The Power of Pixels

Today we had American Studies Day-A day which focused a lot on the power of photography as a means of sending out a specific message. Bearing this in mind, I found it so ironic and all the more fitting that today as I opened up my yahoo mail, right in the front box was this article. It discusses the fate of pictures of American troops torturing prisoners. The pictures allegedly showed "grinning American soldiers posing with detainees — some of the prisoners naked, some being held on leashes". Naturally, the reaction to these photos was strong American sentiment all around the world, but especially on the part of the nations affected first hand by this abuse.
While I definitely agree that the negative consequences of the circulation these photos are immense and not beneficial to foreign relations, whether or not I agree with Obama's decision to try and block these images is a different matter. I mean, they are real photographs-to hide them from the public would be censorship, regardless of the motives. Also, to ban them would be ignoring the issue, which is one that should not be treated lightly. While Obama has now made it clear that the actions taken by the previous administration were completely out of line saying, "Any abuse of detainees is unacceptable. It is against our values. It endangers our security. It will not be tolerated." -regardless, what happened happened and cannot be swept under the rug. By making it publicly known but also stating that by no means is that ever acceptable, hopefully the people of America and of the world might learn from this experience and not make the same mistakes again.
This whole situation just further proves what we discussed with Professor Mazur. While yes, admitting that American soldiers tortured prisoners would affect people, it is photographs of the event that really take the whole thing to a new level, that get a real rise out of people.

A Different Kind of Hunting License

This is just one of the examples of propaganda during WWII that Americans used to justify killing the Japanese. By characterizing them as snakes, "vile stinking vipers" as they are called on this particular poster-it dehumanized the enemy, making it easier for the soldiers to kill and the people to know they were killing, because they weren't humans-they were vile snakes. It even tries to cut out signs of mercy-urging the soldiers that if they try to say sorry or anything of the sort, they are not to be forgiving-they are simply hissing at you.
I think it's interesting in this one that they chose to portray the Japanese as snakes. I have seen in the past relating them to bugs or rats, but before this never snakes. When I think of snakes, I think of the story in the bible of Adam and Eve. The snake in this story was greedy and untrustworthy. I can't speak for everyone when I say this is probably a common relation, however I definitely think it is a common relation to snakes. This in turn makes the fact that they are compared to snakes all the more powerful. It helps to add to the brewing distrust that surrounded Japanese Americans during WWII (so much distrust actually that many were put in internment camps).
It is a common theme with war propaganda to dehumanize the enemy like this, which leads me to wonder-if war is considered so fundamentally wrong in our minds that we have to draw evil pictures to help us justify it and feel better about murdering others-can it really be the best way to go about solving problems? Ideally, to fix our problems we shouldn't have to lie to ourselves-right? I don't know, I just think there must be a better way.

When You're Caught in the Cycle of Poverty, Can Striking It Rich Even Save You?

I was listening to a segment on NPR's show "All Things Considered" the other day that described how quickly after retiring, many pro-athletes go broke. A recent study showed that 78% of former NFL athletes have gone bankrupt within two years of retiring, which came to me as a shock. I mean, I always knew that a couple of these stars go over the top and get these extravagant houses featured on MTV shows like "cribs", but I didn't realize it was that much of a pandemic! These men are making upwards of a million dollars a year-the idea of spending that much money that fast is just absurd to me.
Today in class we talked about the idea of the "cycle of poverty" and I really saw a strong connection between that and this growing issue among athletes. More often then not, these outstanding athletes come from low socioeconomic standards, which makes the jump from living a normal, working-class life to having that much wealth that much bigger of a shock. These athletes are not used to managing that much money, and therefore are often irresponsible with it-treating it as if it were a bottomless fountain of cash and making ridiculous purchases like that 5th Lamborghini they've always wanted. It's really sad to consider, but this is most likely a result of their past standard of living. Since they never had money, they never learned how to manage it and therefore lose it quickly. It's depressing to think that this cycle drags people back into poverty, even if they have managed to somehow crawl out of it.

Putting Things In Perspective

When it comes to defining what characterizes a life of privilege versus a life of poverty, it's all very relative. I mean, what defines a life of privilege? Is it having enough money to pay for your children's college tuition in full or buy a house in the Hamptons? Or is it simply having enough money that you can live comfortably within your own means, simply having enough money to live your life without having to worry about how you'll pay for your next meal? Is it privilege enough to be able to live the American dream without concern?

