or the place you've grown up in as a young child without knowing why, or knowing that because of the color of you and your family, you can't live in a certain area.

However, brought on by the recent economic down turn, reparations are now being made to the people discriminated against, in the form of providing new, affordable housing (paid for by local and state money) to families previously displaced, or their remaining living family. Ms. Sanders was able to move into a new home, and not only that, the town of Hamtramck has been experiencing many positive changes. The once segregated town is now home to many immigrants from countries such as Bangladesh, Yemen, Albania, and Lebanon.

This article brings to light some of the discussions we had in class regarding when reparations are necessary and also about the "invisible" aspects of how certain towns are constructed. Mr. Bolos's example in class was of the man whose occupation was sometime of repair work and who couldn't live in his neighborhood because laws prevented him from having his large "repairman" truck sit outside without getting fined everyday. In reality, these laws allowed for people with only certain jobs or possibly of a certain social class to live in the neighborhood. In the case mentioned above, the town went about constructing a white, homogenous neighborhood by heading it under the category of urban renewal projects, or land redevelopment programs. Their actions were clearly racist and clearly wrong, and while they are redeeming themselves now, is the town's actions enough? What other ways do you see towns and villages constructing certain types of societies by enforcing laws and both directly and indirectly discriminating against certain groups of people?

Picture: http://www.dotcomgiftshop.com/files/imagecache/product/21524_0.jpg

Santa who?

2010-03-03T12:44:00.009-06:00

As soon as november rolls around, Christmas decorations are up in stores and malls - a friendly reminder to the world that the holidays are not far away, time to start buying. By the time that December comes, Santa Claus is visiting stores and children are happily sitting on his lap - a Christmas tradition. This year, people will be reminided that spring is coming with the appearance of the Easter Bunny in many stores. According to a Chicago Tribune Article, the "Easter Bunny is slowly and skillfully creating a comfortable throne for himself in America's shopping mall atriums". Becoming sort of an icon for spring, the bunny is used to attract customers, especially when Easter candy sales and clothing sales are down, as they are this year. To me, it seems like the Easter bunny has gone from being a part of an important religious holiday to a more universally accepted marketing ploy/icon. But this is not necessarily a bad thing, I guess. According to the article I read, Respect the rabbit: Easter Bunny creeping up on Santa’s mall turf, cultural anthropologist Pamela Frese thinks that "the Easter Bunny's popularity demonstrates how Americans have increasingly turned to malls as community centers, where people of all religious backgrounds can celebrate so-called civil-religious holidays together". So the Easter bunny, while getting people to spend more money and feel happy about spring, is unifying for communities. What do you think?

Another thing that I found that was interesting from the article was that it described the ways in which the Easter Bunny's look has changed throughout the years. During the Great Depression, the Easter bunny was illustrated as a factory worker, and during the Civil Rights era, the Bunny had brown fur. Given the struggles that our nation is facing today, what should the Easter bunny wear, or be physically depicted as?

Picture from:http://www.costumzee.com/view/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/easter-bunny.gif

Asylum Granted to German Home Schoolers

2010-03-01T12:57:00.004-06:00

Homeschooling is pretty rare in the US, but in Germany, it's against the law. I read an interesting article from the New York Times, Judge Grants Asylum to German Home Schoolers, about a German refugee family living in Tennessee. The Romeikes family chose to home school their children because they felt that other students' bad behavior was unhelpful to their children's learning and because they believed that the stories in German readers - where "devils, witches and disobedient children are often portrayed as heros" were not good examples for children to be reading. The Romeikes worked with a curriculum from a private Christian correspondence school. However, it was not recognized by the German government, which enforces that all students must attend school, whether that be public or private. The law maintains that going to school allows for "social integration" and is necessary to "ensure exposure to people from different backgrounds and prevent what some call 'parallel societies.'" The Romeikes eventually faced fines up to $11,000 and almost lost custody of their children, so their lawyers petitioned for asylum (Protection and immunity from extradition granted by a government to a political refugee from another country), and it was granted because the Romeikes would have faced persecution had they returned to Germany.

Should parents be allowed to home school their children? Ultimately, I believe that parents should be able to choose whether or not they do, regardless of the circumstances - as long as they follow a set curriculum. Parents have the right to raise their children the way they think is best, and in a way that does not compromise their beliefs. However, I do see truth in the reasons for which Germany prohibits this schooling method - I believe social integration is important for children to develop into aware and tolerant individuals. In the case mentioned above, Mr. Romeikes said, "I want my children to learn the truth and to learn about what’s going on in the world so that they can deal with it.” What do you think?

Another Comment on Reparations

2010-02-12T19:40:00.004-06:00

I wanted to write a follow up blog to my previous blog on why it is still necessary today that we provide African Americans with reparations, most importantly in the form of an apology. In keeping with the idea of who should receive reparations, I came across an article in People magazine about a new book by Rebecca Skloot, "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks". Henrietta Lacks was a poor black woman who passed away in 1951 from cervical cancer. Scientists used her cells to create a revolutionary immortal cell line, called HeLa. The magazine's summary of the novel said that Henrietta's cells were put to extraordinary use: they were used to develop the polio vaccine, were the first cells sent up into space, and the first cells ever to be cloned. So many of our life-changing scientific discoveries as a country would not have been possible without these cells.

