The Influence of the NFL

During class, we discussed the NFL - its rules, its penalty system, and its influence on kids. The part that I found most interesting was the spillover effect it had on other players in the NFL and of other ages. I especially found the question that Mr. Bolos posed on his blog post interesting. He asked: "Finally, I guess I wonder what you think about the impact of football on young people who play the game and how the NFL doe(s) or does not influence the kids playing at the high school level, for example."

To answer his question, I think that the NFL has a large impact on high-school football. This is especially apparent in two examples that I can remember. Cam Newton, the starting quarterback for the Carolina Panthers, does a touchdown celebration where he acts as if he rips off the shirt from his chest. He does this every time he scores a touchdown, and never gets in trouble for it. However, Jalan McClendon, a high-school quarterback, did the same exact celebration during one of his games, because of how much he looked up to Newton. The celebrations were the same, but the consequences were not. McClendon got ejected from that game because the high school thought it was disrespectful.

Similarly, a well-known football star is Tim Tebow. He also has a coined touchdown celebration called “Tebow-ing” where he kneels over and looks like he is praying. Many young kids, and even adults, mimic this by tebow-ing at any time they deem necessary. Some high-school students at Riverhead High School were suspended for a hallway tebowing session.

Both examples indicate that actions that NFL stars take are often copied by high-schoolers who look up to them. The pattern indicates that the actions the pros take have no consequences, while the kids often do get penalized. Why do you think this is true? Should pros be more careful about their celebrations, or should they continue to do what they do?

Americans and the Lottery

During this past week, the news was filled with stories not of the situation in Syria, but of the lottery. The Lottery was up to $580 million dollars last week, which was the second highest jackpot in American history. My initial reaction to this was, "here we go again." But the longer I thought about it, the more I connected it to our discussions of success in class.

The craze over the Lottery to me indicates that Americans would much rather get their money in a way that requires absolutely no work, rather than working hard doing a job they love. This fantasy of winning the lottery coerces people to buy a lottery ticket. The interesting thing to me is that the odds of winning are so minuscule, yet thousands upon thousands of people still buy tickets. 

The odds of winning the Jackpot were at 1 in 176 million. That is such a ridiculously small chance of winning that I would think it would turn some people off from buying the tickets. Boy was I wrong about that. Anyway, I found this hilarious Times article that compared the odds of winning the lottery to the odds of other funny, random things. Here are some of my favorites:

Chances of dating a supermodel: 1 in 88,000

Chances of dying by falling off of a ladder: 1 in 2.3 million

Chances of drowning in the bathtub: 1 in 840,000

Chances of dying by getting hit by a vending machine: 1 in 112 million

Despite these odds, Americans don't cease to buy a ticket for a chance to win. This tells me a couple of things about Americans: Like I mentioned earlier, they would rather have to do no work to get an absurd amount of money that they have no need for. Second, that they care more about money than doing what they love. 

Do you think this is the case with all Americans - do they worship money? Or is it just a craze due to the lottery?

Fiscal Cliff

The fiscal cliff is approaching. And if a deal isn't made before January 1st, our economy will be doomed. There will be spending cuts all across the board in all different sectors of our economy - the defense sector, welfare, etc. This will devastate the economy, the most important possession that the US has.

What intrigues me is how important money is to the US. We care less about fighting in wars, or our troops dying, or anything else really. All that we care about is that we have enough money to sustain those wars, or invest in new technology or infrastrcuture that isn't necessarily essential to helping our country grow stronger.

What also interests me is the vast difference in ideologies between the Republicans and the Democrats in the fiscal cliff negotiations. The Republicans are most concerned with increasing taxes on the wealthy, whereas the Democrats are more concerned about programs like welfare. How does one nation produce such different ideologies when it comes to the economy? What is most important to America right now? Are those priorities correct? Feel free to comment below.