I've always considered myself to be a very privileged person. It's funny because although I feel my family is so wealthy in the grand scheme of things, within our own community my family is average. Our lifestyle is nothing close to some people I know, let alone similar to the "fabulous lives of" celebrities and the really top high rollers. This summer my sister went to a friends house for spring break, it was someone she knew from school. Little did she know that the house would have a coach house twice the size of my own house and a rolls royce complete with driver ready always to take them downtown or to the beach. I mean really? How more Gatsby could we get?
Anyway, so while sometimes people are so over the top wealthy, it makes me lose perspective and I start to think of myself and my family to be average. All it takes is a little bit of perspective though again to realize just how fortunate I am. The fact that there are people so poor within our own nation, in our nation-not just overseas in villages of third world countries, who are so poor that they couldn't even pay for a cab or rental car to get them out of New Orleans before the devastating storm is truly an awful, and yet completely true point.
Living in the north shore, I'm afraid I have a warped view of what characterizes privilege and poverty. Poverty isn't always something reserved for huts in Africa or slums in India, it lives within the borders of our very own nation.

The Fabulous Life Of...

For one reason or another, I feel like American society really has a fixation on wealth and the lives of rich people. In class we read the poem "Graceland" by Carl Sandburg that highlighted the grave of "a millionaire, a multi-millionaire, ladies and gentlemen", advertising it as if it were some fascinating show. Although I can't say I've ever been compelled to visit someone's burial place simply because they were rich, I have to admit that from time to time-I have done what I consider to be the modern day equivalent: watch "The Fabulous Life Of...". Just in case you're unfamiliar with it, it's basically a show that just talks about rich people and the ridiculous things they spend money on. It's not alone in it's kind either-MTV and VH1 feature several shows centered around this same concept, for example "Cribs", a show that explores the fabulous homes of celebrities, and "My Super Sweet Sixteen", a television show that shows the planning and execution behind birthday parties costing tens of thousands of dollars.

It really makes me wonder, why are we, as a society, so fascinated by the lives of rich people? Society glorifies wealth so much-they have sections of magazines dedicated to showing how celebrities are "just like us" because they eat french fries or walk their dogs. The fact that they have those sections means that many people don't think of celebrities as being regular people, that somehow with their aquired wealth they've become more important then the average person. In the second part of the poem I mentioned earlier, "Graceland", it talks about a working girl and other poorer people. The entire section in parentheses, as if to signify that the whole second part is just an after thought-that the people it talks about are less important then the dead millionaire talked about in the first part. It was true then and it's true now, but why? Why is it that rich people are so glorified and does that tell us something deeper about our American society?

Back in the day, movies used to feature people called "actors"

Today, I found out something even more curious about Benjamin Button than the fact that he's aging backwards, for 52 minutes of the movie...he isn't even there! "What the audience is actually seeing in the first third of the movie is a computer-generated copy of Pitt's head, which the studio aged digitally." (see article)
So they've actually done it: created an almost flawless digital recreation of a human being to play a part in their movie. For 52 minutes, 325 shots, of the movie, Brad Pitt wasn't actually there, it was a digitally created person acting. This is absolutely revolutionary for the movie industry, but is it really progress? I mean, maybe this is just me not liking too much change, but I personally find it more scary then exciting. Is this new leap in technology going to make actors and actresses obsolete in the future? UCLA Acting Professor Judith Moreland says no, "real actors have an ineffable quality that isn't easily re-created...I still think that there is something about actually looking at a human being and seeing something real look back at you ... it's about that human connection." It scares me to think of a future where actors might be a thing of the past, I mean...I doubt that will ever happen, still-I don't doubt that some movies in the future will feature fictional human beings in staring roles. As Laura Sydell said in the article, "Now that they've done what was once considered impossible, it's hard to believe that they aren't going to try and breathe life into an entirely computer generated person."

