The 10 Obsessions of 2010?

Today, when I opened my Internet, I came across this article.  It was titled "10 Obsessions of 2010".  It definitely caught my eye, and I clicked on it to find out what it was all about.  I was curious to see what the top ten obsessions of the year would be, according to Yahoo! News.

Here is the list these writers came up with:

1.  iPhone
2.  Lindsay Lohan
3.  iPad
4.  "Glee"
5.  "Jersey Shore"
6.  Facebook
7.  Bedbugs
8.  Tea Party
9.  Silly Bandz
10.  Stieg Larsson's "The Girl"


I have to admit some of these made me laugh; partly out of how true these "obsessions" are, and partly about what it shows we Americans valued this year.  Not to diminish any of these obsessions, but it is honestly kind of sad that the last year is defined by watching guidos and their obsession with "t-shirt time" and "GTL" and following the lost cause of Lindsay Lohan.

 This article was very entertaining to me.  It's not necessarily that I  disagree with what the writers chose to include on this list, but more that I wonder what this list says about our society and our generation...

Race to Nowhere

Tonight, I had the opportunity to see the film "Race to Nowhere" (directed by Vicki Abeles).  After hearing about it in class earlier this year as well as watching the trailer before, I was excited to finally get to see it.

Without giving away the documentary, the basic premise is that it shows the pressures many American students and teachers face in this culture that is so obsessed with "achievement", and thus very competitive.  The film features stories of young people across the nation who have been pushed to their limits, teachers who worried that the students aren't developing the "proper" skills they need, and parents who are trying to do what they think is best.

Some of my thoughts after watching the film were the following:

What exactly is achievement?  And how can that really be measured?  What does it mean to be successful in this country?  Is it making a lot of money?  Or shouldn't it really be about a person's overall happiness?

I was curious to see how "success" was defined in the Oxford English Dictionary.  The definition was:

The prosperous achievement of something attempted; the attainment of an object according to one's desire: now often with particular reference to the attainment of wealth or position

Even in the dictionary "wealth" is put under the definition of success.  The film mentioned how our "system" seems to stress the importance of money as a baseline for achievement.  Not only this, but grades and test scores in the current education system seem to be the main factors measuring "smartness".  And these tests and education system as a whole are measuring more what a student can cram in and remember, as opposed to encouraging students to really think, and gain the passion for learning that comes with that.

The viewpoint of the "Race to Nowhere" documentary is that there needs to be a change in our education system.  The film "points to the silent epidemic in our schools: cheating has become commonplace, students have become disengaged, stress-related illness, depression and burnout are rampant, and young people arrive at college and the workplace unprepared and uninspired."  Do you agree or disagree with the main points of the video regarding the education system in America?  

The Price of Awareness

The other day when I opened my Internet, on my Yahoo! Homepage, this article caught my eye.  I clicked on it to find out what it was all about.  After reading through it and watching this video, I discovered that a Mississippi high school football player, Coy Sheppard, was kicked off his team for wearing pink cleats.  The 17-year-old-kicker from Mendenhall High School wore these pink cleats in honor of October’s Breast Cancer Awareness Month.  In so doing, he followed in the footsteps of many NFL and college players who wore pink wristbands, hats, and cleats all month.  So Sheppard and his teammates decided they would all wear pink to the game.  However, at halftime, Coach Chris Peterson told the athletes to take off the pink.  They all obeyed.  However, the following Monday, Sheppard showed up to practice in the pink cleats, and was then kicked off the team for being “defiant”.  Sheppard has gone through six cleats in his past two years as a quicker, with a variety of colors, and has never had this issue before.  It seems this arbitrary “rule” came into play only because of the color pink.

 

At issue are his civil liberties.  Doesn’t Sheppard have a right to wear pink?  If the coach allowed more than one color of cleats, he should not discriminate against one particular color.  If the uniform required all athletes to wear black cleats, so to say, then the coach’s actions would be justifiable.

This Mississippi boy who only wanted to spread Breast Cancer Awareness, has not only missed finishing up his senior football season, but also might not even graduate on time because his high school gives academic credit for sports.  In the light these dire consequences, it is easy to see how absurdly the coach acted, and that he did violate Coy Sheppard’s civil rights.

An Education

Last week, a New Trier graduate and current teacher (through Teach For America ), visited our class.  He described the main differences between the high school where teaches (rural Arkansas) and New Trier.  The biggest difference is the socioeconomic background of these students; they live in a very poor area.  They have completely different life styles and values, not in a sense of better or worse, but just different.  These students are limited by their money; they do not have the money for computers at home, and the school itself has hardly any computers.  It is hard to even imagine not being able to access the Internet at home, or type a paper for school.  And this isn’t just a problem in this one town in Arkansas.  It’s a nationwide problem, and it’s even in parts of Chicago.

