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?

Reading the Right News

Throughout the school year, I have learned a lot about how to critically analyze a source before assuming that the information it provides is accurate and non-biased. So, I try to put that into practice. When I read an article on CNN, and then read an article about the same subject on the New York Times, there are always slight discrepancies. Why do those discrepancies exist?

First, there are obvious ideological differences. CNN and Fox News are pretty much polar opposites in terms of political viewpoints. So, if you read an article about a newly enacted policy by President Obama, it is likely that the article on CNN will be more approving of Obama and the policy as opposed to the Fox News article.

But, I am more interested in knowing when the information in the articles themselves are true. For instance, during the bombing in Boston, CNN, Fox News, the AP, the Boston Globe, and the New York Post all published articles that said a suspect was in custody, when that was not the case at the time. That got me thinking - have other articles I have read made factual inaccuracies too? I think the answer is yes, though I cannot be sure.

Real Testing?

After taking my last ACT, it really got me thinking about not only the test itself but how inaccurate it portrays students' knowledge. The ACT is a test that is supposed to test a student's knowledge in math, general science, reading comprehension, and grammar. Each test has a certain time limit with varying amounts of questions. There is also a writing section in which the student writes a short essay answering the prompt. Supposedly, the grading system for that is extremely arbitrary given the subjective nature of essays, but that is irrelevant.

There are a lot of kids at our school who do very well on the ACT. And though there are kids who are destined to get that 36 because of how much natural smarts they have, there is one thing that New Trier kids have an advantage over kids from other schools. Tutors. I know tons of kids who have tutors for the ACT, either private or in a group. Only extremely wealthy families can afford a tutor, which is supposed to increase a student's score. That puts kids from many schools at a major disadvantage.

The competitive nature at our school coerces kids to study an insane amount and even spend hundreds of dollars on a tutor. I do not think that tests the student's knowledge whatsoever. It also puts wealthy kids, who are already a step ahead of less wealthy kids, another step ahead.

Is this how standardized testing will continue to be? What can be done to equalize testing so that everyone has the same opportunity, if anything?

10 Years Later

Today marks the 10 year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. As we have discussed in class, there is a lot of confusion about the motive for the invasion and if it was the correct choice. Though I don't want to delve into the motivation for the intrusion, I do want to insert a statistic about the approval rating of the war. In a Gallup poll taken between March 7 and 10 of this year, 53 percent answered that they disapproved of the war. Whether it be the confusion over the causes and intentions, or the length of our invasion there, this anniversary is marked with clear disapproval.

With America in its role as the global policeman, we are involved either physically or financially in most wars/conflicts that occur. The Iran-Israel conflict, the Syrian revolution, and many other conflicts are occurring right now, most of which we are involved in. What interests me is the motive for getting involved.

I know that the reason we are involved in conflicts is deep and complex, but I wonder why the US is the country that is involved. Why not Russia, England, or China? Why us?

I think this is the case because of our dominant economy and drive to be at the top. Every State of the Union Speech the President emphasizes how we need to be the leader. This rhetoric and focus on being on top spills over to our actions. Thus, we get involved in other conflicts, that sometimes the public does not even support!

What do you think, and why?

NFL Tokenism?

TV tokenism has now become very apparent to me after Mr. Bolos' presentation and all of the presentations. Admittedly, I had never thought of how common TV tokenism is, and how the same patterns of characters appear in tons of shows. TV tokenism is the idea that having one or a couple minority characters will offset accusations of a certain network or show being racially biased towards casting white actors over minorities. This pattern is very alarming to me, especially since I had no idea that it was so prevalent. It made me wonder if tokenism was also apparent in other parts of our society.

As it turns out, there are tons of examples of tokenism in our society. The one I was most appalled by was in the National Football League (NFL). The NFL has a rule, the Rooney Rule, which mandates that every team has to interview at least one minority coach for a head coach position. This is very similar to a quota in a way. It is similar in the sense that each team has to interview one minority candidate, but different in the sense that they are not required to hire a minority person for that position.

I know what you're thinking - this is in no way similar to tokenism. Tokenism is, after all, "using" minority characters to avoid backlash. But the Rooney Rule is similar to tokenism because it forces teams to at least try to hire a minority coach. And that is where the controversy comes in.

As with quotas and tokenism, backlash is almost certain. For one, it is easy for some to say that if a minority coach gets hired, it could be that they were hired solely on the basis of race. Though it is almost always incorrect, and obviously offensive, those kinds of comments are pretty common.

