My Life in Blogs

Tokenism in Real Life

2010-05-24T09:02:00.000-05:00

     So after our class discussion on tokenism on tv, I started to think about tokenism in my everyday life. The first thing that came to mind is kind of random, but it works: My mom's office. She is a lawyer and most of her co-workers are white. And as far as gender goes, I don't know the exact count, but I would say it is split pretty evenly between men and women. But the main lawyers she works with are white. However, her paralegal, which is basically just her assistant, is an African American woman and the secretary at the front desk is also an African American woman. To me, this is a perfect example of tokenism in real life. The African American women do not have the highest paid job in the office by any means. They are there to simply assist the white lawyers who dominate the office. They are the token black workers, so the firm can say that they are diverse.
     There is also tokenism at New Trier. There are not many African American teachers or faculty. I honestly cannot think of one teacher who is African American. But there are several African Americans who work on the PPS staff. And that is definitely tokenism. They are not teachers, so not in the spotlight, and they do not have the highest paid jobs, but they are there. So who could argue against New Trier that the staff is not diverse? We're diverse. Sort of. If you can call African American janitors diverse.
     So those are some of the real life examples that I could think of. I had never really noticed tokenism before Mr. Bolos' discussion. But now that I'm aware of it, it's amazing how often I see it. Everyone thinks America has come so far, but how far have we've really come?

Data Driven Society To The Max

2010-05-18T11:39:00.000-05:00

Yesterday in class we talked about how society is becoming increasingly more data driven. But I want to specifically elaborate on our discussion of the ACT and how it affects college admissions. Today, as most New Trier juniors know, the ACT scores from the required April test came out. I am now in the computer lab where everyone is chekcing their scores with a furious passion. Even though I was one of those students just seconds before, I realized that this is completely ridiculous. No one was happy with their scores. I hear sighs of regret in the background. New Trier is completely obsessed with data and it consumes our lives every day. But how accurate is this data?
I have a very strong opinion when it comes to the ACT. I feel that the ACT is not a good indicator of someone's abilities and knowledge, and all it measures is how much money you have. People with tutors pretty much buy their ACT score. The first time I took the ACT, I took it without any tutoring; cold-turkey as they say, and I did okay. Not spectacular, probably the average score for New Trier students. After that I got a tutor and raised my score four points. But I didn't do anything special. Sure, I took about 100 practice tests. But anyone could do that. My higher score does not show that I am magically more intelligent than I was before, it simply shows that my parents could afford to hire an ACT tutor for me. My dad and I got into a pretty heated debate about this once, and let's just say he would kindly disagree with me. He thinks that if you have the money to afford a tutor, then everything is fair game. Although I disagree with him, I understand where he's coming from. He's worked really hard his whole life in order to give his family the best. And being able to afford an ACT tutor for his teenage daughter is just the pay off for all of his hard work. But it puts everyone else who can't afford a tutor at a disadvantage. And in the words of my dad, "That's life".

Junior Theme=Life

2010-05-05T00:08:00.001-05:00

   I literally spent my entire weekend writing my junior theme. I ate, slept, read, and lived junior theme. It took me a lot longer than I thought it would; I figured out I tend to write in infrequent spurts of inspiration, but at least I have a rough draft completely done. It still needs to be edited majorly, though, so I thought I would save the week to do that. I also finished my annotated bibliography which I think is pretty good. The librarians' comments have been super helpful, so thank you!
   Last night I transcribed my interview with Dr. Easton, which only took me like two hours, so that was a whole lot of fun. But again, at least it's done. I decided to just get that all over with last night, instead of working on it the entire week like I thought I would do.
   But I think that's about it. I got my rough draft done. I typed out my interview. I finished my annotated bib. Oh yes, I knew I was forgetting something. I still have to talk with some people for the peer to peer requirement so I can add some little tid bits into my paper, but other than that (for reals now) I don't think there's a whole lot to be done. Just editing. Hopefully no all nighters this week.
TO DO LIST: 1) Talk with people for the peer to peer requirement
   2) Edit!
   3) Turn in paper and get an A++!

Junior Theme Update

2010-04-27T08:59:00.000-05:00

     This weekend I had my interview with Dr. Easton. He turned out to be the perfect person to interview because he was so knowledgeable and just had a lot to say. I wasn't sure if he was going to be able to respond to all the questions, since they dealt with a wide variety of topics, but he answered all of them and knew a lot about all of them too. I learned a lot from him and the interview gave me new things to look at that I hadn't necessarily gone into before.
     Also over the weekend I started to write a body paragraph like Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Bolos said to do. Originally I thought I was go straight into discussing lobotomy, but after I thought about it, I thought that it might be better to give a brief (or at least as brief as I could make it) description of treatments in the early 20th century. Since my Why Question deals with treatment for mental illness dramatically changing, I thought that it would help readers to know where we were coming from to better understand where we are today. And that would also show how dramatically treatments really have changed. But I'm not sure if that's what Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Bolos are looking for because it's not really analytical it's just historical information. So I'm not really sure what I'm going to do about that.
     It's getting pretty stressful because there are a lot of big decision that I need to make for my paper. After looking at some sample essays in class yesterday, and how much it was scrutinized to every last detail, I'm a little worried about what the class would say about my paper if they saw it. But I'm trying to work on it every night and I'm still doing research and I still need to finish my annotated bib.
       THINGS TO DO:
                                  1) annotate bibliography
                                  2) type transcript of interview
                                  3) continue research
                                  4) keep writing!

And I Have an Intro!

2010-04-22T14:19:00.000-05:00

     I procrastinated all night, putting off my intro until the last possible moment. But I did it and I'm actually really happy with it. It took me about an hour to write, which is way longer than I had thought it would take. But I was so excited to finally finish it that I even read it to my brother at 11:30 at night and he could've probably cared less about it. But it's done! Hooray!
     Now I'm wondering if I should start writing the rest of my paper. I haven't scheduled my interview yet, but I know who I'm interviewing, as I explained in my last blog post, so I don't think it will be a problem. But I still feel like I don't have enough information. I'm thinking that as I start to write the paper I'll figure out what information I actually need and that can help to refine my searches. But other than that I'm not too worried. Every night I have been researching my topic and looking for articles. I just wish that we had some sort of timeline/deadlines because I think that would really help me. Right now I feel like I'm just floating around in a pool not really knowing what direction I'm going in. I liked the deadline for the intro because then I actually got it done. I mean, it's not like I'm not going to write the paper, but with deadlines you can do it in increments instead of one big, hurried chunk. For some reason this year, with every paper I write, it takes me such a long time to put words onto the page. I have to think so hard about each word and how it's phrased that it just ends up taking me a really long time to do.
     So the game plan: do a little more research and start writing!
     Things to do: 1) schedule interview
                         2) think of interview questions

Life and Times of Junior Theme

2010-04-16T08:55:00.000-05:00

     Well junior theme is still stressing me out. I have a vague idea for a thesis but I still need to research my arguments. I read "Girl, Interrupted" and last night I finished another book called "Mad in America," which was extremely helpful. It gave me a ton of information and a great historical context. But I think I'm definietly lacking in other sources. I have two books but I don't have many sources from the databases. I'm trying to look for some useful articles.
     Also, I wasn't sure if Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Bolos were kidding about having an intro done. I thought they were serious but everyone else told me that they were kidding, but now I think that they were actually serious which kind of worries me. I don't have a clear thesis statement yet and I'm not completely sure what my arguments are going to be because I feel like I still need to do a ton of research.
     As for the interview, I have not yet e-mailed the person, (I'm planning on interviewing my friend's dad who works for the psychiatric ward at Rush Hospital) but I'm not really worried. We're practically neighbors so I'm sure he'll be able to fit in an interview some time. So that's pretty much all that's going on concerning junior theme.

