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.