Kyrsten Sinema

The name may be unfamiliar to you, but Kyrsten Sinema is breaking precedents in Arizona. Although the elections are over, and it seems that almost everyone is tuned out of politics for the next 4 years, I am not. Sinema just recently got elected to the House of Representatives after all of the votes were finally tallied, 6 days after the polls closed. She came out on top, and is now not only a rare Democrat elected in the generally red state of Arizona, but is also the first bisexual congresswoman to be elected.

This groundbreaking achievement of Sinema's is quite important. This victory may lead the way to equal rights for those who are a part of the LGBT community. It is hard enough to win an election as a Democrat in a generally Republican state, but when you defy all odds and win it is even more amazing.

What kind of implications does this victory have for the future of equal rights? Will this boost the chances of other LGBT people who run for Congress' chance of succeeding? Why or why not?

If you want to learn more, here is a two minute video on Sinema.

Defining Success

Earlier in the week, Mr. O'Connor brought up an idea about how people who live around here quantify success. Not to generalize, but I think it is fair to say that most people around here would define success as getting the best grades, going to the best college, and making the most money. This brief conversation that we had got me thinking about the reasons I put so much effort into getting good grades in school.

Success should me measured by doing what you love, not how much money you make doing it. If it was just about making money, an astonishing amount of people would be failures. I think that this measure of success is inherent in most Americans. This is true because of the troubling economy, and the general understanding of the American dream. The American dream is to find a great job and make money.

I now disagree with the concept of success being monetarily interpreted because it is an arbitrary way to assign someone their true worth. Where did this definition come from, and why is it still stuck in so many of our heads?

Sandy Breeds Scammers

As you all know, the "superstorm" Hurricane Sandy devastated the states along or East/Northeast border. Tons of damage was done to houses, buildings, and nature. What's left to do is cleaning up and helping those who have no home, power, or clothes. In order to help the people who are in need, tons of companies and organizations are accepting both monetary donations and clothes donations. I myself have donated sweatshirts and fleeces in hope that I will help somebody stay warm.

With all of these ways to donate and help out, there are some serious scams going around as well. After Hurricane Sandy, over one thousand websites opened up. Some were websites that truly did intend to help - lawyers, construction companies, etc. But others, such as a site that accepted PayPal donations to help victims in Jamaica, could not be confirmed as an honest site. The site that I mentioned above was looked in to by SANS Security, a site that checks other internet sites for validity. SANS was not able to confirm that the donations received by the site that collected donations for Jamaican victims actually were given to those in need.

What struck me was how in times of serious need, some people choose to take advantage of the situation for their own personal gain. Is this something that America stands for? How can we ensure that things like this don't happen in the future?

And if you plan to donate, here is a link that gives you legitimate help sites. Make sure you know where you donate, because 70% of Americans do not.

Iran Sanctions

As you all know, we have had presentations for the past week or two relation to civil liberties in times of peril. Whether or not you think that we are currently in times of peril, I think that the situation that is going on in the Middle East currently is a direct threat to our national security. Due to the instability in Iran and Israel too, there is no doubt in any leaders’ minds that a conflict in the Middle East could escalate quickly, and that the US may have to get involved in one.

To contain an outbreak of conflict in Iran specifically, the US has sanctioned Iran’s economy. The US feels the need to sanction Iran because they are afraid that Iran is planning on using its fissile nuclear materials for nuclear weapon capabilities. Some think that sanctioning Iran economically will decrease their will to build and use nuclear weapons. There is a different effect occurring in Iran, however.

The sanctions have been so powerful that it has affected the economy to such an extent that medicine prices have skyrocketed. This means that businesses can't buy enough medicine to supply its demand. Specifically, a drug that helps curb the effects of cancer is diminishing in Iran. This is causing six million patients in Iran to be treated insufficiently. How can we justify these sanctions when it is effecting the regular population? Are these sanctions too effective perhaps, why or why not?

WHOA - Wow!