Junior Theme: My Sweat and Tears

2010-04-06T21:29:00.000-05:00

   The start of the infamous (and sometimes feared) junior theme has brought some added stress into my life, but not as much as I expected. The most stressful part for me so far is actually choosing a topic and a good book to go along with that topic. Many times I've felt lost, like I had absolutely no idea what I was doing. But today I made a major breakthrough. I've finally decided on a topic that, as of now, I plan to stick with. And that is: mental illness. I'm not exactly sure which direction I'm going to take with it, but I know that it's going to be about the treatment of mental illness, specifically.
     Before deciding on my (hopefully) final topic, I was thinking about researching prescription drug abuse and depression. But after doing a little research on depression and reading a little blurb about the history of mental institutions and the treatment of mental illness in general, I decided to switch to that. It just seems more interesting and like something I won't get bored of. So now that I know what I want to do, the problem lies in finding a book. The two books that I'm thinking about are "One Flies Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and "Girl, Interrupted." They were both made into movies so which ever book I don't read, I figure I can just see the movie. But I'm not sure which book would be more helpful for my research. "One Flies Over the Cuckoo's Nest" is fiction and "Girl, Interrupted" is based on the author's real experiences, so that's why I'm not sure which one I should read. I also asked my mom for any suggestions and she told me about the movie called "Frances Farmer." The movie was made in the 80's and it's based on the true strory of Frances Farmer who was committed to a mental institution, so I'll definitely see this movie.
     So I guess what I really need to work on is finding a book. I'm glad that I at least have a topic but I also need to formulate some more WHY Q's. So that's the end of my first junior theme update!

Blagojevich on "Celebrity Apprentice"

2010-03-23T22:33:00.001-05:00

For the past couple of weeks I have seen various commercials for "Celebrity Apprentice" and happened to see that Illinois' former governnor, Rod Blagojevich is one of the contestants this season. Personally, I am outraged. Blagojevich should be in jail, not on a reality t.v. show. He has used his 15 minutes of fame (and the kind of fame that no one should want) to transform himself into some sort of a celebrity. Before signing on for "Celebrity Apprentice" Blagojevich was originally going to be on a different reality show called "I'm a Celebrity... Get Me Out of Here!" However, since he is charged with a multitude of crimes, the judge said that he could not participate in the show. But never fear, his wife gladly stepped up and took the role instead. I think it's totally disgusting that Blagojevich would do something like this. He is not a celebrity; he is criminal who has made Illinois the laughing stock of the country. And the media is treating this like it's no big deal. It's like "Hey, if the whole governor thing doesn't work out, just join 'Celebrity Apprentice!'"Another thing that bothered me was the way Blagojevich's little biography is worded on the show's website. It says that Blagojevich was "hijacked from office." He was "hijacked" because he broke the law! That's usually what happens in these kind of situations. I think Blagojevich being in "Celebrity Apprentice" not only gives Illinois a bad rep, but it gives our entire country a bad rep. It's like the media is just shrugging off all of his wrong-doings and glorifying a man who does not deserve to be glorified. It sheds a bad light on American politics, if you ask me, and it definitely does not present a good image of America.

Some More Commentary on Cigarette Advertising...

2010-03-18T09:27:00.002-05:00

   After reading both Maeli and Ruchi's blogs about cigarette advertising I decided I wanted to blog about the same thing since I find this topic to be rather interesting. So I guess I'll just elaborate/restate my comments that I wrote on their blogs.
     Yesterday afternoon I talked to my mom about this and she said that when she was growing up, she saw commercials on t.v. all the time for cigarettes. Now, televised commercials for cigarettes are banned. (Here is a little history of cigarette advertising throughout the years). But print ads and billboards are still allowed, of course; it's the tobacco industry after all. But it's interesting to note where you see the ads. You're not going to find Camel ads in Seventeen magazine or Tiger Beat. Now that would be corrupting little kids' minds. But you'll definitely see them in Sports Illustrated, Cosmopolitan, and Rolling Stone magazine. This website actually lists the magazines that cigarette ads are published in and a little description of the ad as well. You can really tell the targert audience for the ads just by the magazine that the ad was published in. For example, from the website linked above, I saw that a cigarette ad was published in Cosmopolitan and the description of the ad was "winter mocha mint- warm toffee." Just taking a guess, I think women are more likely to buy cigarettes that are describes as "winter mocha mint" than men, and that's probably why it was published in Cosmopolitan.
     Like Ruchi talked about in her blog, I think cigarette sales have a lot to do with their packaging. As I saw in France, there is a brand of cigarettes called "Pink Elephants" and the cigarettes are entirely pink. I don't know how many men are going to buy pink cigarettes, so you can really tell what kind of people this brand is targeting. As Ruchi also mentioned in her blog, Camel was targeting women in their ads, as well, with cigarettes being described as "light and luscious." It's interesting to see how cigarette ads tremendously vary by gender.
     So as I walking to my car yesterday afternoon I was trying to think of something to blog about, and being really desperate I looked at the ground to see what kinds of things people litered on the sidewalk near the school. And it actually turned out to be very interesting. This is what I saw: cigarette butts, empty cigarette boxes, and a Ghiradelli chocolate wrapper. Cigs and desginer chocolate. That's the North Shore for ya I thought. Any thoughts?

A Change of Scenery

2010-03-09T09:21:00.000-06:00

Over the weekend I ventured past the boundaries of the North Shore, and keeping in mind last week's discussion of the physical differences between towns even within 30 minutes of us, I noticed these differences almost immediately. I remember Mr. Bolos saying how there was nowhere to quickly buy a sandwhich near New Trier. I hadn't really though about this before, but I realized that he was right. There are no fast food restaurants near New Trier. You would have to drive all the way to downtown Winnetka to the one McDonald's there, or a mall to get to the food court. So driving down the main road through this unknown town, I saw that the entire road was almost virtually composed of fast food restaurants. Any fast food restaurant that you could possibly think of was on this road. The nicest sit-down restaurant I saw was Chili's. And the stores that lined the street were all discount type of stores like Old Navy and Nordstrom Rack. And with these simple observations, I think I finally realized how incredibly different the North Shore was from everywhere else; it is a place where sit-down restaurants are the norm and Old Navy is a 30 minute drive away. It's not like I had never seen places like this before, but I had just never fully taken into account these differences and made something of it. It was like I was looking at the same thing only with different eyes.

Life and Times of the North Shore: Some Memoirs

2010-03-04T22:12:00.000-06:00

   So with all this discussion about social class, I thought I should write something about it. So I decided to write about some stories that happened to me (related to social class, of course). I remember in junior high, teachers would constantly make comments to us about how we lived in the North Shore. Before 6th grade, I was pretty naive and didn't really know the status of the North Shore. I had never been exposed to anything else, so I thought that the life I lived was like everyone else's in the world. Obviously I was wrong. But anyhow, starting about 6th grade the comments started. It came first from my gym teacher. I can't remember exactly what she said, but it was something along the lines of how we wouldn't have to worry about the same kind of things as her because we lived in the North Shore. And in 7th grade, one of my teachers asked us to bring in a binder the next day. Naturally, we all started to complain. How would we have enough time to get a binder by tomorrow? And then my teacher freaked out a little and said, "You live in the North Shore. You can afford it." I don't mean to talk bad about my past teachers. But these are the times that I most remember my social class being brought up by own teachers. Even as I think about it now, I find it a little strange that teachers would say something like that to little kids.
   So that was in junior high. And I went to a pretty homogenous junior high. Practically everyone was white and we were all pretty much in the same boat, so to speak. But interestingly, I noticed that once I got to high school, the comments about living in the North Shore stopped. The beginning of high school also marked the time that I truly opened my eyes to the world. I realized that the world is a pretty big place, and not everyone was like me. Not everyone was in the same boat as me anymore. There were people who had to worry about money on a daily basis, which is something I was not really used to at the time. Suddenly, social class actually meant something to me. So like the title says, these are just some memoirs from living in the North Shore.
   Fin.

2nd Edition: And The Winner Is... America!