Yet while so many people benefited from Henrietta's cells, her family did not. They had no money and no health insurance. Later, in the 70's, when scientists went to track down her family, Skloot says, "[her] husband had a third-grade education. He thought they had part of his wife alive in a laboratory, they'd been doing tests... he didn't understand." Henrietta's family continued to struggle, most notably one of her sons becoming 150,000 dollars in debt after undergoing surgery.

To me, this another example of when reparations need to be due. In this case, I believe an apology and monetary reparations are necessary. To think that the the future of this family in 1951 could have been vastly different is extremely sad. And it is ironic that while Henrietta's cells were being used to fuel research and monumental discoveries that would help improve and educate the lives of others, her family was left disregarded, uneducated. I wonder how much Henrietta's family's race had to do with the scientists and governments decision not to compensate or help her family.

Like I said before, we can't go back and change the decisions that were made in the past. But hopefully, Rebecca Skloot's novel will bring light to the Lacks family's situation (Skloot has launched a foundation: www.henriettalacksfoundation.org), and reparations can be given to the descendants of her family, including health insurance, scholarships, and other monetary reparations. In this situation, I believe they are definitely due.

Reparations Still Necessary?

2010-02-11T21:06:00.007-06:00

Today in class we discussed reparations for those who have been discriminated against, harmed, and enslaved in the past based on their race. This idea of trying to make amends for an injustice committed is something that I think is definitely necessary. We discussed countries paying reparations after wars (usually monetary reparations), and I'm pretty sure that the government has just recently begun to give reparations to those who have been wrongfully accused and imprisoned for murder, after being cleared by new DNA technology.

So shouldn't African Americans receive reparations then, too? Honestly, no matter how much we do, I don't think we can ever make up for what happened 200 years ago (and forward) in our country. But that doesn't mean we can't try. We can't go back in time and change the past, but what we can do is acknowledge that these atrocities took place, and issue an apology to all African Americans who have been enslaved and discriminated against. And I think the government could go further and mirror the way the Holocaust has been dealt with in the United States, regarding museums: we could rightfully honor the African Americans who suffered in slavery and under unjust laws with memorials and museums. It is important that everyone understands what happened, and that it is not denied or ever forgotten.

I believe that reparations are still necessary today. Just because time has passed does

not mean that it is too late for our government to take action. It's never too late to apologize.

Are We Protecting the Innocence of Our Children?

2010-01-28T09:47:00.004-06:00

My last blog centered on the Haitian children suffering in the aftermath of the earthquake, and dealt with the topic of "loss of innocence", and whether or not children who have "lost their innocence" can still be considered children. Later, I found an interesting website where author Michael Medved wrote about how he believes our country is not protecting the "innocence" of our children, but instead following a different path. He says, "we now go for a preparation model. That is the emphasis on American education. 'Let's warn the child about all of the dangers, about all of the horrors in the world."

Mr. Medved gave many examples in his article of ways in which our education systems are trying to "prepare" children for the real world, in sometimes harsh ways: Children in elementary school through highschool are being taught, "We're doomed! In the future there will be no clean air, there will be no clean water! The sky is falling!" (when in reality he says that the truth is, there have been many governmental success stories regarding the environment, and cities have more clean air than they did 20 years ago). I know that a couple years ago, my little sister learned about global warming in third grade. She came home and couldn't sleep with a stomach ache because she was so scared about how our world was going to survive. And, most shocking to me: the website said that in Minnesota, first graders are being educated on AIDS.

Is this right? Is there a certain age that is too young for children to hear about this kind of stuff? I am not an idealistic, and I believe that at somepoint everyone needs to find out about AIDS and be educated so that we can work to stop the epedemic, and everyone needs to learn to be aware in how they treat our planet. But why do first graders need to be conserned about AIDS? I think children need to have a higher level of maturity and brain development to handle topics such as that. And that goes for the environment, too. I believe that children in elementary schools should be taught the necessary fundamentals that will prepare them for their secondary educations, but not in a way that burdens them.

The author of the website said that children should be able to be optimistic, have a sense of wonder, and feel secure. But are we preventing them from having these things through our education? What do you think? Should we, as a country, be protecting our children - or educating them about the harshness of our world to "prepare" them for the future?

The Website: http://www.mfc.org/pfn/97-6/medved.html

Picture: http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/images/deps/alphabet.jpg

Loss of Innocence

2010-01-26T20:27:00.008-06:00

In light of our class theme revolving around children, I read an article, Children Adrift in a World of Unfathomable Chaos, about the suffering of children in Haiti. Just by reading the first few paragraphs of the article, I realized the title was true: the chaos and horror that these children are facing is unfathomable to me. A young girl, Daphne, recounted how she had to watch her mother's "lifeless" body be carried away in a wheelbarrow. Tons of children have lost their parents and homes, and almost all of them have lost their schools. Of course, with such great a tragedy, there are enormous concerns: "There are health concerns, malnutrition concerns, psychosocial issues, and, of course, we are concerned that unaccompanied children will be exploited by unscrupulous people who may wish to traffic them for adoption, for the sex trade, or for domestic servitude," said Kent Page, a UNICEF spokesman.

