(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?

KONY 2012: A Credible Source?

The infamous “KONY 2012” video, having now been released for about two weeks, at this moment has 82,282,426 views. In the past 14 days, the video has brought in millions of dollars, the director has been arrested for “sexual misconduct,” and has just been named the most viral video in history. That’s quite a lot to handle in just two weeks.

I think it’s fair to say that since the release of this video, the words “KONY 2012” have shown up everywhere in the media. Newspaper, magazine, radio, television, and computer sources are all constantly releasing praise, criticism, rumors and more concerning the KONY 2012 campaign.

While this complete worldly obsession with KONY 2012 is a bit overwhelming,

what I find more troubling is the tremendous amount of obliviousness that surrounds this issue with Kony. As mentioned in the video, most people didn’t even know who Kony was before viewing the video. However, now, after watching a 30 minute video on YouTube, people seem to think that they know everything there is to know about the atrocities that Kony is committing.

While the video appears to do a solid job of summarizing what is going on, it is still only one subjective source. If you only acquire knowledge (and base your opinion) of the situation from this single source, you risk having a biased viewpoint.

The Kony 2012 video went viral because it tugged at humans’ heartstrings; it was emotionally captivating. And once you are drawn in, it is so easy to believe everything you see/hear. Emotions get mixed in with reality, and suddenly there is no middle line anymore.

People are so quick to deem what they’ve seen in the Kony video as “the whole truth” that they don’t bother doing research on their own. I am not discrediting the information in the Kony video, I am just saying that the creator of the video must have included certain things and excluded certain things in order to better his argument, and the public should be aware of this. I don’t know for sure whether the information in the KONY 2012 video is accurate, I just think it is important to note that it is a complicated issue that one video cannot possibly cover.

It’s important that we take it upon ourselves to take that extra step and further investigate for ourselves to help gain a better, more complete knowledge of Kony, his actions, and the situation in Uganda and its neighbors. While the KONY 2012 video may be a good place to start, it should not be the end of our exploration of the topic. 

The Power of the Password

My parents have always made it very clear to me: do not share your password for Facebook, e-mail, or school with ANYONE. Not your best friend or your sibling. Your password is personal, and it is for you and ONLY you. If your password ends up in the wrong hands, the consequences could be horrible and follow you your whole life. So basically, be careful.

With this notion so instilled in my brain, I was shocked to find out that numerous colleges and employers actually demand that prospective students/employees hand over their usernames and passwords so that the colleges and employers can investigate the students'/employees' online activities as part of the application process. It is not a choice; there is no option. No password equals a rejected application.

A police department in North Carolina demanded a username and password in order to apply for a clerical job. The Maryland Department of Corrections also asked applicants to turn in their password and username. However, in response to this example, the ACLU stepped in and declared it unconstitutional.

Eric Zorn, a blogger for the Chicago Tribune, wrote a brief post on this topic. He feels that requiring a password is overstepping a boundary of privacy that most people feel comfortable with. I agree with Zorn. While I understand a college's or employer's interest in knowing an applicant's basic background, I think that requiring them to turn in a password is a complete invasion of privacy.

Zorn makes a good point. "If employers really want to find out about an applicant's social media presence,  they can run a Google search like anybody else." Information on Google is public to everyone; therefore, if employers find something they don't like from a Google search, at least they obtained the information in the same way anyone else could. Since entering an applicant's e-mail or Facebook account is not something that anyone can do easily, if an employer were to find something unsatisfactory, it wouldn't be fair because the rest of the public doesn't have access to that kind of information.

I think this is an outrageous rule. Employers should not be able to receive special privileges that allow them to see more than the public can. A password is a private piece of information, and requiring its disclosure oversteps all reasonable boundaries. And frequently a person's Facebook or Twitter password is the same as their password for banking or credit cards, so if that password fell into the wrong hands or wasn't safeguarded properly by the employer or college, it could lead to financial disaster. The ACLU is working to pass laws that would make this type of request illegal.

If right now a password is required for applications, what will it be in 10 years? Are we on a path to destroy our privacy completely?