2010-02-27T15:59:00.000-06:00

And how about some more opinions on the Olympics? The other day I was watching speed skating because I absolutely love Apolo Ohno for some reason. And then... he didn't win. I was sad yes, but I was very surprised. I was just so used to him winning that I didn't even think him losing would even be a question. Actually I was just so used to America winning in general that I didn't think it could be any other way. That sounds really conceited, but it's true. I just assumed that America would always win, which again sounds terrible, my apologies. And it was also a little surprising when I saw the medal count on t.v. We're not in first for gold medals- Canada is- but we do have the most medals overall, with Germany right behind us. I guess that's not so surprising, but I wondered why this was. Why does America always seem to take gold? Or how is it that we don't have the most gold medals, but somehow we still have the most medals overall? I answered this question with a similar answer that I wrote about in an earlier blog post about why New Trier always wins everything (And the Winner Is... New Trier! Duh). I think America wins a lot of the events simply because it is such a big country and there are more people to choose from. Compared to other countries, America is huge! If you compare the United States to Monaco for example, which is the second smallest country in the world after Vatican City, which is technically the smallest country in the world, I think you can see a big difference. Especially when it comes to the Olympics, America has a huge advantage. Where America has 308,771,065 people to choose from (source) Monaco has only about 32,000 people to choose from. So America has about 9,600 times more people to choose from than Monaco. That's just an example, but still. But it definitely raises the global competition a little. So that's my theory. America just has a lot more people to choose from than other countries, and that's we win a lot. Any thoughts?

Money for Medals

2010-02-24T09:19:00.000-06:00

Last night as I was passing through the kitchen where the news was blaring on the t.v., I happened to overhear one of the news reporters talk about the incentives for Olympic athletes. And apparently, if an athlete medals, they are awarded $25,000 for gold, $15,000 for silver, and $10,000 for bronze. I had always wondered whether Olympic athletes got paid or not, but it seems a little outrageous to me. $25,000 for gold?! Seriously? And what about people who win multiple gold medals? According to the New York Times 2008 Beijing Olympics medal count, the United States won 36 gold medals which adds up to $900,000, almost a million dollars going to gold medalists. But we also won 38 silver and 36 bronze medals, so in total we dished out a total of $1,830,000 to athletes. That's a lot of money. And where exactly does it come from?
Don't get me wrong, I think it's a good thing to award Olympic athletes for their success. They're representing America and making everyone proud with their efforts so I think they deserve something. But $25,000 for a gold just seems like a lot of money to me. I also thought about the athletes' reasons for going to the Olympics. Do they go just for the cash incentives or do they go because they are truly passionate about their sport? I feel like they have to be passionate about it because most athletes spend their entire lives training, so if they didn't love their sport, they probably would have quit long ago. But I don't know. Do you think Olympic athletes get paid too much? Not enough? Or shouldn't be paid at all?

Strength and Pain

2010-02-20T17:03:00.000-06:00

A few days ago in class we discussed the difference between men's and women's sports and athleticism and all that good stuff. But this reminded of this theory I have. First, I think it can be universally aknowledged that men are more physically built than women. Men are just naturally stronger than women. But this is where my theory comes in. I think women can handle more pain than men. And I look at this from two ways: personal experience and biologically. First the personal experience. Whenever I have a stomach ache or a headache, I still go school. I pop an advil and suck it up. But my brother, and not to beat on him or anything, but if he gets a stomach ache at school, he comes home. Maybe it's just him, but a little stomach ache never gave me a reason to go home. Ok, and now looking from a biological standpoint. From what I hear childbirth=pain, and lots of it. If men were the ones to give birth, there's wouldn't be any people left. But like I said, it's just a theory, and it's very hard to prove either way. In fact, in this article from MedicineNet, it says that "there are so many overlays of societal and cultural norms and other factors that go into the reporting of pain that it may not have a biological basis at all." This article suggests that men have a higher tolerance to pain than women. They concluded this by performing different pain tests on both genders, including tolerance to heat. However, the article also acknowledges that the experiments can sometimes be inaccurate, and that there are many factors to be considered. But I stand by what I said: men are physically stronger than women, but women can handle more pain than men. What do you think?

Little Black Dress: Remix

2010-02-16T16:20:00.001-06:00

A few months ago as I was flipping through my Teen Vogue magazine, a particular Marc Jacobs ad stuck out to me. I'm usually drawn to his ads because of their artistic value, but this one was different. It was a male model modeling women's clothes. He was wearing a mini skirt, a skimpy top, and holding a purse. I thought it was a little odd, but thought that Marc was just trying to be artsy. But as I thought about it more, I started to do a non-intentional "See, Think, Wonder" in my head. I wondered why Marc Jacobs would choose to have a man model what was obviously women's clothes. I don't think he's trying to say that his women's clothes can also be worn by men, because somehow I don't think men in dresses is really going to catch on. But perhaps he's trying to make a much bigger statement about gender roles.

Cole Mohr, the model in the ad, modeled for both the men's and women's campaigns for that season. I think it's very interesting that Marc Jacobs would use the same model for both campaigns. I personally see the ad as more artistic than anything, but many people see Cole Mohr as a crossdresser in the ad. Jacobs is openly gay himself, so to me the ad can also be seen as Jacobs' way of telling the world that being gay is okay. But Marc Jacobs is known for crazy/weird ads and this is just another way to show the world his what he's got.

Reparation Time

2010-02-12T08:41:00.000-06:00

Reparations. Good or bad? In my opinion, sometimes good, sometimes bad. And it depends on the case. I was surprised to learn yesterday how Germany has been giving Israel cars and other expensive goods since after WWII. For me, this is not an acceptable reparation. I'm sure Israel gladly accepts all the expensive things, I mean, who wouldn't? But it bothers me because it's like "Hey, sorry for killing 6 million of your people, here's some money." It's just too little too late. However, I do think it's time for the United States to officially apologize for slavery. I don't think cash payments or tax breaks or anything like that would help anything; again, I think it's too little too late. But a sincere apology from the government would really make a difference. We also discussed yesterday about a slavery museum in Washington DC. I think that would be an amazing idea. There's a Holocaust museum, why not a slavery museum? Honestly it's a shame there isn't one up yet.
Reparations cannot replace a genuine apology. Any group of people would gladly accept reparations. Seriously, like I said before, why wouldn't you take free money or free tuition to college? But it will never erase the hurt and pain people felt. An apology is the best thing anyone can do to start making up for something.

Be Your Own Hero!

2010-02-09T17:19:00.001-06:00

I know I always blog about movies, but I'm going to do it again. This time it's about "Whip It," a movie about a girl who follows her dream and joins a roller derby team. For some reason I found this movie to be extremely inspirational. It's just something I would never do. It sounds so simple, "follow your dreams," how hard could it be? But I feel like no one every does that anymore. Especially in my life, I feel like there's a set plan and I can't go outside those boundaries. I wish I could just go out and do something crazy like join a roller derby team; or just do something that actually made me happy. Sometimes you just have to do something to do it, not necessarily because it will further you in the "all mighty life plan."One of the reasons I liked the movie so much is because no one really approved of the main character joining the roller derby team, but she did it anyway because she loved doing it. I really admire that quality in people and wish I could find it in myself. I can't remember the last time I did something for myself. Truly for myself. So for some last inspirational words, I am going to quote Maggie Mayhem: "Be your own hero!"

Religion: Good or Bad?

2010-02-03T22:59:00.000-06:00

   Earlier this week we learned about women's history with the herstory projects. During the presentation on Sojourner Truth, someone noticed that in her speech, Sojourner Truth used religion to justify equal rights for women when she said: "Whar did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothin' to do wid him." I found this particularly interesting because I notice how people always use religion to justify things, which is my main problem with religion.
   In this case Sojourner Truth used religion to justify a worthy cause. But that is too often not the case. Religion, when practiced in its truest and purest form, is the best thing ever created in this world. It brings people together, encourages people to be the best they can be, and gives people hope and faith, which is absolutely necessary to live a happy, or at least not totally depressed life. However, so many people have manipulated their religion into something it's not, and have used it to justify the killing and persecution of others. Religion is at the heart of many conflicts and wars, and if it is not the direct cause of conflict, it is the reason power hungry leaders give. Take the entire history of Jerusalem, for example. There have been religious wars over Jerusalem for thousands of years, with millions of people dying in God's name, and more dying every day for the same plot of promised land as they have been for centuries.
   The struggle over Jerusalem was the first religious conflict that came to mind. But there are so many more. But not only wars are sparked by religion, but people too often use religion to justify something or persecute a group of people. In Sojourner Truth's case, she used religion to justify something good, but like I said, I feel like people often use religion to justify bad things. First and foremost, earlier this year we discussed how religion was used to justify slavery, and we all know how that ended. But in more recent times, people have used the Bible to "prove" that being gay or lesbian is unnatural, and that's why gay marriage should be illegal. People have also used the Bible to "prove" that abortion is wrong. It seems like you can use the Bible to justify anything and everything, but that doesn't make it right. We have let one book that is thousands of years old guide us though the centuries, even as the times have dramatically changed in so many ways. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against religion. As I said before, religion could be the greatest thing ever to be created. It just saddens me that it has been used, and still is used, to kill and persecute so many people. Sometimes I wonder if religion does more bad than good for the world. Does the good outweigh the bad?