During class on Thursday, Mr. O'Connor commented on the Winnetka Home Owner's Association (WHOA). It is exactly what it sounds like - a group of Winnetka homeowners who talk and make decisions about various topics relating to real estate in Winnetka. Recently, the have come under fire for pushing back against the proposition to allow people who make $45,000 to rent apartments in Winnetka.

As we all know, Winnetka is a very wealthy city, as is the whole North Shore. But what is interesting is that the WHOA does not want people who make less than them to live in the same city as they do. It seems like a basic right that anyone, no matter which socio-economic class, should be allowed to live anywhere they please, as long as they follow the rules (i.e paying for the house, paying taxes). Why are they refusing to allow this to occur, you may ask? It seems quite ironic to me.

The WHOA says that allowing this to happen would be "un-American". Sense the irony now? The WHOA claims it as such because it could raise taxes or potentially increase crime. In my opinion, raising taxes is not un-American - it is a responsibility that all Americans should accept. I also certainly do not think that allowing some lower-income families into Winnetka would increase crime by any means. It seems clear that the reason they do not want lower-income families to move to Winnetka is to keep the city a wealthy city and to sustain its $200,000 average income.

What seems more un-American is not allowing Americans a basic right to buy a home or live in a city they wish to.

My question is simple: what is more un-American - denying the right to buy a home, or living in a city where you are not as wealthy as the majority?

The Future Generation

After a long month's worth of interviewing, drafting, and revising my oral history paper, it finally came the day to turn it in. Just when I thought I was done with the transcript and all, Mr. O'Connor gave us the option to creatively make an erasure poem, where we could erase words from a page of our transcript to write a poem. I made my poem tailored to my experience with my interviewee: 

"I am special. Kids are people."

Short? Yes. I know. But it really illustrated how I felt during my interview, and how I feel when I am with adults I don't have a relationship with. Whether this is just her personality, the woman who I interviewed was very condescending and a tad snappy - she refused to give me any specific stories even when I asked her blatantly, and she treated me as if I were a 10 year-old. This not only made me upset, it made me think of how kids get treated by adults.

Yes, adults are older and supposedly smarter and have more experience with everything, but I think that even though we are younger, our voice and opinions are just as valid as someone three times our age. I don't feel as if that is the case now. 

Does this happen with most adult-kid interactions? Is this an American thing, or is it universal? Or is it just me...?

The Government's Role

In class this week, when we looked at the primary source documents from when the Puritans made their journey from England to America to build the new Church of England. The last document was an outline of some of the rules that would be put in place once the Puritans settled in America. One of the rules had to do with the portion of land and property that each family got. They were each to have a "convenient" portion of land.

I thought that it meant that everyone would have roughly the same amount of land. However, upon further discussion in class, I was wrong. Not everybody got an equal amount of land, because there was a certain group of people who divided up the land.

This made me think about what the government's role should be in America when it comes to owning property. Is it possible for everyone to own land? Should the government play any role in giving land out to people? Why or why not?

The First Presidential Debate

Last night was the first Presidential debate. Mitt Romney and Barack Obama both shared their opinions and policies on various issues - taxation, the federal deficit, healthcare, and more. But one thing struck me in particular. What occurred in the first twenty minutes of the debate was something that I did not expect to hear. Obama and Romney bickered back and forth about Romney's tax policies.

Obama mentioned that Romney's tax policy would increase the deficit by at least 7 trillion dollars. It was something that the President iterated throughout the discussion of the economy. Romney, on the other hand, denied over and over that his policy would not increase the federal deficit. Both candidates cited studies which they said proved they were correct.

How can something that seems to have an objective truth be debated so heavily? Is this an indicator that we cannot trust what the candidates say during their campaigns? How do we know which statements are true and which are not?

Independents in the Election

As we all know, the first Presidential debates are approaching. This election is pretty close - and there are plenty of voters who are undecided. There is also a large number of voters who are independent - they don't openly support one candidate as of now. This is true with many people. They are upset with Obama because they believe that he did not improve the nation during his four year presidency, but they also do not like Romney (for various reasons). These independent voters are more important to the election than ever.