Earth: The Movie

Today I was at home sick watching television when I saw the following preview for a movie coming out soon entitled, "Earth: The Movie". Now, it's hard to say exactly but from what I got from it, I think the plot of the movie is tracking the daily lives of three different animals, whales, polar bears, and elephants. Seems like it'd be an interesting documentary...but not an amazing, moving work of cinema...right? Well apparently not, because I don't know what it was specifically, but when I watched that preview, I just became enthralled (in retrospect, I'm thinking it was the music.) Whatever is was, I got really excited when (if you watch the preview you'll get the reference) the little chick jumps all the way from a tree branch to the forest floor while the narrator talks about it's immense courage. And when all the goats are crossing the river, oh man. I really wish I was kidding right now but I swear to you I'm not.

So anyway, then as I sat down to try and think of examples of how we, as Americans, are prone to romanticizing things, it hit me how overdone that commercial was. "Join three families on an amazing journey across our planet"? Really? Needless to say, I felt like such a sucker. Romanticizing American? Guilty. My reaction was exactly that which the makers of that movie were looking for, someone to identify with the large humpback whales, foraging the ocean; To feel for the elephants as they ran across the savanna. Don't get me wrong, I do love animals. But really...it's hard to deny how romanticized that movie is. I'm sure the stories are real and interesting, however I can say for sure that every possible angle has been played up to tug at the heart strings of a bunch of eco-friendly, animal loving people. I mean, come on, it even comes out on Earth Day...seriously?

Obama's Gotta Simplify

In Walden, Thoreau said it quite simply, that we need to simplify our lives. “Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity! I say, let your affairs be as two or three, and not a hundred or a thousand” Well, sometimes that's easier said than done. In the wake of Obama's entrance into office, he will be forced to face the inevitable, and much dreaded, simplification of his everyday life by losing his BlackBerry. In an age where email is such a common source of communication, unfortunately, hacking is as well. This means that unfortunately, Obama's going to have to give up his BlackBerry for the cause of National safety.
The fact that this is actually a real issue for President Obama just demonstrates what a huge role these everyday technologies play in our lives. In fact-it plays such a big role that people feel helpless without it. Now, I'm not entirely sure that we should necessarily consider it progress. I mean, yeah, that's awesome that you can access your email, photos, facebook, and phone all in one device-but I think it's sad sometimes just how dependent society has become on it. I think that it's great technology to have, but we should try not to let ourselves fall into complete dependency over it, or else we really aren't progressing at all. Who knows, maybe Obama will appreciate Thoreau's advice, whether or not he's willingly taking it.

Oh Illinois Senators...

I was just watching John Stewart's, "The Daily Show" and saw something as equally disturbing as it was amusing. If Rob Blagojevich goes to jail for his crimes, (which I mean, let's face it...how could he not?) then it is statistically more likely that you will go to jail for becoming an Illinois state governor than murdering someone. Only 48% of murderers go to jail for their crimes; On the other hand, currently-three of the last seven Illinois governors have gone to jail. Rob Blagojevich would be the fourth in the past eight, meaning that 50% of Illinois governors have gone to jail in the past eight terms; If you ask me, those aren't very good odds.
Throughout the whole Balgojevich ordeal, I've really been disgusted with how greedy he's been. I mean, as if trying to sell a senate seat wasn't bad enough, now there's been news of him threatening to cut of state funding to a Children's Hospital if they didn't donate $50,000 to his campaign fund? It's really appalling. He should have studied Thoreau's work a little bit harder in high school. Doesn't he know that life's only real essentials are food, fuel, clothing, and shelter? Hmm, apparently not..

Stuck on the track

"Why should we live with such hurry and waste of life?" -Henry David Thoreau
Yesterday in class, we discussed Joe Trevian's daily schedule, and while it's a schedule that's really become second nature to me, something about it being written down really surprised me. I had never really realized just how much my life was run by a series of bells. Wake up early, go from class to class with few breaks, then go to extracurriculars, then go home, have dinner, do homework, and go to bed; Like clockwork. And it really brings me to Thoreau's question, why should we live with such hurry and waste of life?
The whole New Trier setup is meant to get you into the, as i've mentioned in past blogs, ideal "good" college; and that's good in some ways, I mean, I do want to get into a nice college. But at the same time I can't help but feeling like as a result of all this, we're just living in the future. Planning for things that haven't happened yet, setting ourselves on this one single track. Good college -> good job -> high paying job -> happiness? Thoreau suggeded, "as long as possible live free and uncommited." I think that this is a concept that gets overlooked often at New Trier. We're all basically commited to the college track from the start, but even within the school itself-we are even more commited to tracks. If you have any hopes of making the Varsity lacrosse team your senior year, you have to be playing freshman, sophomore, and junior year-along with practicing or playing on club teams during the offseason. Club heads are almost always three or four year members of the club. New Trier's competitiveness makes it that if you really want to reach the top levels of something, or even participate at all, you have to be committed from the start. Some of these things will never change; but I do think that I am going to start making an effort to try new things every once in a while, get out of the routine; because I do think it's important to focus on making yourself happy in the present, not just to focus on plans for your future happiness.