But what I was more concerned with was if the rule was effective or not? In this current NFL off-season, there were 15 top coaching vacancies available. How many of those fifteen spots were filled with minority coaches? NONE. So perhaps I was incorrect with my assessment of NFL tokenism - it may be more of the NFL trying to be racially equal (and failing miserably).

Herm Edwards, an ex-NFL coach, hopes that the rule doesn't encourage situations where teams just meet the quota JUST to meet the quota: "It can't be 'who is the guy to interview to get this out of the way?'" But sadly, that is what it looks like it has come to, at least in this off-season.

I don't think that is a coincidence at all - I think that white coaches have the upper hand when it comes to hiring in the NFL. What do you think - is this just another example of tokenism? Is the Rooney Rule sufficient to try to be racially equal, or does it fail miserably?

US-Israel Alliance

President Obama is scheduled to make a visit to Israel in a couple of weeks, his first in his presidency. Israel is a very important ally to the US, as the president stressed. But he also called the alliance "eternal". Obama's use of the word "eternal" is very rhetorically powerful, but also assumes that the US will eternally be a super-power. The reason Obama is being so reassuring towards Israel is because he wants to convey the message that he is on their side in the Iran nuclear facility events.

Iran has recently been making strides in their nuclear capabilities, supposedly. They claim that they are very close to being able to make a nuclear bomb, but many countries are skeptical of that claim. Nonetheless, Iran and Israel have a very heated relationship over land disputes.

But this brings up an interesting thought - why can the US have nuclear weapons, but deny other countries theirs? Though Iran may seem like an irrational actor, increasing economic sanctions to prevent the development of weapons may actually fuel the fire. This is similar to what Mr. Bolos said a while back - why does the US get to criticize Iran on its horrible treatment of women, when it took the US 200 years for women to get equal rights?

Though I do think Iran with nuclear weapons could be extremely dangerous. I do not know why the US gets to control them. What do you think - does the US have the right to boss around other nations? Why or why not?

Martin and the Media

Over a year after the controversial, fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin on a dark, rainy February night, there has been no mass amounts of analysis of the situation, or live coverage, or even that many articles about the shooting. But the shooting, which was the biggest news story for the week or so after it happened, is no less important now than it was a year ago. The media, however, no longer prioritizes this important, almost monumental event in their news coverage. This, to me, is indicative of how the media shapes what news is and is not relevant - a pattern that has been the case for a while.

For those of you who don't know about the case, I will give a brief description that by no means is sufficient to sum up the story. One night, Trayvon Martin, a black teenager, was walking home from the store and was approached by a volunteer watchman. The watchman, George Zimmerman, thought Martin was acting suspicious is his wealthy, gated community. Zimmerman then fatally shot Martin (if you want to learn in more detail about the story, go here).

After the shooting, the news exploded with tons of different accounts of the story, supposed facts about the case, and certainly opinions about the motive of the shooting and if Zimmerman was justified in killing Trayvon. Though this case is very intricate and complex, I think that the media's response to the story is just as important as the story itself.

Dylan Stableford, Senior Media Reporter for Yahoo! thinks this case exposed the worst in the media: "The Trayvon Martin case has exposed some of the media's worst tendencies - selective editing, rushing to judgement, stoking anger for ratings and pageviews". The word "selective" indicates that the media only portrays certain parts of the case, in order to make the story seem more interesting to the audience. Tendencies like misrepresenting a story for "pageviews" and "ratings" are clearly horrible tactics the media uses to gain popularity.

And after a week, fua, as Oscar Wao would say. It is gone. No more constant coverage of the story, hourly updates, you will rarely even see any kind of story on it. Do you think that the media does a correct job covering all stories fair and equally? Is it legitimate for them to alter stories so they are more popular and make more money? I certainly do not think so, but please share your thoughts.

Obama Pardons 17

Our class discussions about racism and how it is present in the justice system sparked my interest in how apparent it really is in daily life. Although in class we talked about black protesters from the Civil Rights Movement getting sentenced to long prison sentences for trespassing, just recently Obama pardoned seventeen people for non-violent crimes. The crimes that the newly-pardoned people committed were far different from the "crimes" that protesters did during the Civil Rights Movement. But I think that it still shows that our country is at the very least trying not to make the same mistakes we made in the past.

