(B)logging Off For The Year

As we enter our final week of Junior year, I have to admit that I was wrong. When Mr. Bolos and Mr. O'Connor originally told us that we would be blogging weekly for the entire year, I dreaded the idea. I was uncomfortable with the idea of classmates reading my writing, so you could imagine my angst over the thought of my blog being on the internet for anyone to see. But, as the year progressed and as I grew more confident with my writing abilities, my blogging shifted from a weekly burden to an "activity" to look forward to!

My favorite blog post of this last quarter would have to be "Climbing Out Of Poverty, $2 At A Time." Perhaps what I like most about this post is that it was based off of a connection I made outside of class to a theme we discussed in American Studies. In class, we had debated how easy/hard it is to alter social class, and the example I used in my favorite post is very relevant to that discussion.

Unlike many of my earlier posts from the year, this specific one was connected to some textual evidence that enhanced the post. As I've learned throughout the year, you can have an incredibly well-written post, but without linking it to any text, you are leaving a gaping hole for your readers. Linking to a text not only backs up your claims, but also enhances your arguments and adds a thoughtful and unique spin on your work.

This was also the only post that generated a comment from someone outside of class. Although it didn't say much, I was still so excited that this person had learned something new from my post that they decided to let me know by commenting. This gesture, though small, was exciting and made me feel more confident about my posts and my blog as a whole!

Again, at the beginning of the year, I was skeptical to the idea of blogging. I think this was because in my previous years of high school, I never had any type of ongoing project that gave me so much creative license. Blogging was so new to me, and I didn't know how to approach it; instead of embracing the opportunity, I avoided it. But now, I see it in a whole new light. Throughout the experience, I've not only learned many things about America, but also about myself as a writer and a learner. I think I have successfully discovered my voice and style as a writer, and I am thrilled and thankful for this. My blogging "career" is not over yet!

Climbing Out Of Poverty, $2 At A Time

Last week, on my way to the train station in the morning, I decided to change up my route. Normally I cut through an alleyway that gets me to the station about 10 seconds faster, but Wednesday morning I decided to walk through downtown Glencoe for a change of scenery. On my way I passed three of Glencoe's banks (no, I couldn't tell you why Glencoe needs 3 banks on the same street), the Parkway Drugstore, a fancy and expensive shoe store, and Starbucks. What struck me most about my path that morning was what I saw outside of Starbucks at 7:30 AM:


A man in disheveled clothes selling StreetWise, a magazine that homeless Chicagoans can sell. 


The juxtaposition was almost too perfect. Young women in their lululemon work-out outfits talking on their iphones and men with briefcases sipping their hot coffee contrasted bleakly with this poor vendor. He quietly sat on a bench outside Starbucks, respectfully asking people who passed by if they would like to purchase this $2 periodical.


As I passed, he did the same for me. I quickly pulled out the money from my bag and in return he handed me a StreetWise and thanked me profusely. 


On the train to school, I scanned the magazine, but I couldn't stop thinking about the man I bought the magazine from. I felt good for having bought a magazine, but at the same time I felt guilty. How could my $2 help him at all? The people in Starbucks were spending double on coffee alone. Why was he selling the magazine, and did he believe this was the way to getting out of poverty?


When I returned home that afternoon, I did some research on StreetWise. They base their system off of three goals:

 1. Employment: Provide immediate access to a legitimate earned income for any person willing to work; and provide the training and support necessary to help our clients secure stable long-term employment.

2. Housing: Assure that each client is safely and stably housed; and work to move those clients living on the street or in a homeless shelter into non-shelter based housing as quickly as possible.
3. Financial Literacy: Provide each client with the education and support needed to successfully manage their income and expenses so they can achieve personal/financial stability.

Reading about the program helped soothe my original anxiety about it. The main mission of StreetWise is not to bring people from the lower to higher class. They understand that it is a long, difficult process. What StreetWise does is helps get impoverished Americans back on their feet and feel what it's like to have a real job and a real income. It's helping to decrease the number of Chicagoans in poverty, one step at a time.

Still, I wonder, what happens next? How does one move forward from selling magazines? In these real life situations, is it possible to move social classes?

Is Regret Enough?

About 2 weeks ago a story was leaked concerning some negative behavior of Mitt Romney back during his high school years. Perhaps "negative behavior" is too mild of a phrase, bullying is a more applicable term to the types of harassment Romney led during high school.

The most publicized story was Romney and a group of strong male friends tackling an effeminate boy with long hair, pinning him to the ground, and cutting off his long locks. 

Various other adults have come forward recently sharing stories of how Romney and his friends teased or bullied them in high school and how these dramatic events have affected them to this day.

With Romney a top candidate in the upcoming presidential elections, the story evoked anger and outrage from the public and the press. They demanded answers from Romney; they needed an explanation. And Romney did apologize:

"Back in high school, you know, I did some dumb things, and if anybody was hurt by that or offended, obviously, I apologize for that… You know, I don’t, I don’t remember that particular incident [laughs]… I participated in a lot of high jinks and pranks during high school, and some might have gone too far, and for that I apologize."