Some Incentives

2010-01-29T19:27:00.000-06:00

     Earlier in the week we talked about some of the incentives we encounter in our own lives. With that in mind, while I was watching Obama give his first State of the Union Address (here is a transcript of the full speech), I noticed that he mentioned several times, incentives for things. I found this to be very interesting because the other day when I was trying to think of incentives in my own life, I couldn't. I just couldn't think of anything that I was rewarded for doing, or anything like that. So when I heard President Obama use the word or suggested anything reward-like during his speech, it stuck with me.
     Most of the incentives Obama proposed had to do with money, like tax breaks for example. He said that he would "give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the United States." He also mentions in the same paragraph that he will "give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient." Many of his incentives also deal with clean energy: "But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives," because, "providing incentives for energy-efficient and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future." I just found it to be so interesting that he is explicitly offering rewards for doing good. And it was very ironic to me that just a day before his speech I couldn't think of one incentive in my life, and then here he was, the president, giving me some right to my face. Well, not really me exactly, but you get the point!
   But wait, that's not all! Just when you think he's done with this whole incentive thing, he does it again! During his section on education he says: "Instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success." I found it particularly interesting that in this line he uses "reward" instead of "incentive." "Reward" sounds more like something you would say to a child, and "incentive" more like something you would say to an adult. I guess I felt a little like a child again. Not that I think it sounded bad in his speech, because I don't think it did. Perhaps he was hoping to connect to his younger audience who are in still in school, as a way to encourage them. It's interesting (I know that I'm using the word "interesting" a lot, sorry!) the way he is planning on using incentives to get things accomplished. But sometimes that's what has to be done. Without something to gain for themselves, people won't always do things for the greater good. Hopefully his incentives will help get America back on track, but do you think it will work? Is he offering a big enough incentive? Too much? Does his constant mention of incentives reflect badly on our society?

It Was "Lost" or the President, And the People Chose "Lost"

2010-01-25T21:01:00.000-06:00

As some people may know, President Obama will give his first State of the Union Address this Wednesday, January 27th. However, this was not the original date scheduled for President Obama to give it.

I was informed some weeks ago that the State of the Union was scheduled for the same night as the "Lost" season 6 premier, on February 2nd. Many "Lost" fans were outraged by this and according to the preceding links, "prompted its avid watchers to launch a protest on Twitter against the potential scheduling conflict" and "inspired Facebook pages protesting how airing 'Lost' on time was more important than the State of the Union." And that's how the date of the Sate of the Union was changed.

As a devout Lostie myself, I completely see where these fans are coming from. I admit that Twitter and Facebook protests are a little outrageous, but I have been waiting for season 6 to come since seventh grade and have the full intent of watching the 2 hour premier at the exact time it airs. And if that means missing President Obama's first State of the Union, then that's just too bad, that's what Tivo is for I guess. I know it sounds bad, but it's the truth. It shows the intensity that "Lost" fans have, or as some non-fans would say, the weird obsession that we have. Nonetheless, this little uprising of Lost fans made me think. It's kind of sad that we live in a society that would rather watch "Lost" than find out how our country is doing. More than that, go as far as protesting against the date of the State of the Union. I've never heard of such a thing like this before. It's just so extreme. Furthermore, I wouldn't have thought that the President would comply with the Losties, but in this society I suppose anything is possible. The Losties are an intense crowd and they get what they want.

Genius or Insanity?

2010-01-22T17:01:00.007-06:00

"Sometimes, for an artist, the only difference between insanity and genius is success."

   This quote was taken from an episode of "Criminal Minds," a show about FBI profilers from the Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU). It was used to describe a comic book writer turned serial killer, but that's beside the point. When you first read the quote, it sounds like just another t.v. show line, but I think it actually holds a lot of truth. There are so many artists that are just plain crazy, but absolute geniuses. And in agreement with the above quote, I believe that the reason many artists are able to achieve genius status is because of their success. An artist that I think foloows this quote to the dot is Van Gogh. Van Gogh is notorius for being the "crazy" artist, I suppose; at least the one who cut off his ear, and that's pretty insane if you ask me. Furthermore, towards the end of his life, he check himself in to a mental institution. According to the link above about him, while he was at the institution, he completed 150 paintings including one of his most famous: "Starry Night." During his lifetime, I can guess that he was most likely seen as just plain insane, considering he didn't achieve any real success during his life, selling only one painting according to the link above. Now, he is obviously seen in a different light, as one of the best painters to ever live. And I truly believe that his later success after his death played a key role in his transition from insanity to genius in the eyes of society.
   Another artist that this quote made me think of is Andy Warhol. Contrary to what the quote states, Andy Warhol managed to be insane and a genius at the same time, which definitely takes skill. His success did not separate him from the insanity category, but merely added him to the genius category as well. One could also relate Andy Warhol's situation with Michael Jackson's. Both were geniuses, but seen as crazy at the same time, despite their success.
     In a way, I think that all artists need to be a little crazy, otherwise they don't stand out. I just feel bad for the insane geniuses who never become successful, so they're just stuck being insane. And that's no fun, now is it?

A Selective History

2010-01-15T15:45:00.000-06:00

I recently finished a book called "The Historian," by Elizabeth Kostova. It is about the legend of Dracula, but it deals a lot with Eastern European history, particularly the histories of Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey. This made me realize that before reading this book, I basically had no knowledge of these countries, all I knew was that they existed, which isn't really saying a whole lot. And this made me wonder why I didn't know about their histories and many other country's histories. Why do I know nothing about the history of Argentina, the Ukraine, or New Zealand? Why is my only knowledge of Scottish history coming from a scraggly Mel Gibson in "Braveheart"? I guess my ultimate question is why do some histories seem more important than others? I studied the Ancient Greeks and Romans from 6th grade to freshman year. But before freshman year I had no previous knowledge of the Middle East or Chinese history. Why is it okay for 6th graders to learn about Ancient Greece, but not about Islam? I realize that elementary school has to create a foundation of knowledge for its students, but it troubles me that before high school I only knew a lot about the same three countries: America, Ancient Greece, and Ancient Rome. But who makes these decisions? Who decides what history is important, and what history is not important? And most importantly, WHY?

Talented? or Marketable?

2010-01-05T21:26:00.001-06:00

   A little before winter break, I went to two very different concerts: Imogen Heap and the B96 Jingle Bash. Imogen Heap was at a very small venue; I would guess that there were about 300 people there and attracted a crowd that was mostly older than me. The B96 Jingle Bash was not at all like this. It was a huge venue; thousands of people were there. And the crowd was not like city dwellers at Imogen Heap. It was mostly girls my age or younger screaming there little hearts out for Justin Bieber.
   After going to both these concerts I noticed a significant difference between the music itself. At the Imogen Heap concert, she was on the stage making the music herself with various instruments and sound tools. During several songs, she would start and then stop suddenly saying: "I think I'm going to start over." I thought this was interesting because I had never seen an artist do this before. I was amazed because I realized that she had the option to stop because she was actually creating the music herself, unlike a lot of artists these days whose music just comes blaring out of gigantic speakers, and you have to wonder if they're really singing at all, or just lip syncing. It was genuine and that's what I liked about it.
   This got me thinking to the types of artists at these two concerts. In my opinion, Imogen Heap is a very talented artist, with genuine talent, but she is not widely known. But the performers at the B96 Jingle Bash who are very popular, like Sean Kingston, Jay Sean, and of course Justin Bieber, do not posses the genuine talent that I see in other artists. And here comes the connection to our class discussion during the past two days about advertising targeted at children. It's not just toys and food targeted at children: It's also singers and actors. These days an artist doesn't have to be talented, they just have to be marketable. Take Hannah Montana and the Jonas Brothers for example. Contrary to what most young girls would say, I do not think these singers posses any real talent. They are just able to market themselves extremely well, and like some people were saying "brainwash" kids into liking them. So my question is how have we allowed advertisers to overlook true talent like I saw at the Imogen Heap concert, and advertise crap artists? I want to hear about talented artists, not ones that are just an advertisement to get me to buy t-shirts and Hannah Montana wigs.

