Yet Another Post on Rod

Honestly, the recent events in the life of Gov Blagojevich (I don't know how to spell his last name, so I'll just call him governor B; or maybe I spelled it right, who knows) do not surprise me one bit. This degree of corruption in the state and cook county departments has been going on for as long as I can remember.
My father, who is a current state employee and a former cook county employee has basically come home and complained over dinner with the crap he has to go through each day. Apparently, most employees of the county or state are completely unqualified for their jobs because they are either cronies of the stroger family or cronies of Governor B. My Dad finds it very difficult to work with these people daily.
But anyway, back to the senate seat cost: "WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH ROD?!?!?" I wonder if he thought he would actually get away with selling the senate seat; as if someone wouldn't have rat on him before the feds caught him! What a stupid idiot. He's been getting away with cronie-ism and stealing money from children's hospitals and other institutions for way too long. I hope they lock this man up forever. The End.

Bong Hits for Jesus

This week in American Studies, we've been discussing the supreme court case Morse v. Frederick, or more commonly known as "Bong Hits for Jesus".
In my opinion, I think that the boy who hung the banner that read "Bong hits for Jesus" was being a tad irrational. Usually, I lean pretty far to the left on preserving civil liberties, but I believe the actions of this kid, although hilarious, were stupid and unnecesary. I have a lot of sympathy for the principal; I mean, if my school area were on television and someone hung up a banner with that slogan, I would be sprinting to tear it down out of pure embarrassment.
On a different note, I'm not sure if this is a free speech issue. Is it against school/community rules to hang up banners or signs without the consent of an official? Because if so, the kid deserved to be punished. If the banner were in the school, I would have said that he should have gotten in trouble; but since the banner was in the community, just outside of the school, I'm not so sure. I believe that the kid should have gotten in trouble, but I don't think that he should have gotten suspended. Also, if you don't need consent for hanging banners in the community, the boy should not have gotten in trouble.

Americans in Trouble!

As shocking as the attacks in India were this weekend, what was even more shocking was the way the media executed the stories. I was flipping the channels for about an hour this thursday trying to get some solid information about the events that were occuring; however, I could only get information on how many Americans were captured, if the American diplomats were safe, and new tips on American tourism spots for visiting countries where bombings and slaughters happened frequently. What was surprising to me was that there were at least 300 other people wounded, and over 150 killed who were not American, and I didn't find this out until much later. What happened to the other tourists and citizens from different countries? Do they get any mention in the news, or do we just care about ourselves? It really inspired me to think critically about the media and its biases for our people, rather than thinking of everyone else in the world.

Reputation

In Response to Gitmo being a "blot on america's reputation" on our teacher's blog, it seems like a lot of things that we do as a country blot our reputation. In fact, I don't even remember a time where our country didn't have an iffy reputation across the globe. From the Iraq war, to neglecting the Kyoto protocol, to the staggeringly low approval rating of our current president, Gitmo (etc, etc); it seems that we don't look very good in the eyes of the world.
Last summer, I stayed with european host familes for a month in 5 different countries. It seemed like every time I would introduce my self and said where I was from I either got blank stares, a sigh, or an "I'm sorry" in return. (I thought it was kind of funny.) And every time America was brought up in a conversation, my host familes always mentioned George Bush and the War on Terror; in which case I would express my disagreement in his policies. After that response, everything was cool; the american government wouldn't be brought up again for the remainder of my stay.
But seriously, has it always been like this? Was there a time when we had a good image? When?
I'm not sure, but I hope that with the new president-elect, that we will repair this shattered image.

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street. If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat. If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat... etc...etc...

After an extremely interesting discussion in AS today about taxes, I thought that I should respond to today's comments in my blog. Today, the class looked at "basically accurate" numbers, showing % of income dedicated to taxes of the upper-class vs the lower-class. The wealthy give about 33% of their income to the government, and the not-so-wealthy give about 15% of their income to the government. O'Bolos asked this question: "In your opinion, is this proportion fair?"

To me, this proportion is very fair. A lot of other students disagreed, asking other critical questions such as: "Shouldn't hard work be rewarded?" and "Wouldn't it be better to have each family dedicate the same percent to taxes? The rich would still pay more."

To respond to: "Shouldn't hard work be rewarded?" This statement implies that people who make less money than a CEO, or another higher-paying job, do not work as hard because they do not make as much money. To me, that is complete phooey. First off, not all people who are wealthy are wealthy because they worked at all. In fact, some people are heirs and heiresses to a fortune that another person made for them. However, we cannot label all wealthy people as such.
But think about this, most low-paying jobs are a necessity for America: factory workers, teachers, nurses, physical laborers, etc. You're telling me that these people don't work hard, and therefore, deserve to throw the same amount of money at the government as people who make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year? This could put the little guy out of a house and out of a life, and the big guy hardly breaks a sweat. Oh well, I guess the big guy can't get the new plasma screen or invest in the new summer home...
Don't get me wrong, not all people in the upper class spend their money this way, but don't these proportions seem fair to you?