How do these children survive? Haiti's first lady said that without help, the Haitian children will have "lost their childhood, their innocence,". The term that resonated with me was "loss of innocence". This reminded me specifically of what we have been talking about in Huck Finn. At the age of 13 or 14, Huck has had to take care of himself, fend for himself, and make important decisions for himself. Personally, I believe that Huck although still a child, has "lost his innocence" through all of the life-experiences and challenges he has encountered. He, just like many children in Haiti, has had experiences with death, something no child should have to experience. But I don't think Huck is necessarily an adult. He is still figuring out life lessons and constructing the type of person he is going to be, which we see evidence of in his conflicts over what is right vs. wrong. Yet, he is clearly not an innocent or naive kid.

Does "losing ones innocence" mean that one loses their childhood? Or can you still be a child without it? What do you think? Is childhood defined by innocence?

Picture: http://www.france24.com/en/20100118-vincent-grammont-humanitarian-aid-worker-haiti-earthquake-port-au-prince-delmas

3D TV

2010-01-07T12:44:00.005-06:00

The other day in class, we were told an extremely shocking statistic: the average American watches 4.5 hours of TV a day, or about 14.5 years of their life (with 72 being the average life-span) are devoted to watching TV. 14.5 years of one's life living in a separate world - think of how much you would miss if you spent a continuous 14.5 years watching TV! I'm only 16, but if you subtract 14.5 years, I'd only have lived 1.5 years of my life! Obviously, the 14.5 hours is just an average, and it is spread out over a much longer period of time. But to me, the statistic is horrifying.

Yesterday, my dad had NPR on when he picked me up after school, and there was a broadcast about the technology fair in Las Vegas happening these next couple of days. The woman speaking was talking about one of the bigger gadgets to be featured: 3D TVs. At first I thought that sounded extremely cool, who doesn't like going to IMax theaters and seeing movies in 3D? I personally really enjoyed the Polar Express in 3D a couple years ago and I know 3D Avatar has been a big hit. Yet when I started thinking about it, the prospect of 3D TV kind of scared me. When you watch TV, you are able to leave your world for a little and for lack of a better word, "watch" an alternate world. But if this world was taking place 3D around you, it would be like you were actually a part of this other world.

To me, this new type of television watching would most likely raise the amount of time people spend watching TV, and limit the amount of time they are exposed to the real world. Why go to a football game if you can watch it on a huge screen with surround sound and 3D images? It's like you're right there. I personally do not spend a lot of time watching TV; I don't have time and I'd rather be out doing stuff in the real world. But will these new TVs have a negative impact on our society? How will our future be impacted by TVs that draw Americans out of the real world?

picture: http://www.insidesocal.com/tomhoffarth/3D-glasses-404_675044c.jpg

Vegetables or a Face

2010-01-05T11:14:00.004-06:00

The other day I learned about a man who suffered from severe epilepsy, so he received extreme treatment: the severing of his corpus callosum, a part in the brain which connects both the left and right brain hemispheres, allowing information to be transmitted to both sides. It was like the man had two different brains, but he was still able to go about his daily life. In one experiment the man took part in afterwards to help a scientists research study, he was asked to sit at a computer and look at images either on the right side of a divider on the screen or the left side. The images we see on the left are sent to the right side of the brain, which sees only the whole image, not the individual parts. The images we see on the right are sent to the left side of the brain, which only sees the individual parts. The left brain (which sees the individual parts) is the organized/planning/logical/sequential side of the brain. The right side of the brain (which sees the whole picture) is the artsy/big picture oriented side

The Man was asked to look at pictures made by the artist Giuseppe Arcimboldo, who is famous for his pictures of faces made out of objects such as vegetables, fruits, and books. Interestingly, when the man saw the picture on the right, he only saw the vegetables. However, when the image was flashed on his left, he reported only seeing a normal looking face.

This got me thinking about construction: the process vs. the final product. This man can experience something none of us can- he can look at a final product, see it, and then look at it differently and see all of its parts. A pile of vegetables is not very unique or special, but put together into a face, it's an artistic masterpiece. We don't have this opportunity to look at something and see the individual parts, the process. Which, can sometimes be a lot more important than the final product, in my opinion. Personally, I think that teachers value final products a lot more than the work and parts involved. Does our ability to only see "final constructions" inhibit us from appreciating things to their full extent?

picture: http://www.coolopticalillusions.com/crazy/images/eye_trick_vegetable_man.jpg

Unity Through Adversity

2010-01-03T14:41:00.003-06:00

I read an article, Shedding Old Rivalries and Pulling Together, about two different ethnic groups unified together in the face of adversity. Chicago has many interesting neighborhoods, with a large mix of people. In one such neighborhood specifically, on the corner of Western and Devon Avenues, about 200,000 Indian and Pakistani Chicagoans live and work side by side. While Indian and Pakistan have a rivalry over land in between their two countries, the Kashmir Valley, these Chicagoans of Indian and Pakistani descent are according to the article, unified in the face of the slumping economy. Many of the inhabitants of this neighborhood make a living selling electronics, telling fortunes, and driving taxis. However, with the downturn of the economy, tons of the residents have lost their jobs. Instead of arguing and fighting against each other over headlines involving the Kashmir Valley, Quoted in the article, Anwar Rajput said, "We discuss how we are going to pay our bills, kids, family. Of course, we talk about politics, both here and there. But what is everybody concerned about? The economy."