Society never advances

In his essay "Self Reliance", Ralph Waldo Emerson makes the daring claim that society never advances, "it recedes as fast on one side as it gains on the other." At first glance, this quote was really too bleak for me to try and accept-but after some consideration, I've come to realize just how true it really is. In class we read an article titled, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" which discussed how, although the Internet has opened boundless opportunities in terms of accessing information and sharing files, it's actually making our minds function differently, and not necessarily a good different. The author describes the effect the google generation has had on him as such, "Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy. My mind would get caught up in the narrative or the turns of the argument, and I’d spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose. That’s rarely the case anymore. Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do." By having so much access to information, we are less able to fully appreciate any specific one piece. Before, information was less accessible-which meant that what people were able to have, they analyzed in depth. Just think about early America-Any pamphlets or books people could get their hands on they would carefully read and discuss together at the local coffee shops. However now that we have access to more knowledge then we know what to do with, we read for a broader knowledge on all topics; rather then analyzing the literature in depth, we merely skim the surface; A wikipedia summary will suffice for most of our needs. So I don't think that we can necessarily call the internet an advancement-We've gained just as much as we've lost.

Progess?

A couple days ago, we discussed all the things we take for granted these days that weren't around when our parents were our age. The creation of internet, email, cell phones, texting, ipods, digital cable, TiVo...all these modern day technologies we take for granted, and it got me thinking...Is all this so called "progress" really helping us? I always assumed that all of these things were making our society more advanced, happier; I'm not sure why I always equated these words together, i just did.. But after really thinking about it, I don't think they really have any connection. Don't get me wrong, i'm just as big of a fan as my cell phone and ipod as much as the next person, but i think that in what we've gained with these technologies, we've also lost some things.
I remember one time in seventh grade, my history teacher was talking to us about how when he was a kid, all the kids in the neighborhood would get together outside and play big games of baseball or capture the flag in the park. But i don't really see that happening nowadays, what with television and videogames, there's just not as much of a motivation to get outside and do something. It's not that bad-I mean, on both ends kids have fun, which is the point of course; But what we lose to technology is the bonding. Personal connections formed with people. It's the same way with texting. I can't even count all the times i've seen two people sitting together at a restaurant-both texting or talking on the phone. It's as if, with the ability to talk to people far away easier-it's simultaneously become easier to avoid talking to people you're with. So while this new technology is more convenient, is it really any better? Is my generation really happier than my parents' generation was? If not...can it really be considered progress? or just change.

A Wag to the White House

This weekend, while babysitting, I had a conversation with a fourth grader as to the current news regarding Obama's new dog search. Last Tuesday, her mom let her stay up extra late to wait and see the outcome of the elections and listen to Obama speak; and to no surprise, her favorite part of his speech was when he announced his family would be bringing a new puppy with them to the white house. Now, all I thought about when I heard Obama announce this is how cute of a family the Obamas are-but apparently, what breed they plan on getting has been the topic of much debate-and not just among fourth graders...(Not to imply it hasn't been among the fourth graders-rumor on the streets of Central Elementary is that the Obamas are going for a Basset Hound.)
There's been a lot of talk about what type of dog they're getting and what that might say about the president-elect, which raises a lot of questions in my mind. Why are people making it such a big deal-is this topic much bigger than just what kind of dog he gets? Will the type of dog the Obamas finally decide upon say something as to what kind of president he'll be? Even more so-is there some sort of ideal dog a president should have? After all, I would argue that the kind of dog a person has definitely reflects a lot on their personality-but then again, it's not like there's really a wrong choice, right? (Unless of course it's like Cujo...that probably wouldn't be so good..) Either way-mutt or pure breed, puppy or adult, girl or boy-it will be interesting to see what the family finally decides on.