To answer the other question:"Wouldn't it be better to have each family dedicate the same percent to taxes? The rich would still pay more money to the government." I would say no. I completely agreed with Mr. O'Connor this morning, when he made an analogy that put this issue into simpler terms for me:
If a charity comes to your advisery to ask for money, and says, "We'll take 50 percent of what you have on you." The kid with the hundred dollar bill gives 50, and the kid who has two dollars gives one. We are left with Kid A, able to purchase lunch, and Kid B, not able to. So once again, the big guy can float through life, able to survive with what he has with a higher tax percentage. The little guy barely can get through the day with the same percentage. Think about it.
One may say, "If you feel bad for the little guy, but still want people in the upper class to keep their 'hard earned cash,' then lower taxes altogether." This is unrealistic. The government needs money. How are we going to bring ourselves out of debt from this war and other money absorbers if we lower taxes?" Not easily.
This is a really complicated issue, especially relevant with the financial crisis at hand and the upcoming election, and I would really hate to see the middle and lower class suffer from unfair tax policies.
Would anyone else like to argue with me? :)

A Wordle for Last Week's Debate

This is a little overdue, but during last week's debate between Barack Obama and John McCain, I used Newt Gingrich's "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control" to think critically about each politician's word choice. The list he created contained both positive and negative words to use during speeches/debates/etc. As each political candidate spoke, I tried my best to keep count of how many times they used words on this list and etched tally marks next to each word. I thought it might've been interesting to make a wordle of the words on Gingrich's list that were repeated the most frequently during the debate. Here it is:
[it would help to click on it so it appears larger]

The New Trier Uniform

After discussing in class that clothes are really a statement of who you are/what kind of money you have/etc, it really got me thinking. One of our teachers told us a story about a girl that said:"It's great that new trier doesn't have a uniform." But they replied: "Are you sure?" Maybe we do have a uniform. All that I know for now is that there are three types of clothing choices/ attitudes towards clothing at New Trier. The first group of people are the followers, ie the people who just wear whatever their friends wear, buy into trends, designers, etc. The second are the people who just wear the clothes they wear for the sake of individuality. In this case, individuality in style can't really be reached, especially in a world this big. I mean, unless you make your own clothes and have no inspiration driven from anything else but yourself, this is unattainable. The last group are the people who just don't care and wear what they like. So from these types, I have created an "ensemble" (or several, if you will) of the basic new trier uniform components:
Women: (none of these go together in one outfit. Just a bunch of random articles)
-V-neck t-shirt
-Tight Jeans
-American Apparel Sweatshirt (optional)
-Leggings
-Uggs or Flats

Men:
-Sports, New Trier, or Polo shirt
-Jeans/ khakis
-New Balance/Nike shoes
-(and if you're a hipster, then american apparel sweatshirt, v-neck, tight jeans, vans)

Please don't get me wrong. I hate stereotyping, but this is just fun.
Any other opinions on the new trier uniform?

Will they just answer the question??

While watching the debate two nights ago, I became increasingly frustrated with both candidates. Why, you may ask? One word: Digressions.
I know that that it is typical for a candidate to be asked a question, and then answer it in a way that connects to an issue that they would really like to discuss, rather than the question at hand. However, as someone who would like to know the stance of both candidates (especially in this election, which has been fascinating to me thus far) on the issues, it is difficult for me to follow them when they don't really give an answer to the question asked. What ground my gears that night, was that both candidates basically refused to answer these types of questions: "How do you stand on the 700 million dollar plan to bail out to bail out the companies on wall street?" "What will you do as president to fix this?"
Jim Lehrer continued to ask the candidates these questions, but it took them a lot of prompting to actually answer them. They digressed so much in fact, that I still don't know what they're going to do about this financial crisis. Here's a summary of both of their responses when asked the questions above: (these aren't exact words, by the way.)

Jim: (To both candidates) "What do you think of Bush's proposal to bail out the companies on Wall Street?"

Obama: "Well, I'm going to talk about my health care plan and how we need more money to fund education, and how we spend money on the war instead." (I agree with all of these points and ideas, but he just kept mentioning things that had little to do with the topic at hand)

When directed at McCain, he usually answered in this fashion:
McCain: "I have done everything in my power to control government spending! Down with the pork barrel!" (Once again, valid point, but this doesn't answer his question.)

But back to my point. I'm seriously frustrated with these digressions. After talking about secret messages and word choice in class, it seems to me that the candidates never feel like simply answering a question. Instead they must mention other policies or plans they feel strongly about, or talking about how their opponent wouldn't be able to solve whichever issue correctly. When will this end? When will a candidate finally be able to stay focused on the task at hand? I'm not sure, but I'm really getting sick of this.