Then this teacher said something that really shocked me.  He said that his ninth grade students are reading at a third grade level.  This made me sad because I know how important reading and education are for rising out of poverty.  Reading is part of our everyday lives, and if we cannot comprehend what is before us, then we will really face challenges down the road.  Reading has applications in so many settings; from ordering at a restaurant to applying for a job, it is essential.

While these students may have some of the basics down, unless they improve their reading, college and further education would be difficult, if not impossible.   We need to take steps to address this problem so that they have a brighter future.

With Liberty and Justice for all?

Yesterday in class we discussed rights that every US citizen is protected by, and others that we are limited by.  We contributed different opinions per issue, then found out rather it was actually a right we are protected or limited by, and then discussed why that is. For example, one of the protected rights that every student has is to refuse to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.  That is, de jure, every citizen is protected to refuse the recital of the pledge, but occasionally de facto, that is not always the case.

 

Mr. Bolos told a specific story about his daughter not standing up to say the pledge.  De jure, she had a right not to, but de facto, everyone else in the class was reciting it, and the school tried desperately to convince her to.  When really she has the freedom to not do so.

This made me think of Will Phillips, a 10-year-old from Arkansas who refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance because he did not agree with it.  He claimed that he would not say it until there really is “liberty and justice for all”, which he believes, will not be the case until gays and lesbians have equal rights.

“Gays and lesbians can’t marry.  There’s still a lot of racism and sexism in the world”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT9I-36aim8

According to the 1943 ruling that gives students the right to refuse the Pledge, and his first amendment right, Will is protected by law.  But when he didn’t stand up and refused to recite it for four days, he was sent to the principal’s office.

I’m not saying that I agree with his motives, or that I myself refuse to say the Pledge.  The point is, is that by law, everyone is entitled to freedom of speech, and Will should be allowed to refuse to say it, as long as he isn’t disrupting others.

Determination

This past weekend, my field hockey team won the state tournament.  It was one of the most amazing moments of my life, and very rewarding.  All summer and fall, each one of my teammates and I had spent countless hours practicing and working out.  Regular season started the end of August, and that is when things really started kicking into gear.  We came into the season with great expectations, having won state the previous year, against our biggest rival, Lake Forest.  Last year, New Trier had lost to Lake Forest twice in regular season, but beat Lake Forest in the game that really mattered: state.

We were a strong team, and ended our regular season 12-1-1 (Wins-Loses-Ties), which unfortunately wasn’t as good as Lake Forest’s 12-0-1 (we tied to them 0-0 the first game, and lost to them 3-1 in the second game).  So as soon as playoffs came around, we were seeded number two, and Lake Forest, of course, number one.  We were all so determined to beat Lake Forest, and to ruin their “perfect season” that they had going into the tournament (with no loses). 

And on Saturday we proved to Lake Forest our passion, drive, and capability, beating them 2-0, and winning the state title once again.  It was not necessarily that we had better stick skills, (we certainly didn’t in the regular season, but by playoffs we might have), but more that we had the determination and passion.  We all became really close this fall, and were very motivated.  It goes to show that the “underdog” can win, and as cheesy it sounds, it mostly takes perseverance and passion.  Yes, we still had to be in shape and have good stick skills, but it took the togetherness of the team and the determination to become state champions. 

Meta-Post

Over the past eight weeks, I have grown as a blogger.  Blog writing was a new concept for me this year, a task that I had never been expected to do before.  When we first were assigned to “blog”, I have to admit I was very nervous and not too thrilled.  I was worried I wouldn’t pick the “right" topic or say the “right” words.  Never before had my writing been so widely exposed, so I felt self conscious at first putting my opinion out there, and I spent many hours just writing the first few posts.  And it wasn’t that it was hard to write, but more that I was worried what people would think.

Looking back at my posts thus far, I have definitely seen changes in format.  My first posts were written more in the format of a paper, rather than a blog. They were less provocative and left nothing for the reader to grab onto, and no easy way to respond.  For example, in my I Don’t Go to Colgate…post, I concluded with the following:

“Artifacts do not tell the whole story.  Therefore research, collaboration, and corroboration are key steps that must be taken before any conclusions can be drawn.  I mean, how do we as individuals have a right to make assumptions based only on materialistic items?”

This was merely rhetorical question, and left the reader with nothing to really respond to.  What I have started to do, and still need to work on, is to make my posts more conversational, more open-ended (as opposed to a rhetorical question).  In my post A Call to Action: Understand Our Past to Correct Our Future, I gave my interpretation of George Orwell’s quote. 

"He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future."

