A Creative Outlet of Sorts

An American Progresses?

2009-06-01T12:38:00.001-07:00

This is a now abandoned steel factory in our “valley of ashes”: Gary, Indiana. Gary is not our typical “nice neighborhood”, but a place where “passengers on waiting trains can stare at a dismal scene”(Fitzgerald 24). I actually have ridden a train through Gary, and when I read this exerpt from Gatsbty, I remembered this depressing train ride, (and it was depressing for the senses at least)For my family as a whole, Gary is a place to drive through to get to “nicer” places, like my summer camp in michigan, or colleges in Michigan to visit. One experience I would like to mention, involving my family, is to make an example of this desolate town, my parents purposefully took a "detour" on our way to South Haven (a "nice" town) to look at Gary. They said something to me, similar to what Nick Carrway's dad said to him in the opening chapter: "Just remember that all the people in this world haven't had the advantages you've had"(Fitgerald 1). They were delivering this speech as we drove through Gary's neighborhoods, containing abandoned houses with broken windows, fire damage that no one has done anything about, and disgusting furniture piled on lawns.
This place was once a booming industry town. Now it's a desolate wasteland in a constant depression since factories left to go overseas. I looked at a graph of its population since 1950, and the curve only gets lower and lower. Its caucasian population has decreased more drastically than its minority inhabitants. The quote, "Middle class whites had been moving out and they were being replaced by poor blacks squeezed out of the south side"(American Pharoah) reminds me of our discussion of Garfield Park, where Mr. O'Connor mentioned that his family was one of the last white people to live Garfield Park, and today, Garfield Park is a place where poor, mostly African-American people live.
Gary, similar to Garfield Park, “badly needed economic uplift that a major university would bring”(American Pharoah). Even something that wasn't a major university, maybe a company, a working factory, some tourist attraction, would bring so much to this depressed town. History is repeating itself in this instance, because we, as a country, continue to neglet these areas and make them worse by doing nothing to help them. Literally, nothing. Progress? I don't think so.

New use for those plasmas at New Trier!

2009-05-21T12:46:00.001-07:00

As I was strolling the halls by the administration buildings, I noticed that the plasma screen tvs that everyone complains about were displaying pictures of New Trier Seniors and the colleges they were about to attend. The caption below the continuous slide show of portraits described these people as trevians, but I only saw athletic pictures. Plus, the colleges that these students were about to attend were top-tier colleges (according to Newsweek, at least). But,Literally, the only pictures that were scrolling were head shots of players on our varsity teams. And I wondered: 'why only athletes?' I know that athletics are a huge part of new trier, but there's also a portion of the school that isn't involved in any sport, whatsoever (me). So does this public display mean that we, and the administration, consider the athletes of New Trier the elite? The ideal of our school? What we want to identify ourselves with to visitors and everyone else? I just thought it was an interesting use for the many tvs in our school.

Freedom on the Freeway

2009-05-10T17:33:00.001-07:00

As I was driving along the edens, I saw a house sporting two flags along the highway. One is American and one is Mexican. Each were at equal heights on two sides of an apartment. They look very tattered, as the ends are a dull brown color and the ends are split. They were flapping ferociously in the breeze, only supported by flimsy plastic poles.
I was stuck in traffic and couldn't help but notice these flags. It wasn't remarkable to me that both of these flags were flying side by side, but for some reason, I really liked the fact they were. The inhabitants in the house are most likely immigrants, and it seemed to me that since they were flying at the same heights and were tattered equally, these inhabitants are proud of being a member of both countries. It really spoke to me because of issues that some people in the US have with immigrants, within a country created by immigrants. In this case, I think that someone who is from Mexico can be an equally patriotic American (or a real American in that case), in comparison to someone who has had an American "history" here, and whose family has lived here for decades/centuries.

How Should I Protect It?

