A Step Behind

Just today, France witnessed history. After recently approving same-sex marriage in their country, today was the first official marriage of a same-sex couple. They are the fourteenth country to approve same-sex marriage, and the number is slowly growing. So why doesn't the US have same-sex marriage yet?

The document that our country was founded on says that all men are created equal. Logically, this would mean that all people would have the same rights. But that isn't the case in the US. I think the reason for this is because of the radical religious people in our country. For instance, the Westboro Baptist Church is a radical group who strongly opposes gay marriage. They actively picket and use extremely hateful words against gay people. Free speech in our country allows them to do so, but they are still extremely hateful. 

Strong religious beliefs is an obstacle that seems hard to get past. Currently, a gay marriage bill is going through Congress which would, in theory, give equal rights to everyone, no matter what their sexual orientation.

What other reasons are there why the US is a step behind in passing gay marriage? Will gay couples ever have equal rights even if it does get passed?

Sports Moving Forward?

Last week, Mr. O'Connor made a blog post, Between the Lines: Covering (and Uncovering) Sports, which really got me thinking about if the world of sports has taken a step forward in being open with gay people participating in their sport. That post used the example of Jason Collins, the NBA player who recently came out as gay. Another pro athlete, Robbie Rogers, became the first openly gay Major League Soccer (MLS) to play in a game.

His story is interesting and sad. He played on the Colombus Crew for a while, and then came out as gay. He was so anxious about the response from teammates and fans that he quit after he came out. But years later, he is back in the game! Though he isn't in the big 4 (NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL), being the first openly gay MLS player is still an amazing accomplishment.

Do you think this will help others in all sports feel comfortable coming out? Is this an indicator of progress? Why or why not?

An Improvement in Conditions?

After recent accusations that Apple manufactures its products in sweatshops, I was wondering if the use of sweatshops is a trend. As we discussed in class during first semester, sweatshops are prevalent because due to the extreme focus on profit that US companies have. Whatever they can do to maximize their profit, they will do, even if it means putting helpless, low-class human beings in hellish work conditions. These sweatshops usually are located in countries that are poor and underdeveloped.

But recently, I discovered an article that showed may show that there is reason for hope. In Bangledesh, there is a sweater factory that plays by the rules. There are no under-age workers, the only children that are in the factory are in the daycare facility that it provides. They provide women who are pregnant with maternity leave WITH pay, provide medicine for all workers, and get plenty of time for lunch and breaks. The Director of the factory strongly believes in fair treatment for workers: "The atmosphere should always be healthy, friendly and livable." Friendly indicates that not only are the people themselves friendly, but that the conditions are friendly. And in the case of this factory, that is certainly the case.

But does this one factory give us a reason to look optimistically into the future? There are still plenty of factories where there are horrible conditions that workers are forced to go through just to make an extremely small sum of money. Personally, I think that this certainly is a step in the right direction - if this factory becomes an example used throughout the world, and is well known in the US, maybe companies will take a step back and realize how much pain they are causing to those who work in the sweatshops. But that is a lot to ask for.

Mr. O'Connor has touched on progression and if there really is a reason for optimism in his own blog posts. So I am going to pose the same question - is this an example that should make us optimistic for the future of the treatment of workers and sweatshops? Why or why not?

Shootings and the Media

Recently, there has seemed to have been an increase in major shootings and other tragic events. Or, at least that's how it seems. The reason that it seems as if there has been an increase in shootings is mainly because the media has just been making big stories about them. Seven people are shot every hour  in the United States, according to the CDC. But the media doesn't cover those stories that kill more lives in total than does the single shooting they decide to cover.

So the question is why does the media prioritize certain events over others, and how do they decide which ones to cover? My hypothesis is that they only cover the stories that will get viewers stuck on their station, which therefore increases the amount of money that they make. For instance, the reason stations covered the Newtown shootings way more in depth than the New Orleans Mothers' shootings was because they could capture the audience better.