The , Dilemma

So, the homepage on my mom's computer is The New York Time's website and today as I opened the browser, a particular article caught my eye. It was titled "Phys Ed: Stretching: The Truth", okay I know what you're thinking...how does an article that clarifies what stretches best warm you up have to do with American Studies? Well, it doesn't; it was the title itself is was sparked my interest. "Stretching: The Truth"--when I first read it I thought "oh, phys ed.: stretching the truth-it's probably about lies or scandal within the secret world of Physical Education." -stupid? Perhaps; but regardless, it reminded me of our discussion about the second ammendment to The Constitution and just how important a single punctuation mark can be.

Taking a good look at the second ammendment's placement of puncuation points can bring into question the true meaning behind the ammendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In this particular instance, commas make all the difference. After all, the statement "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" implies that a militia is crucial to securing a free state and therefore, all citizens have the right to bear arms. Whereas with the real statement, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed." The right to bear arms seems to be qualified; it's only a right of the people when a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of the state. Why is it then that when people look at the 2nd Ammendment, they forget the preface and cut straight to the main point: The right to bear arms? Since the forefathers have since passed away, there's really no knowing for sure; however in my personal opinion, I would agruethat the right is definitely qualified; And since I don't feel that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of our state when we have the army--I don't believe that regular US citizens should have the right to bear arms. And to think-any debate over the meaning of this right was started over something as insignificant as a comma.

The Dreams and Realities of Scheduling

Despite what the New Trier strategic planning board claims the mission of this high school is, I think that it's fair to say that the ultimate goal of most students at New Trier is to get into a good college. To get into a "good" college, you've got to have an impressive college transcript: great GPA, extracurriculars, good test scores, etc. But all this is easier than done.
More often than not, students choose to take higher level classes to boost their GPA or because it's what they think colleges will want to see. AP and level four classes are hard enough and on top of all that, students still have the added stresses of all the other extracurriculars-sports, plays, music, whatever they may be. I'm not saying this is always a bad thing, some people can handle it better than others. But for some people it simply gets unmanageable; sometimes it means you have to drop down a level, stop playing a sport for a season, or just end up with bad grades in good levels (which kind of defeats the purpose, don't you think?) Or then again there's always the other route one of my best friends is currently trying out-take a bunch of APs, keep all your extracurriculars, and just...forfit any form of social life for a year.
Regardless, i think it's important consider Murphy's Law (anything that can go wrong, will.) when deciding on a schedule. Afterall, yeah-you could get the easy teachers and have a really great year. But who knows? Maybe you'll get the hardest teachers in the whole school; So if you plan on swamping yourself with work so a "good" college will accept you-pay at least a little mind to your well being and be realistic with what you can handle. What matters is that you're happy.

Even McCain's Gotta Be Pragmatic

Typically when someone decides to be a presidential candidate, they ideally would like to become president. I mean, that's the hope, right? But with Obama estimated to win by 193 electoral votes (see for yourself-it fluctuates) along with the added dissappointment of a longtime supporter-Colin Powell-announcing his support for Obama, McCain seems to be facing reality, realizing there's a good chance he may not win this presidential race. This being the case, it is important that he not continue to bash Obama. In a recent meeting, McCain tried to comfort his strong supporters worried about the prospect of a nation with Obama as president; "I have to tell you he is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States," McCain remarked. While the senator remarked that he's still motivated and cares about the election as much as his voters do, pragmatically, it makes sense that he try and warm his supporters up to idea of Obama as president at least a little bit. After all, they don't have to love him, but regardless of whether they like it or not-if Obama does win-he's going to be their president.