2009-05-06T18:40:00.000-07:00

After our discussion in class pertaining to the treatment of the American Flag, I decided to research the "Flag Code" instilled by the US Government. Here are some particular articles/regulations that stood out to me: (All obtained from Ushistory.org)

- Section 8D: "The flag should never be used as wearing apparel"
Every fourth of July, I see hundreds of people wearing shirts with the American Flag on it. Old Navy, especially, sells t-shirts with the flag like hotcakes every year, so I'm confused. I see a person with a flag shirt almost every day. It's so common, I don't even think twice about it, but to see it banned puzzled me because no one really does anything about it. I've never heard of an instance on the news or anywhere where someone wore a flag shirt and received a hard time. I mean, I've seen it all: flag shirts, flag pants, flag capes, flag headbands, flag accessories; you name it. My cousin told me that he wears flag boxers! Imagine that. I really don't understand how that is legal, especially because it allows someone to cover and protect their genitals with the flag. If I practiced the flag code, the last thing I would want to hear about is old glory touching a taboo. I think that even might be worse, in the scheme of things, than dropping a flag on the ground; but that's just me.

-According to the flag code, a flag is a flag or anything "by which the average person seeing the same without deliberation may believe the same to represent the flag"

This, according to the website, means that literally ANYTHING with the American Flag on it, or anything representing the flag is an American Flag. Yes, folks, that includes drawings of flags by children, the Bank of America Logo, flag postage stamps, a Jasper Johns flag, my American Flag beach towel, and many more! On the website I visited, it even had a picture of a dog's chew toy where the American Flag was the design on the bone. This really puzzles me because the flag code applies to all of these items. Meaning, the usual regulations: you can't drop it, burn it, or display it in the wrong way. I'm not sure if that is at all possible considering the items I found bearing the flag.
But once again, I can't drop the flag, but a wet body could wipe itself all over the American Flag and my dog can gnaw on it for hours. I'm perplexed.

An Introduction (finally!)

2009-04-30T12:19:00.000-07:00

I had trouble writing my intro, so I decided to write and plan my body paragraphs first. Here it is. Any problems I had with it, I wrote in brackets. Help please?

According to Building Suburbia, between 1994 and 2002, real estate developers created about 1.5 million housing units in planned communities per year (Hayden 3). These suburbs, however, are hardly a recent phenomenon. For almost two hundred years, Americans have sprawled into the outskirts of cities, idealizing the suburbs and planned communities with their spacious houses and generous yards. Although some criticize the homogeneity and poor land use of these communities, the majority of America does not heed this particular criticism because more people live in the suburbs than rural and urban areas combined (Hayden xi). [Trans into thesis] Planned communities have become the American Ideal because of safety and because they embody [different adjective?] the American Dream. [too much repetition?]

Tentative Thesis

2009-04-24T07:25:00.001-07:00

Planned Communities have become the American Ideal because of Predictability, Safety, and ensure the pursuit of the American Dream.

What do you think?
With these issues, I will address isolation within communities (I'll possibly address gated communities), as well as safety. Even with this isolation, I can make references to the social issues behind these communities, as most did not allow Minorities at the time of construction. In terms of the American dream, I'll address the created myth of how every citizen wants a house of their own with a yard to bring up children. I can also bring up gender roles, and how some communities were built and specifically designed to have men work and have women domesticated.
Are there any problems with this that I should address? Thanks for your help.

Steroids for my Thesis?

2009-04-18T15:27:00.000-07:00

Mentioned in the previous post, I could not decide on a tentative thesis for my junior theme. I'm doing my paper on planned communities, and after reading up on what is considered to be the first planned community, Levittown, I finally found some articles describing the social issues behind these Utopias. After reading a page on the University of Chicago's website, I noticed that Levittown's initial contract and signing agreement ensured that no "races other than Caucasian" were allowed to live there. Mentioned in the earlier post, I'm one step closer to bringing these social issues out in my junior theme, but I still can't prove that all people in these communities believe in this contract or are racists. Hmmm (I'm terrible, I know, but I still think the silent issues and "secret messages" of race and race barriers today are really interesting.) Maybe I should limit my thesis to the people who created these super-towns?
I'm not sure, but I received my main book in the mail today: "Building Suburbia" by Dolores Hayden, and it follows suburbia and planned communities from the 1800s to today, and it is mainly about the social issues surrounding this movement of "new urbanism". I hope this will provide a basis for my paper and my thesis so I can make up my mind! Until then, I'll be struggling to uncover info.

