Losing Tradition

As we were discussing the progress of technology the other day in class, the first thing that came to mind was music. Today, most people either buy music on iTunes or "share" music on databases like Limewire or Kazaa. There are still people that go out and buy CD's at music stores, but those numbers have decreased substantially. In an article in the New York Times today, it discussed a court case involving the illegality of "sharing" music. Nesson, a professor at Boston University, argued that "the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999 is unconstitutional because it effectively lets a private group -- the Recording Industry Association of America, or RIAA -- carry out civil enforcement of a criminal law" (New York Times). To me, "sharing" music does sound illegal, but it is very difficult to stop. The problem of money is not necessarily what bothers me however; it is more the loss of our traditional ways of supporting our favorite artists. As a result of sharing music, we are unable to do so.

Stereotyping on Grey's Anatomy

Last week on Grey's Anatomy, there was a stereotype on the show I was very surprised to see. He was an old Native American man who was in desperate need of a heart transplant and had been waiting for a heart for years. On this week's show, he finally reached the top of the donor list and was offered a new healthy heart, but he refused the offer. He felt having someone else's heart in his chest was like burying someone else's soul in his and felt as though he would be haunted forever. Throughout the show, he spoke to one of the doctors of ghosts and certain rituals one could do in order to get rid of them. As I watched this, my first thought was "how could the writers be so stereotypical?" However as the show went on, I noticed that they included another character who was not Native American who was seeing ghosts as well. Did they do this to set off the stereotype or were they simply including this man to enhance the plot?

Palin is Punk'd

This Saturday on the Canadian radio station, CKOI, Sarah Palin was "punk'd" as they say on MTV. The two radio show hosts, known as "The Masked Avengers" called Sarah Palin pretending to be the French President Nicholas Sarkozy and Palin surprisingly remained on the line for seven minutes. As they were talking, the Sarkozy impersonator spoke incorrectly on several important issues, but Palin did not stop to correct him. It seemed to me that she was simply trying to be polite, but as I read the comments attached to her radio clip, it was apparent that many people disagreed. For example, when the impersonator mentioned the Canadian Prime Minister and mentioned him using the wrong name, Palin did not correct him. In the many other comments made by the Sarkozy impersonator similar to this one, Palin did not provide the response people felt was "professional". Their comments were all very critical: "She revealed an incredible lack of insight, knowledge, and ability to read a situation" "not ready for prime-time" "bone-chillingly-arrogantly-breathtakingly ignorant".

After hearing this radio clip I started to wonder why the United States does not have a system for voting for the vice-president. I am not trying to say that Palin should not have been allowed to run with McCain as vice-president. Reading everyone's comments just made me wonder. As of now, the President is allowed to chose his/her own vice president. In the Constitution, the only mention of the vice-president is that he/she is the president of the senate. Should there be an amendment for voting for the vice-president or is it unnecessary?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/11/palin-punkd-by.html

Would Colleges Approve?

After reading Rachel’s post about the IGSS program New Trier is offering next year, I became curious and decided to try to find answers to her questions. This morning I went to Mr. Rogan’s office, one of New Trier’s college counselors, and asked him about the program. I asked him if it would affect a student’s ability to get into a “good school”. He did not say it directly, but he said that colleges would most likely prefer sticking to the traditional curriculum. His reason being that colleges are not familiar with the program and therefore would have a more difficult time evaluating the student. If students knew that participating in this program could negatively affect their ability to get into a “good school”, most students would probably choose not to participate. If the program were to help a student get into a “good school”, on the other hand, everyone at New Trier would want to join. Either way, students find a way to put the focus back on grades, whether they mean to or not, so is it worth trying to put an end to this struggle?

Safety vs. Learning Ones Civic Duties

As the 2008 elections are coming up on November 4, school officials and parents across the nation have been especially concerned with the safety of their children. They are uncomfortable with the idea their children’s schools are completely opened allowing anyone to walk in, and therefore want to cancel school on this day. Kathy Christie, the chief of staff at the Education Commission of the States, on the other hand, thinks keeping kids home on Election Day “creates an inconvenience and another worry about day care for their parents” and feels that we are “losing the opportunity to send a very strong message to children about civic duties” (New York Times). Personally, I think safety should be the primary concern, but it is all up to David Orr, Cook County Clerk, to decide.

As of now, he is leaning towards canceling school “In an ideal world, it would be nice for children to see voters in their schools, but you have to ask yourself, what if?” After reading Orr’s response, it reminded me of the discussion we had in class the other day about idealists vs. pragmatists. Here, Orr serves as the perfect example of a pragmatist in action. He understands that it would be great to expose students to the Election Day atmosphere, but in reality he knows that a student’s safety is more important. This is a perfect instance of where a pragmatist checks on the idealist.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/us/19cancel.html?ref=us

Socialism Still a Threat?

While reading through the New York Times a few days ago, I noticed an article about the current bailout plan with an interesting title, “Intervention is Bold, But Has a Basis in History”. Throughout the article, it talked about the difficulty the government is having trying to decipher the extent of their intervention in financial affairs. They understand that the U.S. has “a culture that celebrates laissez faire capitalism as the economic ideal,” however they feel that the current crisis requires a more interventionist stance. Their plan would be to intervene by taking stakes in the U.S. banks now and restore confidence in the financial markets. Once confidence is restored, they will pull out and let the economy run on its own again.