Independent voters do not get much media attention, but they are important. As Jon Cohen and Dan Balz say, independents are those whose "attitudinal swings can make the difference between celebration and dejection on election night." They are underrated, yet extremely important.

What I am trying to get to is that so many people are upset with both candidates. Why should voters have to choose between the lesser of two evils? Why are they so upset with both candidates?

Don't Ask Don't Tell

It's been over a year since the controversial policy"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was repealed by the Obama Administration. The policy was simple - if you were a homosexual, you were allowed to serve in the Army as long as you didn't tell others, and didn't ask others about their sexual orientation. It made it seem as if the government was not comfortable having homosexuals serve our nation. To me, it the policy was disrespectful and distasteful. The Obama administration felt the same way.

The policy was repealed. Now, a soldier of any sexual orientation is allowed to serve openly in the military. Many high ranking military officers believed that soldiers serving openly would negatively effect both the amount of servicemen and women, and posed "an intolerable risk" to the effectiveness of our military. Well, it didn't. Those who doubted it are now proven wrong. There have no been absolutely no consequences for our military due to DADT's repeal. 

Why were so many people hesitant to repeal this law which disrespected so many people in our country? Does it show anything about some Americans' view on sexual orientation? What do you think about the law?

Keynesian Economics Holds True

Everywhere you go, you hear news about the 2012 Presidential Election. Whether it's watching your favorite television show, or even walking down the halls at New Trier, there are always people talking about the election. This election will most likely be decided by one factor - the economy. The election will come down to this: If the general public thinks they are better off now than they were four years ago, they will probably vote for Obama. If they don't, they will probably vote for Romney. If that previous statement holds true, Obama will win the election.

In 2009, Barack Obama announced the one of the biggest federal stimulus bills of all time - the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This was a bill that was supposed to create jobs and save the economy from a complete crash during the recession. The way it was supposed to create jobs was through federal stimulus, investing $841 billion dollars in tons of sectors of the US economy. This theory of federal stimulus spending is backed up by the Keynesian macroeconomic (possible microeconomic, I'm not one hundred percent sure about that) theory. Keynesian economic theory believes that the best way to stop a recession is by investing tons of money into the economy. 

Of course, almost all Conservatives hate the idea of stimulus spending and Keynesian economic theory in general, because they think that stimulus spending has a net negative effect on the economy. Both sides bicker about which policies are best for the economy, and why. The Conservatives were proven wrong, says an article written by David Firestone of the New York Times:

"But the stimulus did far more than stimulate: it protected the most vulnerable from the recession’s heavy winds. Of the act’s $840 billion final cost, $1.5 billion went to rent subsidies and emergency housing that kept 1.2 million people under roofs. (That’s why the recession didn’t produce rampant homelessness.) It increased spending on food stamps, unemployment benefits and Medicaid, keeping at least seven million Americans from falling below the poverty line."

Firestone argues that the stimulus did its job - it put our economy in a far better position than it was four years ago, and it also saved millions of Americans from being jobless and homeless. If the average voter knew the statistics that Firestone presents, I think they would be extremely satisfied and shocked. If they knew that the economy is better than they think it is, and could perhaps improve even more under Obama's policies, would they vote for him? I think so.

Is Keynesian economic theory correct? Did the benefits outweigh the costs? If it is correct, does this mean that Obama has a greater chance at winning the election? Now that you know my thoughts, I'm curious to hear yours.

Greed

As I was surfing the internet a couple days ago, I found news stories that I expected. There were articles about the stock market, the protests in Cairo, and plenty of articles about the election. What I didn't expect to see was an article about a bank robbery. This isn't your generic bank robbery, where a group of people run in with masks and guns and run out with bags of money. No. This time, when the robbers were speeding down the roads with cop cars chasing them, they created a distraction.