In times of adversity, people join together, putting aside their differences, at least in this neighborhood on the

North Side. But after reading the article, my question was: when the economy gets better, will these residents or any group of people/small business owners/workers that have been united because of a common fear, continue to work and live in solidarity? Does it really take everyone being on the same page, struggling with the same weakness, for there to be this comradeship? The economy unified two rival groups of people, but without this universal struggle, will their still be a union?

Picture from: http://www.ssa.gov/history/pics/acoffee.jpg

Doing Charity... for money?

2009-12-10T12:53:00.004-06:00

Most of us are familiar with the Salvation Army bell ringers who stand outside in the freezing cold collecting money for charity. I know that I always appreciate the fact that these people are giving their time and braving the cold to help others.

However, what I didn't realize, was that this was a paid position, not a volunteer based community service. I read an article which talked about the current state of the economy's effect on the Salvation Army. The positions of a bell ringer (which requires an application and then pays about minimal wage - $7.25 an hour) are extremely sought-after. According to the article, more and more people are applying for this job because of the economic downturn.

At first, I was a little bit outraged - getting paid to do charity?!

But then my friend Sophie brought up a good point: The Salvation army's mission is to help others, especially during the holiday season. By giving jobs to these people who otherwise wouldn't have work, they are helping those people who are in turn helping a huge number of people. When I look at it that way, I can see the good in the situation. However, this also means that everytime you drop some spare change into the collection jars, the money may be going to someone's paycheck, as opposed to 100% going to charity.

What do you think about this situation? Is it wrong to be paid for volunteer work in your opinion?

New Method for Executions

2009-12-09T16:42:00.005-06:00

A few months back, I blogged about the failed execution of Romell Broom, a man who was given the death penalty in Ohio for murdering and raping a 14 year old girl. In a recent article I read, the state of Ohio employed a new method for administrating the death penalty: a one-drug intravenous lethal injection. This new method is very much alike to that of putting an animal to sleep (euthanizing animals), as it involves a large dose of anesthetic. According to many experts, it is a painless procedure. Furthermore, most experts see it as an improvement to the widely used method of a three-drug cocktail, because this method requires "a short-acting barbiturate to render the inmate unconscious, followed by a paralytic and then chemical to stop the heart." A barbiturate is used as a sedative and acts as a depressant to the central nervous system (brain and spinal cord). According to Romell Broom's lawyer, Broom was wincing in pain during the administrators attempts to execute him with the three-drug cocktail.

Personally, I think that this new method sounds much more humane. I've known many people who have had to put pets to sleep, and I know that these animals do not suffer, but simply drift off to sleep before they are killed. Well, this then begs the question, does this man (Kenneth Biros), who sexually assaulted and then murdered and desembled a girl, deserve to be killed humanely? I think this is a very hard question to answer, and I'm not exactly sure where I fall on the issue. I guess I believe that he should be killed as humanely as possible, because he is still getting punished - his life is getting taken away.

Another interesting debate the article sparked up was that this was the first time that this euthanizing method had been used on humans, so it has been dubbed "human experimentation" by medical and legal experts. The phrase "human experimentation" has bad connotation to me, as it reminds me of horrendous procedures done on Holocaust victims by the Nazis during World War II. However, as the legal director of the Crimminal Justice Legal Foundation - Kent Scheiddegger - pointed out, “What kind of test do they [critics of human experimentation] expect?” he said. “A controlled study with volunteers? Not likely.”

What do you think? Is it ok in this situation to test out a new method on humans, or is it never just for human experimentation never occur?

Picture from: http://ucsbglobalvoices.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/death-penalty.jpg

Privacy and Youtube

2009-12-07T19:01:00.000-06:00

This morning while eating breakfast, I was skimming the newspaper (Chicago Tribune) and saw an interesting Ask Amy Article: At a birthday party, a woman's ten year old son was filmed, and the video was posted on Youtube without the permission of parents of children at the party. The woman said that she called the family, expressing politely her unhappiness at the video, and then asked Amy whether or not she was mistaken in doing so.

Amy responded by saying that there is a difference between Youtube and National television, and that most likely, videos involving her son at a school concert or sporting event, or of him and his friends, would probably end up on Youtube someday too. And, she brought up a good point at the end, to, saying that the mom should take this opportunity to educate her son on the risks of sharing videos (privacy and safety issues).