Disturbia

2009-04-10T15:31:00.000-07:00

So my Junior theme topic is suburbia, mostly planned communities, and the social issues surrounding it, but I've had a really tough time coming up with a thesis. I'd really like to address isolation, race, and safety, but I can't prove that everyone who lives in planned community is a racist or an isolationist, nor would I want to label them as this. However, I do know that a lot of planned communities were built for isolation of mainstream culture and safety, but I can't prove that the people in it to this day follow or support these issues. What's really frusturating is that I can't come up with a thesis so I can start my paper. I guess what I'm saying is that I need to narrow my thesis to the builders of these communities, find proof that everyone living in these communuties is crazy, or change my thesis completely. Help?

Suburbia

2009-04-01T16:44:00.001-07:00

As an emerging topic that I might want to write my junior theme on, I recently watched a very interesting TED talk by a man named James Kuntsler about Suburbia. It mostly discussed the architecture of a majority of suburbs and a general layout of each town. This man really hated the suburbs and really hated the choices we made as humans, and Americans, to build boring, "depressing", and uninteresting buildings that weren't nice to look at. He said that waking up in the morning to find yourself staring at empty space, a roadway, boxy looking buildings (a la 80's) and a huge target that violated the curves in the earth make us as humans depressed and that must change. He made an example of a town with a nice outdoor place to sit, many surrounding shops, and a charming atmosphere as a superior place to be. He believed that that was a place where someone would actually volunteer to go inside and want to hang around in. But if Americans built ugly buildings, where he believes the architects just said "f**k it", this says to the world that we are not a worthwhile or interesting people. He proposed that we turn these disgusting monstrosities into townships with a common square, that people in America would be happier just from being around this positive atmosphere.
I had never thought of any of this before, and it was an interesting perspective and comment that American society creates places that are "not worth caring about," as he says in the talk. I agree with him completely when I have to take long car trips through Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and other states where I hate looking out the window to just find a big, boxy abyss filled with huge Wal-Marts and other enormous stores. It's well worth investing in making America more worth while, but we'll have to wait until we get the money. Bummer...

What is Twitter??

2009-03-15T16:35:00.000-07:00

It seems like a new craze is sweeping the nation: Twitter. But I really don't have a good grasp of what it is. It's changing facebook, it's allowing faster communication somehow, and everyone from politicians (President Obama, for example) to Rock stars seems to be using it. Twitter allows the user to post what they're feeling at any time of the day, as much as the want during the day, but it's limited to a certain number of characters. I never knew that the internet would really want to know what was going on at every second of my life, or even if they cared, so maybe Twitter is a tool for conversation? Or if chivalry and the feeling to want to know about other people besides ourselves is emerging? Who knows. Or is it just another blogging device or a facebook-esque tool? Enlighten me.

Myth of Rules and Incentives

2009-03-04T15:50:00.000-08:00

After listening to Barry Schwartz's TED talk about rules and incentives, it really got me thinking. Are rules and incentives really the best thing for society? Sure, I believe that a society must have some basis of law, such as regulations against murder, abuse, theft, etc., but I believe that a lot of rules and regulations can keep a person from taking ownership on the smaller things. For example, as a girl of 17, my parents have many rules for me. One is that I can only go out with friends once a weekend (bogus), and that I have to be home at a certain point. Sure, it's normal for me to be against this because I'm a teenager, but my parents have never given me a chance to try to set up my own schedule for evenings. Never once have I violated any rule of theirs or have been involved in anything a parent would call sketchy, so then why do I have rules like some sort of drug addict? I mean, I love my parents, but I think that it would be a better approach to have very little rules for outings and see how that goes. Morally, I would be taking responsibility and ownership for my actions. I would feel more obligated to abide by standard customs and the expectations of my parents because my they would be trusting me, and I would feel worse if I violated their trust when they gave me freedom. Instead, I'm pretty cynical towards these rules and feel like breaking them often.
In terms of the myth of incentives, when hearing about the people in Switzerland who felt morally obligated to dump toxic waste in their neighborhood because it was their civic duty, then about people in the same situation who were offered incentives and turned them down, I was very intrigued. It was very interesting that less people let the government dump in their area because they were offered some amount of money. I feel this same way about incentives. I feel like my incentive for all of the teenage pressures (grades, college, etc) should be me feeling good about my work, and about me taking responsibility for my own actions. I would much rather have an accomplishment, or a failure, and know that it was up to me to make it happen. Instead, I have incentives to do well because I'll "get into the college of my choice" or I'll "have more time to spend with friends." I really hate it when people breathe down my neck about these things because I think incentives, especially when used on me, are useless. Will someone please let me live with my achievements and failures, and the consequence be on me and not the tangible things around me?