I took the key word “controls” to mean “understands” and gave my personal interpretation.  This allowed others to comment on what “controls” meant to him or her. Another technique I have used to create a statement or argument that extends the conversation is to end it with a question.  However, I have found this to be a risky technique because it sometimes seems like the author is trying to hard to get an argument out of the readers, instead of allowing it to come more naturally.  Nevertheless, in my The Social Network post, I found asking a few questions at the end beneficial because the questions went along with the post and offered people a chance to comment on their thoughts on social networking (i.e. “facebooking”). 

In hindsight, I have noticed that a common theme I have explored is interpretation.  I mentioned that a person cannot just make interpretations and assumptions about someone solely based on what they see in my I Don’t  Go to Colgate… post.  I wrote that textbook authors choose how they interpret and narrate a historical event in Are We Seeing the Whole Story?  Or Just the American Version?  I wrote about how people can have many different interpretations on an event, based on diction in my “British Petroleum? Or “Anything-but-American” Petroleum?  In the future, I hope to widen my topic choices in my blog in order to create a greater variety.

As first quarter is ending, I already feel like I have experienced growth as a writer.  I now feel more comfortable voicing my opinion and allowing others to read what I have to say.  However, I still have a lot to work on; such as creating more concise and to-the-point posts, extending the conversation, and varying my topic choice.  Nevertheless, now I don’t dread blogging because it motivates me to dig deeper on current events and make connections with things we talked about in class.

*Please read The Social Network*

A Call to Action: Understand Our Past to Correct Our Future

In class last week, both Mr. O’Connor and Mr. Bolos mentioned George Orwell’s quote from his the book, Nineteen Eighty-Four:

"He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future."

I interpreted this quote as Orwell’s desire for us all to study history.  In my opinion, when he uses the word “controls”, he means “understands.”  I took this quote to mean that those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.  Therefore, a person who “understands” the mistakes and successes from the past will “understand” what to do for the future.  Whereas a person who is only focusing on the present is ignoring the lessons from the past.  Many times we are told to “live in the moment”.  However, in my belief, Orwell is saying that if all you do is live in the present, you are risking being narrow-minded and oblivious.

Orwell says that we all must be knowledgeable about the past in order to make the best decisions in the present that will best impact the future.

10.10.10

Over the weekend, I watched my mom run the Chicago Marathon.  18 weeks of training and it all comes down to one day.  While more than 45,000 people from all over the world registered for the race, only around 38,000 actually started the race, and just over 36,000 finished.  But do these numbers really matter?

In class last week we talked about how numbers drive people to make comparisons with one another.  We live in a very competitive society where people are constantly focused on how their numbers stack up to other peoples'.  How many cars?  How many shoes?  What are your grades?  What did you get on the ACT?  In our every day lives, especially those of high school students, numbers play a huge role.

Grades alone can’t really show the extent of one’s knowledge, just as marathon times don’t tell the whole story.  Yet, we still obsess over the numbers.  Even my grandpa who at 79-years-old still runs marathons, records daily in his training log how many miles he ran, and how fast. 

After the race, many people ask, “what was your time?”  Many people look up the times of relatives and friends online as well.  But is it really about that?  Instead shouldn’t we celebrate that the runner had the courage to begin, the determination to stick with it, and strength and endurance to finish?  Running 26.2 miles is an accomplishment itself, no matter how fast you do it.

**I find it kind of ironic that I used so many numbers in this article about the unimportance of numbers.  Clearly, I am my grandfather’s granddaughter and a victim of society…

The Social Network

This weekend, I saw the movie The Social Network.  For those of you who don’t know, the movie is about how Facebook was created by Harvard undergrad Mark Zuckerberg with help from a few others (and financial help from his classmate Eduardo Saverin).  I highly recommend seeing this movie because it really makes you realize how Facebook changed our social interactions and made it much easier to communicate and be up-to-date with “friends” from across the world.  Peter Travers of Rolling Stone said, “The movie of the year that also brilliantly defines the decade.”  Travers is right; this past decade will definitely be remembered for this network (created in February 2004) that allows us to easily connect with others.

“Connectedness” is a topic we have been discussing in AIS this year with our oral history project.  In our project, we explored the ways people define their society and the degree to which people feel satisfied with their society.  This social network, known as Facebook, immensely changed how people can connect with one another.  It is easy to access information about “friends” and is a way to online communicate with others any time of day.  For those of you who are Facebook users, how has social networking changed your interactions with others?  Has it made you feel more connected to others?  Or, paradoxically, do you feel less connected because you are communicating behind a screen instead of in person?

Time

Seven days.  168 hours.  10,080 minutes.  604,800 seconds.  Those are different ways of counting a week.  Although it may seem like a lot of time, is that really enough?

This week in American Studies we discussed our society and how it is time-driven.  Our everyday lives are based strictly on schedules and deadlines.  Time means everything to our country, and is needed for maximum efficiency.  When we waste time, we get behind.  And in order to compete with other countries, the American work place must make the most of every second.