This article made me think about the conversations regarding privacy we had in class. I'm split on this situation. On one hand, I think that it was not that big of a deal that a video from the birthday was posted on Youtube, such a huge site where the video was probably only posted so that others attending the party could see it. However, I can also see from a parents point of view and where the mom was coming from, in feeling like her and her son's privacy was invaded because they family did not ask permission. To be on the safe side, the family probably should have asked permission before posting. What do you think? Is it an invasion of privacy if a family posts a Youtube video of other kids without consulting the parents first?

picture from: http://www.dolphin.upenn.edu/pennband/img/youtube-logo.jpg

Name Defines Job Applicants

2009-12-01T12:39:00.006-06:00

I read a very suprising statistic while reading an article, "In Job Hunt, College Degree Can't Close Racial Gap". The article described the inequalities in our society regarding companies hiring more whites over blacks, even when those who weren't white had prestigious educations and lots of work experience. However, the statistic that suprised me was from a study in The American Economic Review, called "Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?" The study showed that those applying for jobs with "black-sounding" names recieved 50% less callbacks for interviews than people with "white-sounding" names.

This infuriated me a bit, because your name should not be what defines who you are in regards to whether or not you will be a good employee. No one can control what they are named, however, they can control what type of education/experience they can bring to a position. A company should give each application a fair chance, focusing strictly on what is there, and give fair interviews to all applicants. According to the article, "Discrimination in many cases may not even be intentional, some job seekers pointed out, but simply a matter of people gravitating toward similar people, casting about for the right “cultural fit,” a buzzword often heard in corporate circles." In other words, some companies don't even know they are being discriminatory, but simply gravitate toward names that sound "white". Just because your name is not Emily or Greg, for example, doesn't mean that a person is any less adequate for a job. With college graduate black males having an unemployment rate of twice that of white males, and interviewers superficially judging people by their name, something people are not in control over, how can there be equal opportunities for all men in our country?

"Over Punishment in Schools"

2009-11-29T13:31:00.005-06:00

According to www.dictionary.com, police are "an organized civil force for maintaining order, preventing and detecting crime, and enforcing the laws". In New York City, police are in charge of public school security, making schools there much safer. However, according to an editorial I read ("Over-Punishment in Schools"), there has been growing concern from juvenile justice advocates about the policies and circumstances in which children are being arrested. In some cases, they feel that the police are arresting and criminalizing children for behavior that was dealt with principals, parents, and guidance counselors, in the past. In many cities, school officials have identified the problem of "over policing". Juvenile justice advocates feel that "over policing" in schools has a negative affect on students because those who are arrested or singled out by the criminal justice system in school have a greater risk of dropping out of school or later on in life having issues with the law. Furthermore, the article says that most of these students are either Black or Hispanic, and many have emotional or learning disabilities.

The solution lawmakers are trying is the new Student Safety Act. The act is still a draft bill, but its main points would allow teachers, parents, and students to file complaints against security officers working at school, and "The draft bill would require police and education officials to file regular reports that would show how suspensions and other sanctions affect minority children, children with disabilities and other vulnerable groups".

As I thought about this article, I wondered whether or not it was right that the police were involved at school. Clearly, they provided safety for students which I think is extremely important, especially in neighborhoods where gangs are prevalent. However, I feel that the criminal justice system and the school disciplinary system should be separate. It isn't fair for a student if they could be in trouble with the police for walking without a hall pass or talking back to a teacher (examples given in the article). In those situations, it should be on the principal or dean to decided what the punishment should be. Perhaps a warning or detention.

What do you think? To what extent should police be involved in school discipline and security?

Picture from: http://www.impactlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/police-car.JPG

In the name of fame?

2009-11-29T12:59:00.006-06:00

A few days ago, Sophie blogged about the couple (Michaele and Tareq Salahi) who broke into the White House to attend a fancy state dinner. They were able to get passed secret service and White House security, pretending that they were on the guest list. Today, I read a follow up article about the couple, "White House Intruders Want Money for Tale". Apparently, the want to become reality TV stars, and the break in was all a ploy for fame and money. According to the article, the couple "postponed plans for an interview Monday on CNN's 'Larry King Live' and were seeking top-dollar bids for their first television interview." The couple is waiting to see who bids the highest for an interview with them, part of their scheme to make big bucks off their White House escapade. Not only that, but this is not Michaele Salahi's first shot at fame: she also has a spot on "Real Housewives of D.C., the Bravo TV show".

After reading this article, I couldn't help thinking back to the Balloon Boy Hoax, and the parents who were so desperate for fame that they harmed their own son and lied to the public. There seems to be a trend of people lying in order to find fame. In my opinion, neither of these couples deserve fame, they haven't done anything worthy of appreciation from the public. Instead, they've just been embarrassments to our country. Why the sudden quest for fame? What makes reality TV show fame so appealing to people? Do you think this couple is worthy of our country's attention?

Picture from: http://www.fotosearch.com/bthumb/IST/IST500/ICN1031.jpg

The Right...to hang laundry?