TV Tokenism

HOUSE

SOURCE

House, on fox, forms each episode's plot around Dr. House. The sub-plots are mainly about House's personal life, and House is the one to solve the diagnosis correctly 99% of the time. He is a rude, demeaning character with no filter, yet he is the center of every episode. House's boss is Cuddy (pictured to his left), and although her position is of higher ranking in the hospital, she is only on screen for on average 5 minutes of the 42 minutes the show is on. Perhaps a more prominent example of the "token minority" is Dr. Foreman, the Assistant Department Head of Diagnostics Medicine, yet he only receives approximately 8 minutes of screen time per episode. He is often the victim of little rude and racist jabs from House.

What's Necessary During Chaotic Times

A little over a month ago, the Costa Concordia, an Italian Cruise ship, sailed too closely to shore, hit a sandbar, and proceeded to capsize. The passengers on the ship panicked, a normal and expected reaction to such an event. However, instead of being guided by the captain and his crew, passengers were instead left on the ship in chaos, as the captain and some of his crew escaped safely to shore on life boats, and the crew that was left on board were too inexperienced to handle this kind of emergency and/or didn't even speak Italian.

But the passengers remaining on the ship struggled to reach their life boats. With so much crew missing, everyone had trouble getting on life boats in an organized and safe fashion. In the process, 25 passengers died. Now, the captain of the ship has been charged with manslaughter. It was his and his crew's job to remain on the ship in order to protect the lives of the passengers. However, most of the crew fled the scene as soon as they could, only worrying about saving themselves.

This situation reminds me specifically of a passage from "White Noise."After the declared necessary evacuation of Blacksmith because of the Airborne Toxic Event, Jack and his family quickly pack up some of their belongings and flee their home. While on their way to a safer place, Jack notices how the police have halted all traffic coming in the opposite direction back towards Blacksmith. He calls this an "encouraging sign," explaining that "what people in an exodus fear most immediately is that those in positions of authority will long since have fled, leaving us in charge of our own chaos." (117).


I agree with what Jack says here. We feel some sort of comfort knowing that our authority figures have uncomfortable and scary situations under control. When a little kid is upset, they cry for their mommy. Once mommy comes and is calm, suddenly everything is comfortable and ok again.

What the passengers on the Costa Concordia lacked was their "mommy" of sorts. Once the people they depended most on had gone, everything seemed that much more out of control and scary. At that point, the passengers were impossible to console. It was necessary that each person fend for themselves, and it became a savage fight for survival. Unable to think clearly and rationally, it was every man for him/herself. Staying alive in any way possible was everyone's only thought.

If the captain would've remained on the ship to fulfill his duty of guiding his passengers to safety, he would be facing not only less severe charges, but also less severe criticism from the public. It should've been his first priority to help these people, and he failed to do so. He failed to provide the necessary comfort and guidance that human beings under his watch require in order to avoid chaos in similar situations.

Don't Win, Don't Talk

At East Aurora High School, the boys’ basketball team coaches have a rule: after a loss, no talking is permitted on the bus ride home from the game. 

However, on the ride home from a hard-fought loss, some of the boys from the sophomore team were talking. This infuriated assistant coach Arnie Hubbard so much that he put a 16-year old player into a choke hold to the point where he couldn’t breathe.

Luckily, Head Coach A.J. Harris saw what was occurring and was able to stop the violence before it got too out of hand. Coach Hubbard no longer is working at East Aurora High School.

Eric Zorn, a blogger for the Chicago Tribune, wrote a short post on this topic. He focused less on the insane act of a coach choking a player, but more on the enforcement of an “idiotic rule” like players not being able to speak after a loss.

What I found especially interesting about this was not the post itself, but the comments. While I agree with Zorn’s view on this team rule, I was shocked by the number of commenters who strongly disagreed.

Some commenters just ripped Zorn apart. One woman said that Zorn didn’t understand the importance of winning in high school sports today. She writes, “Coaches get fired if they don’t win. Zorn is out of touch on this issue.”

Another man expressed the same sentiment, adding: “[It is a] good rule… it teaches discipline and respect, which is actually more important than the fundamentals of basketball.”

A third person felt the same way. “If you lose, you don’t chatter like a bunch of idiots on the ride back, you think about why you lost.”

As a high school athlete, I understand the level of commitment and seriousness a high school sport entails. New Trier focuses a huge amount of attention on athletics, and winning is undoubtedly an important aspect of New Trier sports. However, I have never heard of rule this outrageous and demeaning. This rule focuses too much on the outcome – winning or losing - and undermines what I personally think are the more important values: hard work, good sportsmanship and learning from your mistakes.