What are We Fighting For?

So I was watching meet the press this morning, and the host kept talking about how George Bush desperately wants to win the "war on terror". Rudy Giuliani was being interviewed on the show and he talked about how McCain, if elected would win the war, as he was always supportive of the surge of troops to Iraq. Rudy was also talking about Obama's will to lose the war. How Obama, by wanting a time frame to withdraw troops during his presidency, is willing to give up and lose to the Iraqis. Mind my ignorance, but what exactly are we winning by staying in Iraq? What are we even fighting about anymore? I mean, I know that the initial reason was to eliminate nuclear weapons (which never existed), then to eliminate Saddam Hussein, and then to "create democracy" within Iraq. Because I'm pretty sure we accomplished most of these things, why are we there now? I really would like to know. Comments? Answers to my question? I honestly have no idea.

Life and 9/11

This might be three days late, but I've been thinking of my 9/11 experiences a lot recently and what my life would be like if it didn't happen.
The day it happened, I was sitting on my parent's bed at about 8 o'clock flipping through the channels, hoping to watch some looney toons. I worked the remote vigorously, as the same image appeared on every channel. I couldn't really make out what it was. It seemed to be a giant cinder block that had smoke coming out of it. Was this a joke? I laughed audibly, until my dad rushed into the room. He told me that a plane had crashed into the world trade center. I didn't know what that was, until he explained to me that it was a large building in New York City. And then it hit me: wasn't my mom on a plane right now? She had taken a business trip to New York and Burlington, VT and left from the Burlington airport this morning. I was dumbfounded. Could my mom be in the plane (or now, planes) that had crashed in the towers or the pentagon? I started to weep. I still couldn't even grasp the thought of my own mother, dead.
Luckily, an hour later, my mother called the house saying that she was about to walk onto her plane, when the airport shut down and was forced to rent a car and drive to Chicago.
That might have been one of the scariest moments in my life, however, I can't even remember life customs beforehand. I mean, I was young, so that could be a factor, but does anyone (especially my age) remember a time where it didn't take at least an hour to get through airport security? Or remember a time before our nation was at war? A time where our National Security threat level was below an orange? Or even a time before Salem-witch-trial-like accusations of being a terrorist occurred? I certainly don't.

Someone's Gotta Give

As I was cruising the internet yesterday, mainly youtube with my friend, Omar, we stumbled across The Onion's video page. As a humongous fan of The Onion, I was ecstatic. (For those of you who don't know what The Onion is, it is a satirical newspaper that makes me laugh so hard, I cry while reading it.) Anyway, on their page, they have fake news clips from relevant stories, poking fun at politics, celebrity icons, etc. Due to its intriguing title, we clicked on a video that read, "Pretend you give a [insert vulgar word here] about politics." (You can watch this video here. It's completely school-appropriate, don't worry. It's only the title that may imply it's not).

Anyway, After about five seconds, we were in hysterics. The premises includes a news team that is just tired of hearing about the upcoming election, so they have a guest speaker appear that talks about ways in which you can appear knowledgeable about the current issues and candidates.
The video goes on for about three minutes on how to make excuses to not talk about politics and expressing non-opinions. After losing my breath in laughter, I realized something: There are actually people in the world who do this. My most favorite line in the video comes from the "expert" speaking: "Here's another great thing to do: talk about how sad it is that some people don't get involved in politics. Blaming others for being uninformed is a great way to seem informed yourself!" This line put the icing on the cake. I think that almost EVERY student on the planet who is involved in politics one way or another is guilty of doing this [myself included]. At New Trier, and within classes I take, I hear political discussions all over the map in terms of knowledge. I hear clearly stated political arguments with evidence to back up the point, and I very frequently hear arguments that go a little somethin' like this:
"Barack Obama is a bad candidate. I like McCain. He's a ... maverick"
"But... Barack Obama likes ... change. McCain doesn't."
I feel like there should be a happy medium that everyone strives for. In hearing informed arguments (although there are VERY few that I hear) and hearing the sortof bare minimum isortapayattentiontocurrentevents types as shown above, I can't really tell how my generation is going to end up in the later years. Does this difference in terms of knowing about current events exist forever? I'm not sure, but in no way am I saying that I know everything about politics and the upcoming election. I try my best to keep up. I don't know everything about each candidate or their track record, and when I can't watch a speech or debate, I don't punish myself (too much). I hate to say this and sound elitist, but I wish everyone would at least try to keep up... just a little... maybe I'm overreacting and everyone's too busy to pay attention or just doesn't give a [vulgar word here as the onion stated].
So let's do the bare minimum and maybe turn on the news once in a while. It's really important for people our age to know what's going on outside of our own lives. What would happen to the world if everyone just cared about things that happened to themselves? Where would we be as a planet? Think about it.

Oh Hey

I'm Carrie. I like music. I don't like the willfully ignorant. The end.