2009-11-19T10:34:00.004-06:00

"U.S. Residents Fight for the Right to Hang Laundry" ?? This article heading completely surprised me when I stumbled across it this morning on Yahoo. Perhaps because I never thought of hanging laundry as a right that could be taken away. But, in many towns in Pennsylvania and across the U.S., this right is being opposed. Carin Froehlich hangs her laundry every day on a clothesline between her trees in her backyard. She does this to save energy and save money. However, neighbors have sent her anonymous letters telling her that her yard looks like "trailer trash" and they don't want to see her "unmentionables", even though she hangs her underwear inside. According to the article, many towns have passed "No haning rules" because, "The consensus in most communities is that people don't want to see everybody else's laundry." Also passing these rules are housing associations such as condominiums and townhouses that make up 20 percent of the population.

Personally, I think that this is an insignificant battle to be fighting. We live in an age where most people are very aware of the environment and there is immense pressure I think, on our generation, to help save our planet. Hanging laundry to dry reduces the greenhouse gases and energy consumption, so why ban this eco-friendly practice? Carin Froehlich brings up a good point: "'If my husband has a right to have guns in the house, I have a right to hang laundry,'" she says. Although I don't believe that people should have the right to possess arms, I firmly believe that this right should not be taken away from American citizens. I think that hanging clothes outside is a harmless act, especially if undergarments are kept inside, plus it has huge benefits. What does it say about our nation if we care more about what is in our neighbors backyards (appearances), than the health of our planet?

Picture from: http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/STFPOD/859022.jpg

Cruel and Unusual Punishment?

2009-11-08T20:19:00.003-06:00

In light of the civil liberties discussions we have been having in class, I read an interesting article, "Weighing Life in Prison For Youths Who Didn't Kill", that touches upon this subject. In Florida, 77 people are serving a life in prison with no opportunity for parole because of crimes they committed as juveniles, none of them murder. Two of these prisoners (one raped a woman and the other committed an armed burglary) are going to appeal in court on Monday, saying that they should not be sentenced to die in prison for a crime other than a homicide because the Eight Amendment bans cruel and unusual punishment. Judges and state representatives are divided over the issue. Some see locking them up without hope for the future as barbaric, but others see teens as having the ability to determine basic right verse wrong, and in those cases, they should be punished and treated as adults. Many people also feel that because Florida is a tourist state and a sought out place for retirement, it needs to be safe and secure.

I think that punishing these people for life for crimes they committed as teens is not appropriate. As people who believe that juveniles should not be executed argue, "people under 18 are immature, irresponsible, susceptible to peer pressure and often capable of change.". The key phrase I think here is "capable of change". I agree completely that teenagers whether 13 or 17 should know that it is wrong to rape someone, wrong to commit a robbery, and those people deserve to spend a long chunk of time in prison. But, I do believe that with therapy and help, these teens can change, their brains will develop more, and they should have another shot at life. It's unfair to punish them away for ever because of a mistake (in these cases huge mistakes), that they made. I think that regarding the 8th amendment, it is cruel to keep them in prison for life, without any hope for the future. Disregarding the death penalty, the Supreme court usually allows states to decided how to punish each crime. Yet I think that this situation is unconstitutional.

Do you think that this is a situation in which one's constitutional rights are not being regarded? Or is this punishment just and constitutional?

picture: http://afghanistan.foreignpolicyblogs.com/files/2009/07/prison.jpg

War as an Equalizer

2009-11-02T12:58:00.005-06:00

I read an interesting article about women who fight in the military, particularly about a women named Vivienne Pacquette who has been employed in the army for more than 20 years and spent 2 of those years in Iraq. The main focus of the article was post-traumatic stress disorder, (click here for more information on p.t.s.d.) which results from the trauma that the soldiers deal with while employed. Post-traumatic stress disorder can distorts personalities, lead to trouble sleeping, paranoia, and isolation. The article says that never before has there been so many women "paralyzed by the psychological scars of combat", and this is due to a historic shift in that the military has allowed women to take part in ground combat, positions previously barred from women.

Experts who have been studying these women acknowledge that female soldiers have been dealing with the stresses that come from fighting in ground combat just as well as the males are, and that "Psychologically, it seems, they are emerging as equals." But, different circumstances upon returning home lead to differences in coping between males and females. Regardless, Vivienne Pacquette, along with many other women, believe that war has been an equalizer. Instead of women being seen as weak, they are now fighting side by side men in Iraq, facing road side bombs, mortar attacks, and shootings, together.

So does this mean that we need war in order to bring equality between males and females? I think that by allowing men and women to fight side by side together in a war, they are creating equality in the war zone, because neither gender has a direct advantage: both are facing the same dangers and being effected mentally almost the same. Without war, I think that many people would still see women as physically inferior to men. But I also think that many people in society will still view women as less than when they return home from war because of the stereotypical role they are cast into. Indeed, the article says, "after completing important jobs in the war, women...smack up against old-fashioned ignorance: male veterans and friends who do not recognize them as "real soldiers";... and a society that expects them to be feminine nurturers, not the nurtured." People are not used to women in the role of a soldier, but I think that as more and more women do take on this role, it will help women to escape from their stereotypical role in society.