Red Nails and Army Boots

2010-01-03T00:13:00.000-06:00

Red nails and army boots.
Diamond earrings and an army uniform.
Camouflage.
A matching cap tucked away in her carry-on.
Blue eyeshadow against her lovely, brown skin.
Cared-for hair pulled into a tight bun.
A sweet looking face sitting across from me on a cramped plane.
My eyes fixed on her.
She had a je ne sais quoi.
On her way home.
Or on her way back.
I didn't know.

Movies in Progression or Regression?

2009-12-17T11:31:00.001-06:00

The other day in class after watching the Charlie Chaplin silent film called "The Kid," a comment was made that movies today have progressed from movies in the ealry 1900's when many were in black and white and had no sound. At first thought, I agreed with this statement. With all the new soundeffects and graphics that can now be added to movies, it seems like movies have progressed through the decades. But after thinking this through and reflecting on the other silent movies I've seen, which is actually only one, called "Nosferatu," I changed my mind.

I thought about how there was not any dialogue in "The Kid." But I thought that dialogue in this film was actually irrelevant. It didn't really matter what they were saying. You could still see and feel their emotions. And that's why I believe movies have actually regressed in the past couple of decades. Without sound, the actor truly has to act. They are trying to convey an emotion to the viewer solely through their facial expressions and body. Modern actors can rely on words to convey emotions; they don't necessarily have to show the emotion on their face if they have words to do the same job.

I also think that movie plots have regressed, too. Most movies these days are just about the "wow" factor, purely for entertainment and to make a quick buck or two. I'm not gonna lie, I love going to see chick flicks with my mom. But what I really love is a good movie that makes you think. One that doesn't have a clear cut ending, but forces the viewer to use their brain. To me, I know it's a good movie when I'm still thinking about it a week later. But unfortunately, there are not too many movies like that anymore. "The Kid" was a nice example of movies could be like, and that's why I enjoyed it so much. It had a simple plot, but the characters had very complex emotions. It didn't have a clear cut ending, and I had to infer what was going to happen to the characters based on what I knew about them. I really appreciated that, and hope that movie makers today can learnd a few things from movies of the past.

Barbie 1961

2009-12-08T21:55:00.001-06:00

The other day, looking for something to do, my friend pulled out a Barbie board game. It's from 1991 but it was a second edition of the original game that came out in 1961. We've played this game before, but it wasn't until now that I sensed something wrong with it. First of all, it's called "Queen of the Prom." But it really gets bad when you get to the objective of the game. To win, you have to get a boyfriend, become president of a club, and buy a dress, and that's how you become prom queen. I took some pictures of the game with my phone so I wouldn't forget things that really stuck out to me. The slogan of the game is: "A fun game with real-life appeal for all girls!" And one of the squares on the board reads: "Soda fountain. Pay $1 if without boyfriend."
I found this game to be extremely interesting because I got a glimpse of what life must have been like for women in the 1960's, especially because this game claims to have real-life appeal for all girls. Women were expected to get boyfriends, get married, have kids, maintain the home. And this game really reinforced and reflected on the idea that in the early 1960's, a woman's place was in the home. A girl's biggest worry was getting a boyfriend, and apparently becoming prom queen. As much as I found this somewhat shocking, even though I already knew about this time period, it also made me happy at the same time because it showed me how far we've come. Girls go on to college all the time, they have careers, they can have dreams outside of the home. According the United States Department of Labor, in 2008, women made up 46.5% of the total workforce. So as much I liked having Ken as my boyfriend, I know that I don't need to depend on him for my happiness. (Well this is really going to get me a boyfriend. jk jk lol but not really).

Hello Bonjour Hola Ciao Hallo הלו Hej 喂 Witaj Hujambo Olá Merhaba

2009-12-02T22:21:00.001-06:00

   Today in class Mr. Bolos mentioned that he had a former student currently living in Spain. The student said that it seemed like everyone he knew there was trilingual. This reminded me of my own observations from my travels in Europe. While I was in Sweden, I met only one person who could not speak English. In France, as I tried to practice my mad French skills with the locals, they only spoke English back to me.
   When I was in Italy, I had an eye-opening experience. It only lasted about five seconds of my life, but I have not forgotten it since. My family and I were in the Puma store. While my dad was trying on a pair of shoes, I happened to see this incredible exchange (at least to me it was pretty cool). A teenage boy went up to the saleswoman. He hesitated a little, but I didn't know why. Apparently the saleswoman could figure out why and said: "Italiano? Anglais? Espangnol?" And the boy said: "Si, Espangol!" And she started to speak in Spanish with him. I couldn't believe this. A retail worker at a Puma store could speak three different languages. That's more than I could say.
   After this experience I started to notice more and more that so many Europeans are at least bilingual if not trilingual. I spent the summer in France with a host family, and my host mother could speak four languages; French, English, German, and Alsatian (a mix between French and German). And her daughter was learning two different languages in school (German and English). According to the article linked in the preceding sentence, another difference between the American and European language curriculums is that many Europeans start a second language at much younger ages than Americans, and start a third language by the time they reach the equivalent of junior high. Most Americans learn only one language if any at all. Europeans travel to America and we expect them to know English. When we travel to Europe, we expect them to know English. It's ridiculous and completely unfair. Even Obama sees the problem with this situation. In this article Obama says that, "It's embarassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe and all we can say is merci beaucoup."
   I agree. It is embarassing. I do understand though that geography plays a big part. The countries are very close together. For some, it's a five minute drive over the border and suddenly they have to speak a different language. The best comparison to this would be like me driving to Indiana and having to speak a different language. Nevertheless, I think it's great that New Trier offers such a wide range of languages, but there are so many that do not offer. There are over 4,000 recorded languages in the world and New Trier students can only choose between seven. Do you think the American school system should be more like Europe's in terms of language study?

Future Shmuture

2009-11-30T22:17:00.000-06:00

Today as I was answering questions in a packet that will go to my advisor and college counselor, I stumbled upon a question that caught me by surprise. The question was this: What tentative areas of study or preprofessional directions have you considered for the future? Now this question doesn't seem to be particularly puzzling, but I have to say that it kind of scared me. However, I answered the question right away. But after I looked it over, my response scared me even more than the question. I had written down about four or five areas of study that I have considered. I know this packet isn't a final decision on my life, but it sure feels like it. Depending on how I answer these questions, it could alter my life significantly. It's almost like a sliding doors situation in a way. If I put down one area of study that I'm interested in and not the other, it could factor in to which college I will attend in the future. What if I say this and not that? How will that affect my life? It's starting to seem like this a life-changing questionnaire when it really shouldn't be. I'm only 17! Most days I can't even decide what I want for breakfast let alone the rest of my life.
These days I'm feeling pressured to know exactly what I want to do and how exactly I'm going to do it. Every single person I interact with has some question or another about college. When are you visiting colleges? When are you taking the ACT? What do you want to study? Have you started to think about where you want to go? And the only answer I have to all of these questions is a big fat I DON'T KNOW! But you know what? I've decided that that's ok. After consulting the expert (my mom, of course) who told me that she didn't know what she wanted to do even after she had graduated college, I realized that's it's ok not to know. I don't have to decide right now. Even if I am getting pressured from every angle to know all the details of my future life, at least I know that it's perfectly fine to just admit that I honestly don't know yet.