Pointing the Finger

Okay--so i was just watching Law and Order SVU, and lo and behold-it somehow connected back to American Studies, crazy! The episode was framed around a nine-year-old girl who had been molested. The SVU team (Police officers specialized in the "special victims unit"-typically cases concerning rape, assault, or murder.) questioned her about it and at first she refused to tell, but under pressure she finally blurted out that it had been her soccer coach. After this first accusation, the SVU team decided it would be best to question the other girls on the soccer team about the coach as well. In the waiting room of the station, there was complete hysteria. The girls all sat with their paranoid parents--who continued to ask them questions over and over about the coach with the correct answer already in mind. Most of the girls said no at first, however soon enough confessions started rolling out. As the detectives sat them down individually to ask questions, all the girls replied with the same basic story; that they had been molested by the soccer coach and that they were told not to tell anyone. When the DNA samples came back however, it turned out that the real criminal was the original girl's neighbor. The soccer coach was completely clean; however under the pressure of the questioning, the girls had given in and told their parents the story they wanted to hear. This reminded me so much of the Crucible when people were asked who they saw with the devil. If they accused someone else of trafficking with the devil, then the pressure was off of them. Of course, the little girls were not going to get in trouble for saying they weren't raped; however it seemed that admitting to being assaulted was the only way to stop the frenzied questioning. It brings to attention how universal this really is. During perilous times, people are desperate for some sort of closure, some sort of solution to the problem--even if it means falsly accusing somebody of rape or witchcraft. It's so much easier to point the finger rather then confront the problem head on.

Domino Effect

I found this article on the New York Times homepage that discussed the reverberations of America's economic crisis on the world around us. Almost every country, in areas ranging from Asia to South America to Europe, has suffered severe falls in stock indexes. It was just last week in class when we learned how the Great Depression, while it hit the United States very hard, was devastating across the globe. As i read it, it almost felt as if I could have been reading an article from back in the thirties. To be honest it was kind of creepy.
This whole ordeal reminds me yet again our overarching quote by Faulkner, "The past isn't dead, it's not even past yet." History seems to be repeating itself yet again; and while our current situation is nowhere near as widespread or harrowing, the similarities between the two situations are undeniable.

Pushing the Blame

"Don't Blame the New Deal", read the headline of an editorial on the New York Times. The article discusses the current economic crisis, and more specifically, it's cause. While the author admits to flaws in the current regulatory system, his claim was that the source of the crisis was not the set-up, but rather the management and regulation of it. Laws concerning financial regulation were made without much thought or clarification being put into them. Congress created a law in 1995 that "restricted the ability of investors to sue companies, securities firms and accounting firms for misstatements and pie-in-the-sky projections" which gave people a falsified sense of freedom when it came to giving out loans; An effect that would later play a large part in the mortgage crisis. Although it is a difficult point to accept, he states that it is something that needs to be accepted in order for similar situations to be avoided in the future.
All in all-I would say this was a very solid argument. The point is not exactly what people want to hear, it would be a lot easier to just push the blame onto the set-up of the system rather than accept that it was caused by the carelessness of those regulating it. For this reason I wouldn't say the argument appeals to the Pathos. However, by employing many examples backed up by strong evidence, the author appealed to the logos, or logical outlook.

All This Talk About Freedom

"Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?"
(Star Spangled Banner-Francis Scott Key)

Okay, so...one of the biggest defining factors of America that people take pride in is the concept of freedom. You see it everywhere. It's constantly worked into politics, and in fact both McCain and Obama brought it up during their presidential acceptance speeches. However when it comes down to it, distinguishing what exactly "freedom" means is a little tricky. I mean honestly, What exactly is freedom? In our bill of rights, all of the legal freedoms as a citizen of the United States are explained (freedom of speech, press, assembly, etc.), so, is that it? I feel that the notion of freedom is something much bigger then that. Everyone has their own definition of freedom. The Puritans believed that it meant getting rid of corruption (The American Dream, Jim Cullen), and their goal in life was, in essence, to achieve just that. They wanted to create a "city on a hill", a pure and holy civilization free from corruption to be an example for all civilizations to follow.

Now, typically I don't relate too much with the Puritans, however in this situation i'd have to agree with them. Once again though, it is all relative. While I would also say that freedom means getting rid of corruption, I believe it's also save to say that Hetty Shepard and I probably have different definitions of corruption as well. Afterall, I don't ordinarily rack my with guilt every time I smile at a boy in church or question my society. But I do believe that the United States' Bill of Rights is full of ammendments which help us escape corruption from many sources (censorship, stifling the public opinion, racial/gender/religious inequalities, etc.). In doing so, it helps us to maintain what we as Americans hold so dear, our freedom; however we may choose to define it.