The robbers began chucking handfuls of money out of the car. Their distraction was successful. Mobs of people began rushing towards the car. Not to stop the robbers, though. They ran to pick up the cash that was being thrown out of the car. The people had no intention of trying to help the police catch the suspects. They just wantedtheir money:

"Onlookers were waving to the suspected bank robbers, apparently signaling for them to throw more money"

This shows us a lot about a lot of Americans. Their top priority is getting or making money. I'm not saying that all Americans are infatuated with money, I am just saying that it is most people's instinct to make sure they have enough money to please them. Does this mean that we are fine with going so far as to breaking laws in order to get money? Is this a major problem in our society, or is it something that we should just accept?

Real Estate and Segregation

During today's discussion in class, Mr. Bolos brought up the topic of real estate workers and promoting segregation through house selection, whether overtly or not. The idea is that people want to make sure that certain areas include people of a certain race, religion, or ethnicity. For instance, Mr. O'Connor touched on how he grew up in an Irish-American part of Chicago where most Irish Americans lived because that is where the great majority of them resided. This made me remember a very similar story that occurred two summers ago in Charlevoix, Michigan.

After four days of relaxing at the beach playing soccer and swimming, eating delicious meals on the picnic table on the sand, and going out for nice dinners, my Grandma was so in love with Charlevoix that she decided she wanted to look in to buying a house there. The very next day, my mom and her went on a tour with a real estate agent of multiple properties. My Grandma fell in love with one.

You should know that my family is Jewish. What I didn't know, and what my parents didn't think was important, was that Charlevoix is a very Christian town. After a long discussion with the real estate agent, my Grandma asked if there were any temples around. The real estate agent was in shock. She then proceeded to talk my Grandma and mom out of the possibility of buying that house, or any other house. My whole family was shocked.

Why should it matter that my Grandma was Jewish while the rest of the people were not? Why did the real estate agent prevent my Grandma from providing her with business because of her religious faith? These were both questions nobody could answer.

Do instances like that show anything about Americans? Do we still have inner segregation? Do examples like that promote what America stands for - liberty and justice for all? 

Healthcare

Just last night as I finished brushing my teeth, tripped over my suitcase and fell into bed on the fluffy Marriott bed. As all three of us - me, Zach, and Matt - sat in our beds with the lights off, we began to talk. Since we are at a debate tournament, we naturally began to talk about politics, the election, and matters like that. We all have different stances on politics, which fostered a good discussion about both candidates. What intrigued me most was our section of the discussion about Healthcare.

The Healthcare law, or as some call "ObamaCare", just recently passed the Supreme Court in June. This got me thinking about Americans and their priorities - why do some want near-universal healthcare, and why do some not?

I think that the reason that there are conflicting opinions on this all are rooted in one cause - money. I heard a story on NPR about how now the pizza company Papa John's now has to raise their price of pizza because they now have to pay additional money for Healthcare. The thing is, the price increase is 14 cents. They are extremely upset over minutely increasing the price of their product that most customers won't even notice.

This tells us a lot about Americans. They all think that money is the most important part of their lives. While this may be true, it still shows us a lot about Americans' priorities, and money is certainly number one. 

Hegemony - Good or Bad?

During our class discussion today, we began to touch on the concept of American exceptionalism. We tried to determine both its denotation and its connotation. When I first hear the words "American exceptionalism", I think of American hegemony.

For those of you who do not know the concept of hegemony, it is generally defined as leadership or dominance that a certain group or nation has over another group or groups of people. In the context of America, we are the global hegemon.

Take a step back and think about those two powerful words. We literally control everything on the entire planet. Now, the question is obvious: is this control a good or a bad thing? Can we sustain hegemony for as long as we need to?