This apology did not spark the type of forgiving reaction Romney had hoped. Instead, he received more criticism. If anybody was hurt or offended? As Eric Zorn says in his blog, "An apology may not contain the word “if,” particularly in a case where the word implies that the victim was overreacting to ordinary hijinks and the pain was due to a misunderstanding."

Romney does admit that he fooled around in high school and he was sorry for that, but is that enough? If, close to 50 years later, he regrets his decisions back in high school, should the event now be dismissed?

I understand the complexity of the question. People make lots of stupid decisions in high school they'd like to forget as adults. Why should what someone did in high school be relevant to how they're judged as a political candidate (or a job applicant) when they are older? On the other hand, maybe it provides an accurate depiction of, and a window into, a person. I'm still having trouble sorting through this question now. Perhaps the answer should depend on whether the person in question is running for public office or just applying for a job, or depends on whether it's been ten years since high school or fifty years, or depends on the severity of the events in question. 

If you decide to go into the public eye, and run for the highest office in the US, should anything in your past be relevant?

A "winning" Loser

Winner and Loser Lane were brothers. Both pursued very different careers in crime.


One, after graduating from Lafayette College, became a policeman, then was promoted to detective, and eventually to sergeant. 


The other was a full-time crook, with over 31 arrests before being jailed for 2 years.


Which brother pursued which life? The answer is surprisingly not what you would assume: Loser was the winner and Winner was the loser. 


However, it would be a lie to say that the boys' names did not affect them at all throughout their life paths. While Loser was able to overcome the negative connotations that followed with his name, the experience was difficult. When he was young, Loser didn't know he had a "bad" name. But he soon found out that his name was not something to boast when he became "Lou" because his teachers and friends couldn't bring themselves to call him by his given name. 


While the father who named these boys has been criticized for such questionable behavior, the idea behind it all is intriguing. A Freakonomics excerpt by Steven Levitt and Steven Dubner poses a question to this very subject: "Though [the father] got his boys mixed up, did he have the right idea—is naming destiny? What kind of signal does a child's name send to the world?"


This question reminds me of a discussion we had in American Studies Class about how a name connotes a specific social class. Some of our discussion revolved around job interviews: If two applicants have the same resume and credentials but one is named Catherine and the other Shaniqua, who would get the job? We thought it would undoubtably be Catherine. Names like Catherine, Emily, and Sarah are typically "high-end names" while names like names like Shaniqua, Roshanda and LaQueesha are more "racially defined" names typically associated with lower class. 


While Loser and Winner fit these stereotypes, they were able to live lives that opposed their expected structure. What does that mean about names, social class, and life outcome? Are they or aren't they related?

High School Musicals - A New Kind of "Cast" System

Eric Zorn, one of my favorite bloggers, writes "Change of Subject," a Chicago Tribune blog. His posts are short yet very effective; I often read one in the morning and usually continue to think about it for the rest of the week. A recent post titled "A Nixonian twist to high school musicals?" has been on my mind for the past four days and is what inspired this post.


In his post, Zorn speaks of Marni Nixon, an incredibly talented singer who dubbed in the singing voices of famous actresses in the movie versions of famous Broadway musicals, like West Side Story and My Fair Lady. Nixon didn't look the part that the film directors had in mind for their movies, but she certainly had the voice. Zorn admits that he thinks this practice is acceptable for Hollywood musicals, where "perfection is the standard." But this is not only practiced in Hollywood films, but also in some high school musicals. The recent musical in a large suburban high school featured one student acting as the lead but lip-syncing the songs while another student sang off-stage, apparently because the lead actor couldn't sing very well, and the great singer didn't look the part. In response to this example, Zorn writes:

            "I see two ways to look at this:

                 1. It's a good thing because it allows two actors to share an important role in the play.

                 2. It's a bad thing because it diminishes both of those performers -- you're not a good enough actor or you don't look right to play the part; and you don't have a good enough singing voice to carry the role. "

Zorn poses two very interesting and unique outlooks. I agree with Zorn's second point; I believe that having two kids -- one acting on stage and the other singing behind stage-- promotes the wrong ideas to both performers. I think that this practice is sad and demeaning and will have a negative effect on both students' self esteem levels.  

However, TV shows like "The Voice" spark some hope that maybe this practice is fading in years to come. In NBC's new hit show "The Voice," judges rate singers without seeing their appearances, so their ratings are based solely off of the contestant's voice. Part of the reason this show has been so successful is because the public loves the idea that anyone can win, regardless of how you look. If a TV show popular world-wide can get over the whole "looking the part" thing, then why can't a high school as well? 


Back to Zorn's original dilemma, again I do think that this practice in high school is a bit extreme. However, I'm still left with some questions. Is "The Voice" an accurate depiction of a new avenue to fame or does it just create an unrealistic fantasy for talented people who don't look the part? Are shows like "The Voice" leading to an age where physical appearance will have a lesser effect on one's road to fame and success-- in both high schools and professional musicals?


What do you think?