The End

2009-11-29T13:38:00.006-06:00

The other day as my cousin and I browsed the shelves of Blockbuster, we were in search of a good scary movie. Picking up every movie that had a scary name or a creepy picture, we finally stumbled across a seemingly perfect movie. It was called "Shuttle". A quick synopsis: Two girls coming home from a weekend in Mexico find themselves stranded at the airport with no ride home. A shuttle pulls up next to them saying he will give them a ride for a cheap price. There is only one other passenger on the shuttle, and the driver says there can only be a maximum of three passengers on his shuttle. Sketchy? You betcha. But they get on anyway. A lot happens in between, but when the movie comes to an end, one of the girls has been killed, and the other is packed into a box and being shipped off to East Asia to become a sex slave. Needless to say, this is not the ending I had imagined.

There is one scene in particular that really got to me: It's down to one girl and it's the final fight scene between her and her kidnapper. She steals his gun and shoots him. And this is after she has already knifed him and crashed the shuttle in an attempt to kill him. You'd think he'd be dead after all this. But no. He is still alive, and ends up winning. I thought this movie was going to be about women empowerment. The girls get kidnapped and they fight like hell and end up beating the bad guy. I didn't expect her to fight to the end and then not win.

But more importantly, what is the director trying to say about women? That no matter how hard they try, they will never beat men? I mean this girl was fierce. She managed to do everything possible in order to save her and her friend, but it couldn't ultimately save her. And I'm not saying that the woman always has to win. But to me, this movie in particular was about man vs. woman. And with the ending that it had, it gave me the message that men will always be superior to woman, which is completely false.

Here is an excerpt from the full summary of the movie from imdb.com. It's of the scene described above.

"He finds Mel, who threatens to cut herself with a shard of glass, and she stabs him in the arm with it. He attempts to disarm her, but she stabs it into his thigh before hitting him in the face with the light fittings. She finds the gun and shoots him, before attempting to escape in the bus. The Driver arrives and attacks her again, and they grapple before he forces her into a crate with the supplies she bought earlier."
This is just absolutely ridiculous. She stabs him and shoots hims, but he still gets what he wants. I can't change the ending of the movie, but I can voice my opinion and that's what I hoped to achieve here. I know that the underdog doesn't always win in real life, but I thought this ending was just disgraceful and rude and hopefully other women will be able to see this too.

Addicted To Technology?

2009-11-12T23:01:00.000-06:00

   My night was ruined. Not because of anything that someone said to me or because of that physics test I have to study for tomorrow, but because my DVR did not record my scheduled recording of "Vampire Diaries". I have to say, when I saw that the newest episode was not in the "My Recordings" section, I was pissed and I took some of my anger out on my dad (Sorry, Dad!) After I cooled down a little I realized how absolutely pathetic this was. But it made me realize how technology has taken over my life. I don't watch live television anymore, just the shows I record. Not a single day goes by where I don't go on the computer or use my cell phone to send a text. I haven't used a land line in ages. And going back to the DVR, my mom once said that it "changed her life".
   What happened to the days before cell phones, where you would go out with friends and your parents would never know where you were unless you were near a land line that they could call? My mom would have panic attack if she couldn't call my cell phone to see where I was. And instead of telling war stories like my grandparents, my parents tell me stories of their childhood without cell phones or color television. The times are changing.
   The DVR fiasco of tonight showed me how much we depend on technology. One DVR glitch and my show is gone forever. The Internet is down, entire class periods are lost. No juice left in the cell phone battery and suddenly people don't know what to do with their life. Yes, technology makes our lives easier. But when it doesn't work, it sends us into a panicked frenzy and makes our lives much harder than necessary because of everyone's depedency on it.
   So what do you do when your DVR doesn't work? That, my friends, is why they created hulu.com. But what if that doesn't work? Well, then, you're just screwed.

What IS The Definition of Success?

2009-11-06T17:07:00.001-06:00

Three times a week I have 4th period free and I always go the the second floor rotunda to sit with my friends. While I was there today, Mr. Sally, who is apparently the assistant superintendent, came around asking people if they would like to be filmed for a video that would be shown during the teacher's institute day. He said that in the clip, you would describe your definition of success, how you thought New Trier defined success, and if you thought they were defining it right. No one accepted for obvious reasons, but it really got me thinking. It seems like a very simple question, but I could not give an answer. Dictionary.com defines success as "a person or thing that is successful"(which is not helpful at all). But what did I define as success? Getting a B+ in physics? Moving up a level in French? I didn't know. And I still don't know. Maybe no one wanted to be in the movie because no one actually knew what success meant for them. To be honest, I don't know what success means for me. I never really feel successful. Even if I get straight A's one quarter, I don't feel like I've accomplished anything. My parents will tell me good job, and sometimes even my grandparents will call to congratulate me, but I don't understand why. I don't feel like I really did anything that amazing. I guess you could say that I succeeded, but aren't you supposed to feel something more than indifference?

Then I tried to think about what New Trier defined as success. And I came up with two definitions, one that they tell parents and students, and one that isn't necessarily said, but everyone pretty much knows. The first and what the school would say is: getting good grades, getting into college, and having good morals, (hence the ECGC that no advisory actually does). And now the underlying definition, which is just an extension from the first: getting good grades in all 4 levels, getting into an ivy league school, participating in extracurriculars, sports, and social service, and having good morals. I think New Trier students set unrealistic goals for themselves that no one would be able to accomplish. It astonishes me that people can be in two AP classes and three other level 4 classes, all while managing a social life. In the words of my history teacher last year, "If you want to have a life next year, don't take AP history". Needless to say, I followed her advice.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that New Trier pushes its students to the limit. They know that the students who go here will be the next generation of great lawyers, doctors, politicians, and businessmen. They push us and push us and load us with work until we crack or have a mental breakdown. And I can say from personal experience that it can definitely happen more than once a year. For me, I work so hard during the year that by the time summer comes around, I can't see my success because all the work and suffering blinded me to it during the year. But maybe that's just me.

And The Winner Is..... New Trier! Duh.

2009-11-01T21:27:00.002-06:00

   Everyday I take my dog out for a walk, and this usually becomes my thinking time. On this particular walk I was thinking about why New Trier wins every sports event, and why the theater program is so amazing and why it pretty much kicks every other school's butts. In everything.
   I came up with what I thought is a reasonable explanation. And this is it: First of all, many people in the North Shore can afford private coaches, travel teams, and club sports. Some kids have had a private coach since they were ten. So if someone has been playing soccer since they were eight, got a private coach and joined a travel team when they were eleven, they're most likely bound to pretty good. Secondly, it's the sheer number of students. There are about 5,000 people who go to New Trier. Let's say that roughly half the school is boys and half the school is girls. So in theory, all boys' teams have the choice between 2,500 boys to put on their team, and same with all the girls' teams. Compared to Highland Park High School which has around 2,000 students, they only have 1,000 boys and girls to choose from for their teams. That is almost half the amount of people to choose from than New Trier. So it's not that many Highland Park residents can't afford private coaches either, it's just that they physically don't have as many people to choose from. So each team at New Trier is literally composed of the best of the best. In the wikipedia article of New Trier, it states that "with more than 120 state championships, New Trier High School currently has more than any other high school in Illinois. Wow.
   The same goes for the theater program. At a very young age, people in the North Shore have the resources and the money to be in plays, to take acting, dancing, and singing lesson, as well as hire an agent. Many people outside of the North Shore are equally as talented, but they won't get the job because they don't have the money to hire an agent, who will make them known in the acting community. Like sports, it's also the sheer number of students interested in theater that makes the program so amazing. New Trier simply has more people to choose from.
   Like I said, this is just a theory. But this conclusion of mine forced me to think about something very important. It goes along with the question of whether money can buy happiness. Can money buy you success? Is there any such thing as being naturally talented these days, or do you have to buy your way to the top?