Obama pardoned seventeen people recently after committing minor crimes from almost decades ago, such as "falsely altering a U.S. money order" or even "acquiring food stamps without authorization". I think that there is a consensus that these crimes are not big enough to the extent that the person who committed it is in jail for over a decade. That just seems outrageous. But that is a clear connection back to the CRM, when authorities would press charges on protesters for whatever charge they could press. For instance, since protesting was not a crime, they would charge them for trespassing on property.

But I don't think that pardoning people for acquiring food stamps falsely is anywhere on the same level as for protesting racial inequality. So although Obama is taking a step in the right direction by pardoning people for petty offenses, there is still a lot of work to be done to make the justice system equal.

Work and Wages

In the wealthiest nation on Earth today, there is debate over how much money people deserve for doing certain jobs. The current minimum wage requires that each person gets at least $7.25. Obama wants to raise the wage up to $9.00. What the raise in wage would signify wouldn't just be a physical increase in cash in people's pocket, it seems to me it would raise the value of people who work lower level jobs.

Before I get into that, it is interesting that the US didn't have a minimum wage until the end of World War II. Before then, the Supreme Court ruled it Unconstitutional to impose a federal minimum wage because it infringed upon the workers' rights to determine the work they do. As the years went by, the minimum wage eventually got instituted after FDR instituted the minimum wage. FDR thought that the "government must have some control over maximum hours, minimum wages." The word "must" to me indicates an obligation to the people that the government must help them using this law.

As the years passed, the wage increased more and more. And now the debate is on again - to raise it higher. To me, without a minimum wage, it would show that the government has no problem letting people in the lower class who can only work at certain places fall into poverty. Without a minimum wage, hard-working Americans would make no money after hours of strenuous work.

But some think that not having a minimum wage would be helpful. The theory is that when you raise the cost of employment, there is less incentive for businesses to hire.

What do you think about a raise in the minimum wage? Would it have a positive or negative effect on the people and our economy? Or do we even need a minimum wage?

False Progression in America

Recently, the trend of shootings, whether with a high or low death toll, has increased. The Sandy Hook shooting and the shooting at Lone Star College in Texas are two that were well covered by the media. However, what most of you probably don't know is that between January 10th and January 31st, there were eight shootings at different schools. The event that triggered debates about gun laws was the horrific Sandy Hook shooting. But months after that crisis, there is no resolution on curbing violence.

What people in America think is that our country is getting better. Our economy is improving, there are no imminent dangers that are being pushed to the public, and it seems as if people pay little attention to shootings. But this is all part of the false progression theory - the public isn't aware of  certain issues, and they therefore think that nothing is wrong.

But clearly, there are major problems in the US when it comes to curbing gun violence. But since the public isn't getting these events shoved down their throats, they do not pay attention to it. Is this the fault of the media? Since the school shootings aren't as big as the Sandy Hook shooting, the media is not providing coverage on those issues. Should they be?

With media coverage aside, are Americans stuck in a mindset of false progression? Why or why not?

The Gun Paradox

Just today, the most prestigious US military sniper, Chris Kyle, was killed. The cause? Not an illness, or a car accident. No. He was shot by an Iraq and Afghanistan military veteran at a shooting range.

I think that this example sets up a clear paradox about guns and their usage. The first is that a man who dedicated his life to killing other people with guns ended up being killed by a gun. To me, Chris seemed to think of himself as almost invincible from the negative consequences of guns, especially given the title of his autobiography, "American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History". The word "lethal" to me indicates that he is deadly at what he does. That is magnified by the word "most" because it means more than anyone else. However, the most lethal sniper was killed by his weapon.

The second is that Kyle was shot at a firing range. He brought a military veteran to go to the range to shoot guns with him in order to "bring some relief". To relieve stress, Kyle took the veteran to a shooting range. I think that is another paradox because to me, shooting guns have a negative connotation. I feel this way because I have never been exposed to a gun before, and quite frankly, they scare me. A gun has so much force and power that I feel as if I am not responsible enough. If I were to go to the shooting range it certainly would not be to let out steam.

What I am trying to get at is that gun usage is very two-sided. In other words, Kyle killed people with his guns, but got killed himself by one. How do we, as Americans, suppress or alter gun usage so that horrible events like these don't happen anymore? Are guns embedded in American society to the extent that a change in policy is unforeseeable? Why or why not?