Will the Spirit Snag the Statue?

2009-02-22T14:54:00.000-08:00

The academy awards are tonight and the average viewer basically has one category in mind: Best Supporting Actor. I saw the Dark Knight this summer and really enjoyed it. We all know, however, that the Joker stole the show. Heath Ledger was great, but will the academy choose him? I feel like his nomination is overly hyped. If Heath Ledger weren't dead, would his role receive the same amount of attention? I don't think so, but basically everyone I talk to about this subject begs to differ. They think he's a great actor and that he deserves it, regardless if oxygen isn't flowing through his lungs at this point in time. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve it, but it's pretty obvious that he will win tonight. I'll be sitting at home, slightly disappointed. I really hate when people hype things for me. It just ruins my outlook on the movie; I expect more than the people who saw it first, going in with little to no expectations. Especially if this hype involves a beloved dead man--an attractive man, who plays an unconventional role for a nomination: a super villain. I mean, if best supporting actor means that this actor steals the entire movie from all other characters, making the audience focus on them the entire time, then yes, Heath Ledger deserves it. Call me cynical, but this was not my favorite year for movies.

What is Race?

2009-02-10T17:19:00.000-08:00

We attempted to answer this question in class, but I've never really thought of the answer. It just never entered my mind. I thought it was some vague definition, with ethnicity, skin color, heritage, cultural identity, and physical features of some sort included. It seems really complicated; or not. Maybe it's something that we as a society makes up for the sake of labels and stereotypes. I'm torn.
This morning, our teachers also asked how many races there were out there. Now that's impossible to answer. There must be hundreds; thousands. I remember there being a really controversial case on the Evanston School Board about Hecky (a black man who runs a really great BBQ restaurant on Green Bay) and how during a discussion about issues within the school about being black, and what it means to be "truly" black, he said "We're just a bunch of mutts anyhow. I don't know what the big deal is." He was fired afterwards, but I'm not sure why. I completely agree with him. People have not been breeding with just their own race since the dawn of man-kind. No one is "completely white"or "completely black". There are millions of variations of people, skin color, and ethnicity in the world.
Today, My friend ironically wore a "stereotypes make everything easier" shirt in school. I guess the fact that there are millions of variations on race just complicates things :)

Superbowl Ads: Relating to the Demographic

2009-02-02T17:10:00.000-08:00

I, the 17-year-old, white female watched the super bowl this Sunday with a couple of friends. the first ad I witnessed was some sort of car ad with Mr. and Mrs. Potato head driving around. Mrs. Potato head wants to give her husband some directions, but Mr. Potato head decided to rip her plastic mouth off and throw it into the road. This ad struck me as very bizarre and didn't sit well with me and my friend. Sure, we were so shocked that we laughed, but what kind of ad is this? Is it okay to shut your wife up when she makes a mere suggestion? This ad wasn't the only semi-sexist ad, played for the demographic of 25-54 year-old white men that night.
The next commercial break sported the idea that every time you crunch a dorito, a women's clothes disappear. Next, tons of "Go Daddy" commercials, showing a choose your own adventure of pornography? (I'm not sure what they're for, but I have an idea...)
The list goes on and on. The commercials were so true to the demographic it was ridiculous.