Vampire Is The New Black

2009-10-20T18:29:00.003-05:00

   The other day I was complaining to my mom about how next week's episode of "Vampire Diaries" is going to be a re-run, (Don't make fun of me, I already have people to fill that job). Anyway, that's when I realized, and I seem to be the last person in the world to realize, that the entire media, whether it be books, magazines, movies, television shows, whatever, has been completely taken over by vampires. There's the notorious Twilight series including the movie franchise, the HBO series "True Blood," the new CW series "Vampire Diaries" and its entire collection of books, not to mention the new movie The Vampire's Assistant hitting theaters this week. There are so many vampires in Hollywood right now, that in Teen Vogue's November issue, the star of "Vampire Diaries," Paul Wesley, remembers a vampire run-in with the cast of Twilight: "the cast was staying at our hotel-- we saw them everywhere and hung out all the time," while New Moon and "Vampire Diaries" were being filmed in Vancouver at the same time. Two vampire families, one city... Great.
   Vampires have made an incredible transformation from the days of Dracula. Vampires were once seen as scary creatures of the night who went around killing people without mercy. Now, vampires have a positive connotation. People see them as sexy, emotionally disturbed, and caring beings who will love you forever (in the literal sense), which are particularly attractive qualities when it comes to teenage girls. Take Edward Cullen of the Twilight series, for example. Edward practically embodies every women's dream guy, and that's what makes him so popular with every age group from young girls to older women. The entire image of a scary vampire is almost non-existent these days. Of all the vampire books, movies, and t.v. shows I've seen, the only truly scary vampire is Nosferatu from the classic silent movie.
   But what is the cause of this transformation from scary to sexy? What caused this boom of a whole new generation of vampires? Is just simply the popularity of the Twilight series that set everyone off? Or does it say something deeper about American society? Americans are no longer afraid of the vampire. They could even be your soul mate. Hell, I want to be a vampire.

THEN VS NOW

Destination: America

2009-10-15T15:36:00.001-05:00

Over Columbus Day weekend, I went with my mom to New York City. We went last year as well, and that's when we noticed it: there were more Europeans here than usual. And again this year, it was absolutely crazy. I felt like I everywhere I went, I was just completely surrounded by Europeans. It was almost as if I wasn't in New York, but some European country. At breakfast we sat next to a German couple. In the elevator there was a man speaking Italian. At Macy's there was a father and daughter speaking Spanish with one of the shoe salesman. In line at a burger joint, a French family ordering fries. At dinner, a Swedish family sitting right next to us. A British waiter at one of the restaurants. The list goes on and on. Believe me.

But why so many tourists? How is it that my French would become more useful in New York than in Europe? To me, the answer was obvious. The dollar sucks. Right now, the euro is almost 125% stronger than the dollar. (Use the currency converter to see other exchange rates). So basically, everything in America is dirt cheap for Europeans, considering one euro is equal to almost $1.50. It's so cheap to come to America, that even middle class Europeans can afford the trip. Even though it's from a few years ago, this article, entitled "Money Goes Far in New York, if Your're European," describes and explains almost the exact same experience I had in New York this past weekend.

The dollar is horrible and it's not going to get better any time soon. But there could be an upside to the situation. All of this tourism must add something to our economy, even though contributers to the article above express worry of "currency tension" as the dollar becomes weaker and weaker. But it seems to me that European tourists are buying all the things that Americans can't afford anymore: second homes, expensive entertainment, shopping. The article mentions a Bristish tourist in New York City who says that she "had trouble spending all of her money". I wish I had that problem too...

I Guess You Can Use Physics for Something

2009-10-08T18:22:00.002-05:00

The other day in physics, we watched a movie that was about frame of reference. During the movie, the narrators would say things that kind of confused me and made me even more mad for ever deciding to put myself through such torture that society calls physics. I have to admit that physics is actually pretty interesting, but the concepts sure do not come natural to me.

The two lines that really bothered me in the movie were this: "These are known as fictitious forces" and "If you believe in the law of inertia". I'm not completely crazy, I have my reasons.

   First of all, the fact that the forces are called "fictitious" implies that there is a possibility that they are not real. So am I wasting seven periods every week learning about something that might not even be real? And what about that ridiculous line, "If you believe in the law of inertia"? Yeah, and I believe in unicorns, too. What does that say about the law of inertia? That it's just a work of fiction and belongs in a fantasy world? For all I know, in 20 years scientists could prove this so-called "law of inertia" completely false.
   During this rant that took place in my mind, and while I was trying to figure out exactly why I ever took physics, I was amazed to realize that this issue of physics and all its uncertainties, is very relatable to another topic that everyone has studies since probably the 6th grade: Greek mythology. The ancient Greeks and Romans used myths and stories to explain things that they could not otherwise explain. They would wonder: "Why is the sky suddenly filled with lightening?" and their answer would be: "Because Zeus is angry, duh!" Their myths aren't real. They made for some pretty great Disney movies, but they're not real. I feel as though physics is trying to achieve the same purpose as Greek mythology; it's simply trying to explain the world around us.
   There is a force that pushes up on us from the ground. We can't see it, but according to physics, it's there. If we can't actually see it, how do we know for sure that it's really even there? I guess that's the annoying thing about all sciences. Everything in science is just a theory, nothing is certain and it is constantly changing. It makes me think of the discussion we had in class today. How real can science actually be? During the 1800s, scientists supposedly found numerical data that concluded African Americans are inferior to whites. The scientist basically found the numbers he wanted to find, and manipulated the information to suit his purposes.  It was a way of justifying slavery, because according to science, it was true. And apparently science never lies. FALSE. Again, the scientist was trying to explain why things were the way they were. And that's all science is. It's simply an explanation. Not necessarily the truth, but an explanation. Can science ever be completely truthful?

Just a bit from the frames of reference movie

For Men Only

2009-10-03T14:16:00.001-05:00

     The other night my family and I went out to dinner with my grandpa. Papa is an avid golfer, and he being retired and all, he usually plays at least three or four times a week in the summer, and even takes vacations solely for the purpose of golfing. Whenever I see him, he usually has some golf story or another. So that night, he started into his usual golf story of the day.
     He told us that he had played at the Old Elm Club in Highland Park that day. Then he goes on to tell us one of the most shocking things I have heard in a long time: Old Elm is a mens-only country club. Woman are not allowed to play the course, nor are they allowed to even step into the club house. In my grandpa's own words, "Their spouses are allowed to drop them off at the club, but they can't go in."
     I probably had a very strange look on my face at that moment because I was in utter disbelief. No one but myself seemed to be very affected by this fact. I couldn't believe that places still kept such outrageous rules like that. I couldn't even start to comprehend why anyone would go to such extremes to keep woman out and be so obviously sexist. Did we honestly not learn anything in the past 50 years?
     This made me realize something very important about our society: As much as people say racism and sexism has been completely eliminated in the United States, it is utterly false. Slavery has been abolished, but that doesn't mean there aren't any racists left in the country. The same goes with women's rights. Just because women can vote and be apart of the work force, it doesn't mean that the country hasn't been completely rid of sexists. Take Old Elm country club for example. In our society, men and women are far from equal.

iListen to Protests

2009-09-26T17:32:00.003-05:00

     The other night as I was brushing my teeth and getting ready for bed, the new Green Day song "21 Guns" came on the radio. I personally am a very big fan of this song. For some reason it just speaks to me, and that sounds really corny, but it's true. So as any teenager would do, alone in their room, half past midnight, I blasted the radio and started to air guitar. After the song was over, I started to think about what Billy Joe was actually saying. I liked the beat of the song so much, that I didn't really pay attention to the words. So I referenced good ol' lyrics.com and saw what he had to say. I interpreted it to be an anti-war song, because he says things like "Put down your arms" and "Give up the fight". After seeing the lyrics, I realized that Green Day is as much about their words as they are their music. And I also found a sort of pattern. All their songs seem to be protesting about something; war, America, etc. I mean, their 2004 album is even entitled "American Idiot". The song also called "American Idiot" is practically the epitome of protest music. The lead singer says things like "Don't want to be an American idiot", "Don't want a nation controlled by the media", and "I'm not a part of a redneck agenda". To put it simply, every line is a criticism of America. Despite the words, I still don't hesitate to rock out to it. But I can't decide if that's a good or bad thing.
   After this little epiphany of mine, I was reminded of my humanities class in seventh grade. The assignment was to bring in a protest song. I decided to bring Bob Dylan's "The Time's They Are A-Changin'". It was a very interesting assignment because people brought in everything from "War" and "Let My People Go" from the Disney movie The Prince of Egypt. This is very interesting to me because it shows that protest music has been around forever. I know the Disney movie was made in the 90's but I'm sure the Jews really had songs of their own that begged for freedom, and think about all the African American slave songs that spoke of freedom and justice. Music serves very many purposes, whether it's to get people to think in a different way or to get someone to do something. I remember that during the 2009 elections, my grandma sent me a song that a bunch of celebrities made to get people to vote for Obama. If you think about it, music is probably one of the smartest ways to get people to listen to you. The singer may not have anything intelligent to say at all, but if they're famous, people will listen. It's a very powerful way to express yourself and your opinions.
   But do people listen? Can one song really change a person? I don't necessarily agree with everything Green Day has to say, but that doesn't mean I can't air guitar every time "21 Guns" comes on the radio.