The Show Must Go On

Mike Daisey’s continuation of his theater show after admitting that he was lying is an important contemporary artifact because it demonstrates the tendency of Americans to put morals and facts aside and focus on pure profit. This drive for profit has been embedded in Americans throughout all the time periods that we have studied.

Daisey’s show outlines horrific working conditions and specific stories from workers in one of Apple’s supposed Chinese sweatshops. However, after investigation by reporters, Daisey was forced to come out and admit that the show is just a piece of "theater", and not wholly true. Daisey’s use of the word “theater” indicates that it is merely an attempt to please the audience, not provide facts of a certain situation. A theater show, for example, can act out the brutality and chilling times of the Holocaust, without providing one hundred percent accuracy in its stories.

Daisey’s directors go on to describe that “art is different than journalism.” Art is a form of expression where an artist creates something based on their emotions and understanding of a certain situation. Journalism, in contrast, is limited to providing cold hard facts to a certain audience. A journalist, for example, could detail the horrors of a certain sweat shop and quote the workers about what they go through. An artist, on the other hand, could paint that same worker with blood and tears running over his body. The distinction between art and journalism, though seemingly small, is a clear indication that Daisey fabricated certain parts of his show purely to attract audiences, and ultimately gain profit. The fact that Daisey’s shows continued to run despite being proven false is a clear indication that Daisey just wants his show to make money.

The theme of making money is still present in the modern day. In Mr. O’Connor’s blog post, Polling Matters, he reminds us that “media outlets are businesses.” A business is a company or shop that focuses on buying or selling products in order to make money. The cigarette business, for example, exemplifies that they care only that people buy their product so that they make money, and care less about the negative health issues associated with it.

The drive for profit was clear even during the Salem witch trials. The Englishmen who landed in Salem were “motivated mainly by a hunt for profit” (Crucible 5). The idea of profit is still present during this time period. Profit, as you know, is a drive to make money. The word “hunt” is not only foreshadowing the witch-hunt that ensued in Salem, but also indicates that people are willing to go to extreme lengths to make money. A dog hunts for squirrels so that it has something to eat, similarly to how people hunt for profit. A hunt, to me, indicates that a person will go to all lengths, even kill someone or something, to get what they want. This demonstrates that people will do whatever it takes to get money.

During the Civil War, the drive for profit was also a top priority for most people: “Auctions of slaves took place at public slave markets” (Foner 380). An auction is a place where people sell their goods (or in this case, slaves) for the highest amount of money possible. This is a clear suggestion that the drive for money was preceded morals. During the Civil War, Southerners put morals aside and did all they could to make money.

Throughout the times in history we have studied, the theme of profit preceding morals and common sense has been present, but as they say, the show must go on.

Forced Labor in China

A couple weeks ago, we had numerous class discussions about modern forms of slavery. We listened to a very intense poem called "Shirt" by Robert Pinsky, and we were then assigned to write a poem or story about modern day slavery in a certain country or factory. Before the assignment, I had never thought much of forced labor, and how big of a role it plays in the American society. A shockingly high 98% of the clothes in America have been imported from other countries, according to ABCNews.  But the problem isn't that we import too much, it's that what we import is made by slave labor in other countries.

Recently, I found a story that details the life of a slave in a factory in Masanjia, China. The story was discovered when a woman and her husband opened a box of Halloween decorations to decorate their house. But when they opened the box, they found more than just the decorations, they found this:



In the letter, a woman from the Masanji Forced Labor camp in China begs whoever opens the item to alert the World Human Rights Assocation about the cruel violations that occur daily. She works fifteen hours a day, gets zero days off. If a worker tries to get a day off, they "will suffer torturement, beat and rude remark". And they only make $1.61 a month.

Yes, the details are horrid, and yes, we should all go out of our way to make sure we stop things like this from happening. But a larger impact would be the impact that items made by slave labor would have on the US companies that sell them. According to Title 19 Section 1307 of the US Code, any item made in a country by forced labor is not legally allowed to come in the US. If these laws were truly followed by the US, I would be interested to see how much of the products and goods we buy are made by forced slave labor.

After all of this, I have been left questioning: Are products made by slaves a part of the American society? Is there anything that we can do to ensure that we don't buy or support slave labor? I think that the Americans rely too much on cheap, slave-made goods in order to make a profit, and that most care more about money than suffering people in other countries. What do you think?