In my opinion, I think it is a bad thing, and is not sustainable. Although global dominance is a very powerful phrase, other nations do not really appreciate it. They may look to us as the police of the world - if they have problems, they can just holler over to the US for help. To me, that is not a good position for us, especially in these harsh economic times where we need to focus on our own national problems. In fact, some authors, like Ivan Eland, believe that hegemony tanks our economy. His logic is simple: other countries need our help. That help usually involves deployed military forces to end a war or stop one from breaking out in a different country. This, in turn, means we need more money to fund these wars we get involved in, therefore using our own resources for something that does not directly involve us.

I completely agree with Eland - I think American hegemony both hinders our own economic growth, and may even make us some enemies on the way. 

I also do not believe that hegemony is sustainable. Take the example I gave from above, and imagine what would happen if we got ourselves involved in multiple conflicts. Not only would our forces be deployed in other countries, and our money be spent on stuff across the globe, there are other countries that are beginning to step up as well. China is a perfect example of this - China's GDP is currently growing at a faster rate than the United States', and China's GDP will most likely surpass ours in the coming years. Add those three elements together, and it seems quite clear that we cannot sustain our global hegemony.

What do you guys think? Is having control over almost every country a good or a bad thing, and can we sustain it? 

Here is the link for Eland's article if any of you are interested. 

Taking It Too Far?

Everywhere I turn, whether it be in school or at home, I hear people talking about the election. Most people explain their views on each candidate, and why one is better than the other. There is no more talk of the other candidates who ran for the GOP nomination. Earlier today, I stumbled upon an article about one of my favorite "politicians" - Vermin Supreme.

For those of you who don't know about Vermin Supreme, he is quite the character. Here is a great article that outlines his views and gives some good background information on him. He has ran for plenty of political positions all over the country, and this year, he ran as a Democrat for President of the United States. With his iconic boot on his head, and his bullhorn in hand, he travels around the country spreading his messages.

He uses his messages to mock the political system. He has some basic stances that he loves to share. First, he will pass a law during the first day of office that makes sure everyone brushes their teeth. Second, he will give everyone their own pony. Thirdly, he will go back in time to murder Hitler. Yes, these ideas sound hilarious and ridiculous, but he ran for President seriously: "I am a 100% candidate. I am running."

If you want to see his commitment in action, here is a video that I will guarantee you will laugh at. It is worth five minutes of your time if you have nothing important to do.

In times like we are in now, with a seemingly bad economy and controversial social activities going on, was a candidate who mocked what others stand for appropriate? Did Vermin Supreme's actions expose anything about the current political system, or was he just wasting his time?

(Obligatory) Elections Blog Post

As I walk out of math class, I pull out to my phone check if I got any texts. None. However, I have five new e-mails. How can this be? I checked my emails during advisory, and now after second period I have five new e-mails? From whom? Nobody else but THE Barack Obama. I open it. "Dear AJ - " it starts. I know where it this is going, I think to myself - he is going to ask for yet another donation. "What else do you want from me Barack? I've donated ninety dollars of my own money and bought an Obama-Biden 2012 sweatshirt from your online store, and now you are asking for another donation?" I shrug it off as I make my way to kinetic wellness.

When I get a chance to read the 5 e-mails I received, four of which were from Democratic supporters - Joe Biden, John Kerry, Obama, and Mike Ryan - I notice that all four of them include direct ad hominum attacks on either Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney. The e-mail from Mike Ryan is a great example of this. It started with an ad hominem attack right off the bat:

"Last night, Paul Ryan brazenly lied to the country. Repeatedly."

Wait - in Mr. Ryan's speech, he said that Obama was the one lying to America and its people. If both parties accuse each other of lying about one issue, who should I trust? I decide to not worry myself about that important question, since I have hours of homework ahead of me. 

If there really are only two options in this election - Barack Obama or Mitt Romney - what will this election come down to? Each candidate's stance on the economy, or their ability to lie about the other candidate? Why is there more focus on what the other candidate will do to screw the country over, and less about the specifics of how they will help? These ad hominem attacks just won't cut it for me.This is the first election I have followed, and I now know the disgusting truth of elections - it isn't about what they say they will do as president, it is about what they say the other will do to mess up.