Minimum Wage: Is It Really Enough?

2009-09-19T17:22:00.001-05:00

   This summer I got hired for my first real job. I work at a coffee shop and I earn minimum wage, which is $8.00. I wanted the job just to make a little extra cash. So the other day when I got my pay check, it got me thinking. I'm using this money just for some extra cash in my pocket. But what if I had to live on this? And some people do.
   I only work one day a week, so obviously the people who work full time 5 times a week earn more than I do. But I decided to calculate it out anyway. If you work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, earning minimum wage, that only adds up to $320 per week, $1,280 per month, or $15,360 per year. And let's not forget about income tax which is automatically deducted from your pay check. So you're not even getting all the money that you earn. I can't even imagine my family living off just $320 per week. Sometimes the grocery bill for one week adds up to $200 and that's already half of the $320 gone. And what about insurance? Rent? Social Security? Health care? Federal and state taxes? And even day to day stuff like doctor appointments and visits to the dentist? There is no possible way that someone earning minimum wage can pay for all this. I don't know how the government expects people to be able to live on such a small amount of money.
   In her book, Nickel and Dimed, journalist Barbara Ehrenreich, works four low-paying jobs, to see if she can actually survive the way most Americans do. She concludes that housing costs are just way too high for people earning minimum wage and are literally killing them. Most people have to work two jobs in order to provide for their families. She also thought that the jobs she worked, and used to refer to as "unskilled" jobs, were actually physically and mentally exhausting for her.
   Many Americans have to live on minimum wage. But are they actually living, or simply working their lives away just to make ends meet?

Hannibal Reasoning

2009-09-12T17:02:00.002-05:00

     Last year I forced myself to watch "Hannibal Rising," which is the prequel to "Silence of the Lambs". The only reason I wanted to watch it was because a really cute French actor, who I am obsessed with, was starring in the film as Hannibal. So on a Sunday night, I plopped myself down on the couch and started to watch it. I'm not really into horror movies, so whenever I thought a scary part was coming up, I would fast forward, see what happened, then rewind and watch it in real time. It's a lame way to watch a scary movie, but you gotta do what you gotta do.
   I have never seen any of the Hannibal movies. Like I said, I didn't actually want to see "Hannibal Rising," I just wanted to see the actor who plays Hannibal. However, I was pleasantly surprised by the movie. It starts out in Hannibal's childhood and progresses through his teen years and then through his early twenties when he starts studying to be a doctor.
   I thought the movie was very interesting. The main event that happens to Hannibal as a child is this (spoiler alert!): his parents are killed during WWII and his little sister and him are living by themselves during a harsh winter. Some soldiers force themselves into their home, steal their food, and inform them that they will be staying there until the weather clears up. Eventually the food runs out and the soldiers make the decision to either starve to death, or commit the unthinkable, and they go with the latter. They take Hannibal's sister outside, kill her, and then resort to cannibalism. And Hannibal is a witness to this disturbing act. This scene actually made me a little sick. But, it gave me such an insight as to what in the world could possibly drive Hannibal to do such horrible things later in his life. It doesn't condone him, or make it any better, but it just explains why he became the man that he did. It made me realize that people always have a rationale for doing things, but it may not always be rational.

I remember hearing people's accounts of "Silence of the Lambs" and "Man Hunter" and just thinking That's disgusting! And it still is, but after watching "Hannibal Rising" I now understand Hannibal's rationale. Any thoughts?

Seventeen Again

2009-09-04T13:54:00.001-05:00

Every month I recieve my issue of Seventeen. Now it's not the most intellectual magazine out there, but that's not really why I subscribe to it. I mostly just like to look at the clothes. I've been reading Seventeen for a couple of years now and at some point last year, after going through my latest issue, I finally realized the crap I've been allowing myself to read. Seventeen is the most hypocritical magazine I've ever known.
The message I've always gotten from Seventeen is that they want you to be yourself. They're always promoting individuality and the fact that everyone is all different shapes, sizes, and colors. In the fashion section they always find clothes to fit every body type. As a young girl I always thought, "Wow! What a great magazine! They know teens so well!" Well not anymore. As I was going through the health section of this particular issue, I flipped through the pages that outlined the workout created by Beyonce's trainer, or something like that. There is a workout in every issue so I blew right past it as usual. I didn't know what was going to make this issue make me workout. Anyway, practically the page right after the workout there's some article about how this woman hated herself in high school and how she finally learned to love herself for who she is. And right after that are three pages telling the reader to write down everything they love about themselves and what inspires them. After seeing these pages all juxtaposed like that, I thought that something about the whole thing seemed a little off. And that's when I realized the other message that Seventeen was giving; the one that I had not seen before. In my eyes, Seventeen is saying "Hey! Be yourself! But why don't you do these workouts and stop eating fatty food while you're at it." The fact that they put these two articles right next to eachother makes me sick. This magazine is targeted to teenagers (hence the name Seventeen) Don't they know that teenagers are insecure, and girls especially are at a high risk of developing an eating disorder? They shouldn't have to feel pressured to be perfect by anyone, let alone a popular teen magazine. This is extrememly hypocritical of them and I'm surprised and angry at myself for not noticing it sooner. What has become of the media these days? Why is it that a magazine meant for teen readers as young as thirteen, are pressuring girls to workout? The need for perfection has become an obsession and has gotten completely out of control, thanks to the media. I still read Seventeen and that's probably hypocritical of me, but these days I just stick to the clothes and makeup. Oh yeah, and my subscription hasn't expired yet.

TI-nspires Me to Barf

2009-09-02T13:47:00.000-05:00

-"Are these absolutely necessary?"
-"Yes they are"
-"Well what about last year's algebra 2 students? They seemed perfectly fine without them"
-"It's a new curriculum this year"
-"Oh."
That was the first conversation I had with my math teacher this year.

     So New Trier thought it would be a great idea to make every student buy a spankin' brand new calculator called the TI-nspire. Now it's a pretty catchy name, I'll admit, but New Trier left out one tiny detail: they're $160. When I heard this, I was outraged. $160 just for a calculator? I have a TI-83 that's in perfect condition and is only three years old. It works fine and I've never had any trouble with it in the entire three years.
       And what about families who have more than one child? I have a brother who is a sophomore so my parents ended up spending $300 dollars on just the calculators. We haven't even gotten to the textbook bill. Just because we live in the North Shore, it doesn't mean that we're all made of money and can just drop a couple hundred dollars on a calculator that we'll probably never use again after high school. Not to mention the fact that it hasn't even been approved for the ACT test yet, so I won't even get to use this fancy schmancy, uber expensive calculator on probably the most important test I'll ever take in my life. Furthermore, from my conversation with my math teacher, not only is the school requiring us to buy the calculator, but apparently if you don't buy the calculator, you can't adequately participate in the class because they've changed the curriculum!
     Now most people think I'm crazy and that I'm overreacting and just blowing the whole situation way out of proportion. And maybe I am. But personally, I think the whole thing is absolutely ridiculous, and just another example of how New Trier is pinching every last penny out of us. I often claim my dad is a penny pincher, but after this whole fiasco, maybe there's some truth to his anxiety. If you don't watch out, New Trier may get ya. They're sneaky.

Dummy Post

2009-08-28T15:02:00.001-05:00

This is a dummy post. FYI