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?