The constant concern with giving the government more ownership of certain corporations, however, is that the U.S. is coming too close to the ideals of socialism. It is interesting how cautious we become when the term or anything associated with it is even mentioned. In most of Europe, “the concept of the social contract is much more social - that is socialist - than we’ve been comfortable with in America”. Why is it that Europe is so comfortable and we are not? In trying to answer this question, we must remember that this is not a recently discovered concern. It has been a concern of ours for centuries; the rise of McCarthyism in 1950 serves as a perfect example.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/business/economy/14nationalize.html?_r=1&scp=6&sq=steve%20lohr&st=cse&oref=slogin

Generosity in Times of Crisis

The federal government's food stamp program is the "the largest federal nutrition initiative for low-income households" (washingtonpost.com). Statistics have shown that in times of economic crisis, participation in this program increases. This was so comforting to me because I did not expect people to be so generous during unstable times such as the one we are in now. I had expected the numbers to go down, however the statistics showed just the opposite. Spokeswoman Jean Daniel said that "the July 2008 figure is the highest since the all time peak of 29.8 million in November 2005, in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita". They have not yet received the results for the most recent months, but they are predicting another rise in number of participants. Before reading this article, I had just assumed everyone would be looking out for solely him/herself and his/her families during a time of crisis. I feel bad that I discredited our country's generosity, but am glad to see our country working to help each other out. After reading this article, my confidence in our country has definitely been boosted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/03/AR2008100301389_pf.html

Argument Analysis

While reading through the opinion section of the New York Times the other day, I noticed an article about the current financial crisis with a title I was not expecting, “A Cure For Greed” by Ecuardo Porter. In this article, Porter argued that the primary cause for the current financial crisis is greed and how greed is very difficult to escape from. At first his argument sounded too simple, but as Porter wrote, he was able to make a convincing argument.

He included three main pieces of evidence that supported his argument very well. In the first piece of evidence, he pointed out the inevitability of greed, “the Soviet Union deployed the entire power of the state to stamp out greed,” however, it “proved insufficient to blot out this insidious sin”. In the second piece of evidence, he wrote about how the capitalist country we live in encourages greed making it difficult to escape from, “economists built a theory of the world that everyone benefits when we seek to maximize our own individual welfare.” In his third piece of evidence, he reminded us of the mindset people had during the Reagan Revolution, which was right before the financial markets crashed, “the path to prosperity for all requires removing every obstacle to utility of maximization, including most regulations and taxes”. Each of the examples he used supported his argument and in each he was appealing to logic. In his concluding paragraph, he sought a solution. He wanted to “put fear back in the picture”. Here he appealed to one’s emotion, for at the moment everyone is scared.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/opinion/29mon4.html

"Perilous Times" in Pakistan

In Pakistan on September 20, a massive suicide bombing took place at the Islamabad Marriott Hotel, killing at least sixty people and wounding more than 250. It occurred the same day the new president of Pakistan, Zardari, made his first speech to Parliament regarding the fight against terrorism. While reading this article, I immediately thought back to the discussion we had in class the other day about the different ways people handle “perilous times”. Even though we were discussing how the Puritans dealt with “perilous times”, I found that the people of Pakistan dealt with these times similarly. For example, the Puritans would doubt themselves/others and in turn look to an authority figure for security just like the people of Pakistan. After the bombing occurred, the natives were scared. Zardari immediately took a stand comforting the Pakistani people. He “strongly condemned the bombing…and said the perpetrators would be brought to justice. He appealed to the public to remain calm” (Washington Post).

Another important step that Zardari took was bringing up the idea of remaining united in order to overcome this obstacle, “This is terrorism, and we have to fight it together as a nation”. The idea of uniting under a single cause is a reoccurring theme throughout history. When people are doubtful or in a time of fear, coming together and experiencing a sense of unity is a comforting feeling. It feels as though purely the number of supporters one has can overcome anything.

With any group one looks at, it seems as though everyone handles “perilous times” in a similar way. Observing groups after times like these is actually a very good way to analyze human nature. It is one of the only instances where one is able to catch the immediate reactions of humans and therefore one discovers human nature in the most genuine form.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/20/AR2008092000910.html?wpisrc=newsletter

Discrimination still an issue?

Football season just started and I could not help but notice the missing Illini mascot at the beginning of this year's games. As most people know, the Illini mascot was removed because it was considered offensive to Native Americans...the face paint, colorful wardrobe, and feathery headdress were too stereotypical. Being reminded of this controversy, I found myself caught a little off guard. I felt ignorant, for I did not realize that contemporary Native Americans were still facing problems with racial discrimination. It seems so far behind us that racial discrimination was an issue, yet events such as these remind us that Native Americans are still facing these problems today.

While many were pleased with the decision to remove the Chief, there were many others who aggressively opposed it. Some became so tied to the tradition they were willing to pay large amounts of money to preserve it if they could. It is understandable how people can become tied to certain traditions, especially ones lasting for eighty-one years, however, there comes a point where one has to decide which side is more important; keeping the mascot even though it is considered offensive to Native American culture or letting it go and showing respect?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/sports/ncaabasketball/04cheer.html

first post

this is my first post