I agree 100% with what Zorn has to say. “It’s a stupid rule to treat every loss as though it’s some occasion for reproachful introspection and gloomy silence. It’s a game.”

What do you think?

The full story can be found here.

"Lin-sanity"

In the past 14 days, Asian-American Jeremy Lin has gone from benchwarmer to global basketball star. Starting his career in the NBA only 2 weeks ago, Jeremy has led the New York Knicks to 7 consecutive wins. Lin, an Economics major at Harvard, has been seemingly overlooked as a basketball player since high school. Now, he is the very first American-born player of Chinese or Taiwanese descent in the NBA, and he is finally receiving his long-deserved chance.

The question that so many College and NBA coaches are asking themselves right now is, “How could I have missed such a talented and gifted player?” Arne Duncan, US Secretary of Education and former Harvard basketball player, believes he knows why Lin’s extraordinary talent flew under the radar for so long:

"This is classic low expectations, and frankly stereotyping," Duncan said. "He was underappreciated and under-recognized. The fact that he's Asian-American, those two things are absolutely linked."

Lin agrees, saying that race has always played a factor in his basketball career. Asians in America tend to be stereotyped with over-achievement in education-oriented pursuits, not athletic ones. This may have contributed to the reasons why Lin had been so overlooked through his years playing basketball. In high school, Lin had excelled in his studies, as well as on the court. However, given the lack of Chinese or Taiwanese players that played college basketball and ultimately made it to the NBA, Lin was rarely considered as athletic scholarship “material.”

Things have seemed to shift in Lin’s favor starting when Knicks’ Coach Mike D'Antoni desperately expressed a need for a new point guard because his were all injured. Lin, still undrafted, was invited to try out for a spot. Since then, Lin has continued to succeed and thrive in his new role as an NBA star.

Lin’s unexpected success has not only had an impact on the Knicks’ record, but also on Asian-Americans, and other minority groups for that matter. Lin is proof that you don’t need to fit a stereotypical checklist, other than ability and willingness to work hard, in order to make it in the NBA. Lin hopes that his recent basketball achievements will open the doors for other young, basketball-aspiring Asian-Americans, comparing it to how Tiger Woods introduced watching and playing golf to new demographics.

With such a sudden burst of popularity, it would be easy for a new player like Lin to come off as cocky and arrogant. However, Lin remains humble and modest; he is incredibly grateful for such a wonderful opportunity.

In this video, Lin describes this entire experience as a “blessing,” and his appreciation and love for the game is evident:

Google's New View on Privacy

Last week, Google announced some changes to its privacy policy in order to better merge its many services: Gmail, YouTube, Google Calendar, Google+, Google search, among others. According to Google, it's so it can create "a beautifully simple, intuitive user experience across Google."

As of right now, Google is limited in terms of what they can see of your personal information using their programs. Google is able to scan all of your email if you're a Gmail user; if you're a YouTube user, Google can track all of the videos you search. While they can see an awful lot, they cannot see everything… yet.

In Google’s new privacy policy, going into effect March 1^st, Google will be able to monitor and scan virtually all of your emails, appointments, and searches on both Google search and Youtube. With this information, Google claims they will be able to enhance their customers’ experience through ad placement tailored specifically for each user.

Google produced a video that shows exactly what the new policy will entail:

 In the video above, Google uses the example of a user searching the word “jaguar.” Judging by the history of the user’s previous searches and e-mails, Google can predict that the user is looking for information on jaguar, the animal, rather than a Jaguar, the car. By using specific pieces of information from our personal online activities, Google claims they are able to create an easier and more enjoyable experience for all users while significantly limiting the search results solely to links that specifically apply to your needs.

While better predicting search engine results sounds good in theory, it’s important that we don’t just agree impulsively without considering the consequences. In American Studies class, we have continually talked about the importance of sustaining our civil liberties.

We as Americans are granted the right to privacy in the Constitution. Is Google’s new policy giving them access to all of this personal information a violation of our civil liberties even if they let us know in advance and claim it is necessary to create a more effective search engine? Do we even have a choice to opt out? With the dependency society places on Google programs, is opting out even a realistic alternative?

What do you think?