It is easier to connect to viewers' attention when those who were killed were innocent schoolchildren as opposed to adults. Though both were extremely tragic events that both should be mourned and have action taken to prevent similar outbursts in the future, Newtown was covered more extensively.

This pattern of only covering certain events is concerning because it underscores the importance of the other. Why do you think that the media prioritizes certain events over others?

Fast Food and Social Class

After watching the short film that Mr. Bolos made, I saw some stark differences between certain towns and train stations. As mentioned in class, there were tons of indicators of social class throughout the film - from density of trees to sports facilities. The film opened my eyes to the community that I live in and how different it is from other communities. However, the indicator that struck me the most was the amount of brand-name stores and chains. The pattern in the film was that in the towns that we speculated were less wealthy were the towns which had the most fast food chains and brand name stores.

For instance, in Maywood, the ninth stop on Mr. Bolos' daily commute, the thing that popped out in the downtown area was a huge sign with the McDonald's golden arches on it. Maywood proved to be less wealthy in general when compared to Winnetka. In fact, Winnetka has roughly 1350 households that make between $250,000 and $500,000. Maywood, on the other hand, has roughly 100 households that made that much.

In the total North Shore, there is one McDonald's which, due to ordinances, appears like any other restaurant and also was not allowed to advertise using their iconic gold arches. In the small town of Maywood, it is the focal point of the downtown area. I think this is the case because in areas with lower incomes, people tend to gravitate towards cheaper food, like McDonald's as opposed to an independent, more expensive restaurant.

Do you guys find this indicator alarming? Why do you think the North Shore has ordinances to practically eliminate fast food restaurants?

The Irony of Gatsby Going Hollywood

Just three days ago, a modern version of The Great Gatsby came out in theaters all across the country. It was extremely hyped in the media, and there were even fashion lines dedicated after it by companies like Brooks Brothers and Tiffany's. All of the media attention and lavish, expensive products seemed to match up very well with the description F. Scott Fitzgerald gave us in the book. But what I don't think many people realize is that the way the movie has been made in Hollywood is almost exactly what Fitzgerald was criticizing in the book.

Extreme wealth and elegance proved to be not as good as it sounded for Jay Gatsby. He died alone, never having truly loved anyone nor being truly loved by anyone else. In fact, almost nobody showed up to Gatsby's funeral because he was not able to develop an emotional connection with anyone. Though he threw tons of expensive parties, he never really was happy.

The making of the movie, and the $200,000 tiara made by Tiffany's in honor of the book is something that F. Scott Fitzgerald would look down on. In fact, on the very last page of the book, he says: "Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us" (180). The fact that the green light, which represents wealth and money, receded before us every year indicates that it gets harder and harder for people not only to maintain their wealth but also to live a life that is enjoyable.

Gatsby getting Hollywood-ized to me is ironic because the book critiques that kind of lavish lifestyle and attention. Do you guys think Fitzgerald was content with the movie itself and the build-up? Why?

ADD - Cultural Phenomenon?

For my junior theme, I chose to explore the reasons behind the recent boom in diagnosis of attention deficit disorder, referred to as ADD. There are tons of statistics that detail the recent increase in diagnosis - for instance, there has been a 41% increase in diagnosis in kids ages 4 to 17 in the past decade. This is a staggering increase, and nobody really knows why it is happening right now. It is similar to Mr. Bolos' lecture on the civil rights movement - he posed the question of why it took place in the 60s instead of earlier or later. The same question applies to the recent increase in ADD diagnosis.

I think the main reason for the increase is due to the data. There has to be some sort of difference in either the data itself or the interpretation of the data in order for the increase to occur. From the research that I conducted, I came to the conclusion that the data itself is different than previous years. The cause for this difference, in my opinion, is due to the influence of the Pharmaceutical industry.

The drug companies' involvement is large - they fund studies and also have say during the editing process. This means that they can pay off researchers before the research is conducted, and they also have the ability to change the results after it is conducted. That produces tainted data, which changes what qualifies as having ADD, which therefore increases the rates.

Can you guys think of other reasons for the increase?