(picture from http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/23640/thumbs/s-FEMALE-large.jpg)

The Past, the Present, The Future

2009-10-21T20:12:00.005-05:00

"The family you come from isn't as important as the family you're going to have." - Ring Lardner

Everyday walking up to the third floor at school, I see a framed sign with this quote in it. And everyday, it bothers me. It just does not seem right. If anything, the family you come from should be

of equal importance to the family you are going to have - if you do get married and have another family.

The family that you come from is your past, which although it should not define you, it has a huge

impact on you. The bonds you create with your family allow you to learn to trust and love, and being part of a family allows you to be part of a unit. This not only gives a child security, but the opportunity to develop and see how family relationships work so when the time comes for you to start your own family,

you can create the same relationships. Obviously there are all different types of families, some in which the relationships and bonds are not so good, but you can't choose the family that you are born into.

I think this quote does not promote positive ideas - to me, it makes me think that I shouldn't focus on being a part of my family, working to create bonds with my siblings or establish good relationships with my parents because when I'm 25 or 30 or whatever and start a new family, it will be more important.

What's more, the family you have or the family you are going to have - I don't see them as two separate entities. They are connected. When I want to start my own family, I will be expanding my family, the one that has raised me, helped make me who I am, and allowed me to create long lasting relationships. My family started me off on the path I'm now. It is most definitely just as important as my future family.

Toxic Parents

2009-10-20T19:35:00.003-05:00

I read an extremely interesting article today that dealt with the subject of abusive parents. The article talked about a therapist who has worked with many patients who suffer because of bad relationships they have with their parents. One women's mom was extremely abusive to her daughter over the years, but as her mom was dying, the women still felt like she should go and try to reconcile with her, even though her mom was always awful towards her when she tried to fix their relationship. Another young man was disowned by his parents because he came out as gay to them and they could not support his sexuality due to their religion. Even in an intervention staged by the therapist, the parents could not accept their son for what he was. The author of the article rights, "the assumption that parents are predisposed to love their children unconditionally and protect them from harm is not universally true." Although, I believe that it should be. In this case, the therapist recommended that this man stop trying to reconcile with his parents (after he attempted but did not succeed many times). He did, and eventually was able to overcome his depression, but he never forgot the absence of his parents.

Research shows that humans are hard-wired for bonding, the article says, so breaking this tie with abusive parents can be extremely hard. Furthermore, most abusive relationships are not always all bad. However, research also shows that childhood trauma can be very bad for the brain and can drastically impair adults' brains. Thus, having an abusive parent can be very detrimental to brain, development, and feelings. The therapist concludes that even though it may be severe, sometimes letting go of a parent is the best thing to do.

This article really struck a chord with me; I do not have abusive parents but I do know people who have abusive parents and it does not go without effect on them. But, I think that it is really sad that in the cases presented above, such drastic measures had to be taken. In my mind, parents should be accepting, nurturing, and selfless for their children. What do you think? Is it worth it to continue trying to mend relationships with an abusive parent or is it better to move on and focus on living a happy life? Does it all depend on the relationship, the situation?

Dealing with Grief

2009-10-18T16:07:00.002-05:00

I saw an article from the Chicago Tribune called: After Maya, Officer keeps memory of 4-year old alive with every ticket. The article was about a policeman who sits by an intersection (Belden and Lincoln Park West avenues) everyday, waiting to hand out tickets to people who blow through the intersection. When he does give them a ticket, it has a sticker on it that reads: "REMEMBER MAYA! Maya was killed by a driver who failed to stop at a stop sign & yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk. STOP AT STOP SIGNS! YIELD TO PEOPLE IN CROSSWALKS!"

Steve Shoup, the policeman, still tears up when he talks about the event three years later, a traumatic event that he witnessed. He said he has made it his mission to police Maya's and other intersections to enforce stop signs and yielding to pedestrian violations. Clearly, the his grief over this incident lighted within him a mission to take action and make sure that what happened to Maya does not happen again.

This article got me thinking on how people deal with grief. Understandably, after witnessing that horrific event, Mr. Shoup wants to do everything in his power to prevent it from happening again, even though he wasn't even at fault, nor did he know Maya personally. What factors then determine how we cope with grief? Is it based on our relationship to the person, our conscience, our place in life? I think it's personal for everyone, and people react differently in different situations, but some are probably more healthy than others. I think that what Mr. Shoup does is good for the community, but he shouldn't feel guilty for Maya's death.

Death of child leads to Sentancing of Couple

2009-10-08T09:45:00.005-05:00

I was horrified today when I read an article about an eleven year old girl who died from diabetes recently because her parents refused to seek medical treatment for her, due to their religious beliefs. This lead to the sentencing of her parents to 30 days of jail time every year for 6 years. That's 6 months of jail time total, and 6 months that these parents won't be able to spend with their remaining two children, whom, the court ordered must be taken to the doctor if they are injured or in need of medical attention during these 6 years. What really horrified me though, was that even when the girl was so ill that she couldn't walk or talk, her parents refused to take her to the doctor. Imagine how helpless that girl was in that situation.

According to experts in the article, there have been at least 50 cases in the US since 1982 where children have been denied medical attention because of religious reasons. Lawmakers are trying to introduce legislation to remove religious exemptions for charges of neglect and abuse. I understand everyone has different religious views, and I respect that, but personally, I don't think children should have to suffer because of the religion their family has that they are born into. At 11 years old, how do you know that is what you believe in, anyway? And is it worth losing a child?

