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.