This is me, thinking critically about the media

2009-01-07T17:32:00.000-08:00

During the past few days, we have been discussing minority involvement in dramas (or the lack thereof). Mr. Bolos and Mr. O'Connor said that there were basically two types of minority involvement in network dramas: no involvement at all or tokenism. To me, this is a problem.
But going beyond said dramas, where does someone like me, who goes to an extremely un-diverse school, form their opinion of minorities, mainly, African-Americans? There seems to be two options besides a homogeneous cast or tokenism on network dramas: All-Black sitcoms and MTV.
Reiterating what the teachers said, black sitcoms are rarely dramatic or serious, and the various casts are basically clowns; just there to entertain us, the 25-50 year old males.
The current MTV is a waaaay different story. This channel projects that all blacks are "gangstas", "thugs", or "pimps". The music videos, mainly rap and hip hop, make black men seem violent, sex-crazed, and basically illiterate, while the videos make black women hoes and objects. Bill Cosby, in one of his routines, compared rap music videos to minstrel shows. I whole-heartedly agree with him on this one. Even at school, I hear the influence of the videos through language that people use and the treatment others. I mean, when I start to overhear a white male my age say something like, "Yo, get off my grill, hoe" and another white male respond with, "Hey, stop acting so black," you know that something is a little fishy. I swear to god I hear similar conversations to this all the time! Since when can one "act black"? Are people really that one-sided?
These videos never project a positive image of an African-Americans, yet I'm not sure how to stop them besides expressing my opposition. Any suggestions?

Teach Your Children

2009-01-04T16:14:00.000-08:00

As I was sitting at home today, I turned on the IFC channel and this movie called "Jesus Camp" was playing. I decided to watch it, as I remember it being nominated for an oscar a couple years back and by recommendations from friends who watched it for their junior themes last year.
It's about an Evangelical Reverend (Becky) in Missouri who takes children under 15 and their families to a camp in North Dakota to "spread the word of Christ" and create some sort of "God's Army".
That movie scared me in many ways. The documentary basically filmed reverend Becky's sermons to the children, as well as her encounters with many of them. The way that the 5 or 6 children the movie followed acted while in church or conversing about their religion puzzled me. It's hard for me to understand the impact that religion or god has on you, as I was brought up completely heathen by my parents. I never went to church or temple on weekends, nor did I attend holiday services. It never was a part of my life, and to see these kids completely consumed by it; reciting verses to strangers, wearing bible paraphernalia 24/7, and being politically active in issues such as abortion and gay marriage (I mean, I didn't even understand the meaning of abortion when I was in elementary school, so how are they supposed to understand the context and choices that one has when they get pregnant at such an early age?)
In Reverend Becky's words, she was creating an army of children. It was scary to see her speak and try to convince these kids that president bush is their hero because he supports the evangelicals and appoints them to the supreme court, or that the devil uses children as targets so they must never do anything that the bible prohibits, or using popular music and energy during sermons to attract the attention of the young so they're not at a "dead church" in which ordinary people just sit around and listen to a sermon.
It was just freaky in general to watch all of these kids eat up everything she said and live by it to the core.
I guess now I know why this class is teaching us to think critically about what people are saying to us; who knows, without that, I might have joined god's army...

Values

2009-01-02T14:00:00.000-08:00

After discussing American Values in class, here, what I think, are the top values held by most Americans (not in order):

-Safety is big, in terms of having a system of laws, the police, army, and homeland security precautions.

-Materialism/Consumerism- Americans dedicate most holidays to buying and indulge in sale days such a black Friday; pretty much any luxury or necessity has a cost.

-Simplicity- such as topics/ depth of typical conversation, design; basically, Americans design events/products within reach of the "common folk".

-Innocence is a big one, in terms of corruption on wall street, politics, sheltering children, etc.

-Family- big because "a family is always there for you", "will love and cherish you", etc

-Vanity- Americans constantly buy things such as makeup, hair products, or plastic surgery to feel better about themselves or look more presentable.

-Humility- Being humble. Elitism is not widely accepted nowadays, as most Americans do not want their president to be one.

-Success- Climbing higher to the top. No one job is good enough. One must keep trying for better and live accordingly.

-Religion (or lack thereof)- Most people either surround their life with it, pondering if there is a god, or spend their time bashing it.

-Freedom- Americans pride themselves with freedom; we have a constitution, a democratic republic, etc.

Yet Another Post on Rod

2008-12-14T18:08:00.000-08:00

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

2008-12-03T18:33:00.000-08:00

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!

2008-11-29T15:43:00.001-08:00

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

2008-11-16T10:05:00.000-08:00

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...

2008-10-21T17:50:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-14T18:32:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-06T15:46:00.000-07:00

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??

2008-09-28T18:15:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-09-14T09:34:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-14T08:57:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-07T16:29:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-03T07:09:00.000-07:00

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