Should parents who refuse medical treatment for their children because of religious reasons be punished? And if the child is underage, should the parent still have the right to decide whether or not to seek medical attention?

No Summer Vacation?!

2009-09-27T16:38:00.002-05:00

I read an article today that said President Obama wants to extend the school day and school year. He says American students are at a disadvantage compared to students around the globe because of the smaller amount of time they spend in school. I can see both positive and negative sides to this issue. Extending the school day would allow for increased learning and give students in poor areas a safe place to be until their parents are home from work. However, I personally think that it is important for kids to have after school activities to go to, instead of just a longer school day. I know that at New Trier we are lucky and have many after school programs from clubs to sports and theater, and a longer school day would make homework and extracurricular participation harder. Furthermore, I think that extending school into summer vacation would not be a good idea, because everyone deserves a break. What do you think? Is it worth it to extend the amount of time we spend in school?

Execution Fails

2009-09-17T12:50:00.002-05:00

Romell Broom was convicted of an abduction/murder/rape in 1984. And, on Tuesday september 15, he was suppposed to be executed by lethal injection. However, this was the first time in the United States that an exectution by letah injection had failed, and then been rescheduled. For two hours, a team of technicians tried to find a vein to sucessfully inject the lethal drugs, and according to one of his lawyers, Adele Shanks, “He survived this execution attempt, and they really can’t do it again. It was cruel and unusual punishment.” She also said that he was wincing in pain throughout the procedure. The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio said that this is the third screwed up execution in three years, and many are wondering whether or not this is still an acceptable punishment to be used. Isn't the death penalty supposed to be humane? But putting someone through that kind of mental and physical pain twice does not seem constitutional or right to me. I personally think that he deserves a lifetime in jail for the crimes he committed, but definitely does not deserve to be "killed" again. Read Article

Toxic Water... still?

2009-09-13T15:25:00.002-05:00

I read a very disturbing article earlier about a town near Charleston, West Virginia: their tap water situation there is so bad that in one family, the harmful metals in the water have given painful scabs and rashes to a kid, and another kid has had his teeth enamel eroded. Besides being harmful to the skin, the water is causing long term problems in the kidneys and nervous system.

The town is not very rural either, it is only 17 miles away from Charleston, the state capital. The article went on to describe that many chemical factories and manufacturing plants polluting the water have escaped fines and punishment, and while a Clean Water Act was passed in 1972, there is low water-pollution law enforcement and the water "does not meet public health goals". This does not seem right or fair. People should not have to suffer because of the unethical behavior of companies, and in an age of advanced technology, we should be able to guarantee clean water for everyone in the united states.

Baby Makes 21

2009-09-02T12:35:00.002-05:00

Yesterday, I saw an article about the Duggar family - featured on TLC's "18 and Counting" because of their extremely large family. The article announced that the Duggars would be welcoming their 19th child in the spring. Whoa. Joining 10 boys and 8 girls, plus a new neice on the way, the new baby is going to take it's place among a ton of kids ranging from 21-2 years old.
After a miscarriage due to concievement while on the birth control pill, the Duggars decided that they would refrain from using birthcontrol and contraceptives and let God decide how many children they should have. Naturally, many people have mixed views on this family. As the oldest of four children in my family, I personally feel that being one of 19 would be absolutely crazy, and I wonder how the parents have time to deal with each child and give each child the individual attention they deserve. I think people should have the choice over how many children they want to have, but provided only that they can care for all of them. Should there be a limit on the amount of children a family should have? Is there a certain point in which the well-being of the other children is compromised in a large family?

The Breathalyzer Behind the Wheel

2009-08-31T12:30:00.002-05:00

I saw an interesting article earlier about new hand held devices in cars that can detect intoxication by measuring the amount of alcohol on a person's breath. If it is over the intoxication level, then the car will not start. And, even having someone else (sober) try and start the car, the car will not be fooled by the device because it takes sample breath tests at random intervals. A fact that stunned me was that these devices could save up to 750 lives a year if everyone had one installed in their car. This is compared to the 13,000 deaths caused a year by intoxicated drivers, but still, it's a start. I think especially as a new driver on the road, this idea is very intriguing, because while I know I have control over my actions, I don't have control over any of the other drivers on the road. Especially not other young adults who have not yet learned how to be good decision makers. Clearly this is an example of the advancement of technology benefits humans. However, this got me thinking about the improvements of technology over time. Eventually, we will be able to control so much and on a larger scale (not relating to drunk driving), if technology prevents people from doing something and then perhaps making a mistake, how will people be able to learn from their life-mistakes and develop healthily? Will the continued increase of technology impact our lives so much eventually that it does not have a positive impact? At what point is technology too much? Or maybe, is it a good thing that technology is preventing people from ever making mistakes, because it is safer for everyone involved. But what about learning?
All in all though, I do think that this is a really great idea and should be mandatory for all drivers, especially for teenagers and those who violate the law and have obtained DUI's.