However, time does not seem to be such an issue for other countries.  I have traveled to a few Central American and Caribbean countries and have noticed this.  Whenever we would get in the car to go somewhere, we would ask the driver how long the drive would be, and more often then not, it always took longer than he said.  It was not that the driver was purposely lying to me.  I honestly think he just didn’t know exactly and didn’t think it would make a difference.  In their society, time did not seem to be as significant.

Has our American society become too time-obsessive?  Or is this factor necessary to keep us in line and able to compete with other countries? 

British Petroleum? Or "Anything-but-American" Petroleum?

Last week in AIS we talked about diction.  We discussed how a person’s word choice could really change the listener’s perception.  We looked at a textbook article and analyzed some of the points made.  Although all of the statements may have been historically true, the word choice most likely would have changed the way the reader viewed the event.

Five months ago, in the wake of oil spill, Obama referred to BP as British Petroleum.  Whether he meant it intentionally or if it just slipped out, his word choice seemed to blame England.  Not only did he call the company a name that it no longer goes by, but also he clearly stated it was a British company, led many to believe that he wanted to show that it was not an American company that caused such a huge disaster.

David Cameron, the Prime Minister of the UK, confronted Obama about this “name-calling”.  James Kirkiup, the author of this article, wrote the following:  “The president has promised American voters that he will make BP pay for its ‘recklessness’ over the Deepwater Horizon disaster, whose impact he has compared to that of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the US… The White House has also evoked BP's British origins, calling the company ‘British Petroleum’, a name it no longer uses.”  Kirkup portrays the common idea many people thought after hearing the president make a point of saying British Petroleum: that is, that Obama was making a big deal of stating that it was by, in no means, an American company. 

I am not saying Obama’s intentions were to stress that it was a British company, no not at all.  The point is that Obama’s word choice (or perhaps word slip) allowed people to draw these conclusions.  Diction can truly change a person’s perspective on an event, especially if he or she was not there to experience the event, but is merely reading about it.  Just as the author of the textbook article we read in class did, diction can paint a completely different picture while keeping the history accurate.

Are We Seeing the Whole Story? Or Just the “American Version"?

In class last week we discussed how textbook authors and editors choose what is put into their textbooks.  We then were proposed with the question, “Why would these writers leave out mistakes made by the government?”  Is it because they don’t want to portray the government in a negative light?  Or is it that they want to stay as neutral as possible in order to avoid controversy in hopes to sell more books?

For the most part, I believe that both of these ideas are true.  Textbook writers and the media in general do not like to point out flaws that the government has made. They want to stay loyal to the government, and portray patriotism, instead of ripping apart America and blaming it.  Therefore, from what I came across when skimming US history textbooks, much of the history is written in a neutral manner, if not optimistic. 

Authors of these textbooks would want to write neutrally so that they have a wider audience.  They do not want to limit who buys the books by taking a strong stance.  Because in order to sell more books and make the most money, they must refrain from a lot of controversy.

Still today, writers and media avoid topics with high controversy, and tend create a more neutral perspective.   Also, the media seems to focus more on topics of or pertaining America, instead of international issues.  Take, for example, the recent floods in Pakistan.  When I was researching online for an example of when the “media doesn’t blame the US”, the first topic that came up with this natural disaster in Pakistan.  The US has not only barely helped out the Pakistanis, but also there has been little coverage on such a big and devastating topic.  Are many news writers purposely ignoring this topic because they do not want to seem like bad global citizens and represent America in a negative light?

I Don't go to Colgate...

“Where is Colgate again?  Upper New York?” a dad with his high school daughter asks.  Being caught off guard by the unexpected question, I glanced down at my shirt and then responded, “Yeah, I think its in Hamilton, New York.  But I don’t actually go there.”  He then laughed, because in his mind, he thought it was absurd that I was wearing a shirt of a school I didn’t attend.

The man had innocently mistaken me for a Colgate student.  Since I was vacationing in an area not too far from Colgate, his assumption was not a stupid one.  It could have been true.  But it obviously wasn’t. 

In class last week we discussed why our biographies of the “Death of Mr. Bolos” might be inaccurate.  One reason for inaccuracy is interpretation.  When we look at artifacts left behind, such as those from Mr. Bolos’, we cannot draw conclusions solely from what we see.  It would be wrong to make inferences about who he was and what those objects represented only from what he left behind.  For example, in Mr. Bolos’ case, he left behind a rubber mouth.  From that object we cannot just determine that he was a speech therapist.

Artifacts do not tell the whole story.  Therefore research, collaboration, and corroboration are key steps that must be taken before any conclusions can be drawn.  I mean, how do we as individuals have a right to make assumptions based only on materialistic items?   After all, I do not attend Colgate and Mr. Bolos is not a speech therapist…

Hi There...

Welcome to my blog!