"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to be repealed!!!

I was so pleased to read today that White House officials and leading congressional Democrats had reached an agreement on legislative language and a timetable for the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. I wrote my junior theme on this issue because it had recently become a hot topic of debate, and all the information I found made me support the repeal of this bill. While it is still uncertain whether the deal has garnered enough votes to pass the House and Senate is still an exciting step forward for our nation's military. The plan is to unveil the proposal Tuesday morning. When the White House was asked for its official views on the matter, they quickly replied with their assent. Obama has been under pressure from gay rights activists since his inception due to his promise to repeal the law if he got into office. Although some, such as the Secretary of the Army, John McHugh, have been "effectively ignoring the policy" it is still nice to see the repeal made official.

Arizona- taking it too far?

We have been talking recently in class about the Arizona laws which were recently passed. Personally, I do not agree with these new laws as I think they contribute to racial profiling. Lizzie shared in class today the story about teachers being fired due to an accent, and so when I was looking through the news tonight I was amazed to find yet another story about Arizona...

In a letter dated May 20 to President Obama, Arizona Governor Janice Brewer requested helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles to help the Arizona government patrol the border. Maybe it's just me, but I think this is going too far to "provide the kind of support needed on the Arizona border." I understand that illegal immigration is an issue, and that our nation cannot support all of the people who want to immigrate to the United States. However, I feel that if it were easier or less time-consuming to become a legal immigrant people would not feel the need to cross the border illegally. I don't think that drones, helicopters, or more people manning the border are the solutions to this incredibly complicated problem. What do you think? Is there any way to solve this problem?

Women on submarines

Junior theme may be over, but as I was looking through the news today a story struck me because it was so related to my topic. I wrote about why minorities in the military have/still are receiving different treatment, and I focused on blacks and gays. Another focus that I considered was the role of women in the armed forces. Today I found a story about the first women to train to serve on submarines. For a long time submarine service has been off limits to women for a variety of reasons. Some might claim that there isn't enough room for male and female facilities while others will be more harsh, claiming simply that women can't cut it. It was recently announced that 11 women from the 2010 graduating class at the US Naval Academy had been accepted into the submarining program. People have called these women "trailblazers" but breaking gender barriers is far from these women's minds. "I am not doing this to be a trailblazer. I see us being just like our male counterparts, and I think we'll be accepted the same way." Claimed Marquette Reid. These women are tired of hearing excuses, and they simply want to be able to serve in the same ways that men have for quite some time. It doesn't seem like too much to ask. I am encouraged by the progress that these women are inspiring and hope that one day the military will be free of discrimination against minorities.

30 Days: Coal Mining in West Virginia

Today in class we watched an episode of 30 Days in which Morgan Spurlock returns to his home state of West Virginia to be a coal miner for 30 days. He learns the hardships of being a coal miner and living in a state where it is one of the best-paying jobs out there. I was extremely struck by some of the conditions that these men worked in; I knew it was bad, but I underestimated how old-fashioned a lot of the methods were. The thing that struck me the most, however, was the mountain-top removal process that they addressed for part of the episode. As one may guess, it is a method of mining where they literally take of the tops of mountains using explosives then collect the coal that is just below the surface. Perhaps it struck me because I wrote about mountain-top removal in my first blog post this year and how it was affecting people near St. Paul, Virginia. Some of the images were hard to look at because when I was in Virginia last summer I saw how beautiful that part of the country really is, and I saw first-hand how much mountain-top removal was destroying the natural environment there.
I know people talk a lot about "going green" and "reducing our carbon footprint" but how much can we change in a nation where 50% of our electricity comes from coal? We can use alternative energy sources such as solar and wind, but I don't know if it's possible to eliminate coal completely, especially because coal is so cheap and accessible in the US. I think more Americans need to be aware of where their power comes from and just how much they really are affecting the environment around them.

What do you think about alternate energy sources? Would it be possible to reduce the amount of mining and mountain-top removal in a country that relies so heavily on coal?

junior theme

Right now we are working on our big research paper of the year, junior theme. My topic focuses on the modern-day issue of gays in the military and their rights, and uses information about the rights of other minority groups such as women and blacks as background and historical references. I have been looking into the history of the rights of the various groups as I know very little on the topic, and found the book Unfriendly Fire by Nathaniel Frank. I also plan to watch Glory, a film about the US Civil War's first all black volunteer company. Hopefully this will help both with the recent events aspect and also with the historical part, but if anyone has any other suggestions for books, movies, or articles that would be greatly appreciated!!

Advertising

Recently in class we have been talking about advertising, and how much it has become integrated into our lives. Someone mentioned that they though advertising was a hoax so the question was posed, "Is advertising all lies?" I don't think that advertising is lies at all; it is simply an extremely carefully crafted (or perhaps constructed) truth or not the whole truth. My mom is in the marketing business so maybe I have a little more insight on what goes on before the advertisements are exposed to the world, and so I have learned just how much time is put into advertising. Take a magazine for example. Everything from the front cover shot to the last word on the final page has to be carefully examined to make sure it is exactly what the client wants because the companies do not make these magazines themselves. Instead, they send out what they want to a marketing agency, and continue to tweek it until it's exactly the way they want it. Just to put things in perspective, they start working on the Christmas editions at the beginning of the summer or earlier because the process of getting every last detail right takes so long. I don't think companies lie to their prospective customers because they now they could get sued for false advertising. However, companies have used to use words that will entice people in even if they aren't always true. For example, "as low as", "up to", and "approximately" to list just a few. All of these leave room for flexibility on the part of the company, making it unnecessary for them to say exactly what they mean.

What do you think about advertising? How much of it is the truth and how much of it isn't?

"Can talent outweigh size in Hollywood?"

After the Oscars last week, there was much talk about the rising actress, Gabourey Sidibe, and whether her weight will impact her future in the acting world. Some people think that in a town full of super skinny girls and women she will not fit in or be able to find work because there wont be roles that will fit her. Howard Stern asked, "What movie could she play in? You feel bad because everyone pretends that she's part of show business, and she's never going to be in another movie." I thought this was a rather harsh description. Robin Quivers also suggested that she look around at the Oscars and realize that no one there looked like her, but, again, I think this is an overly harsh criticism. I watched an interview of her on the red carpet, and I was blown away by how much energy and personality she brought to the stage in comparison to some of the other stars who looked downright bored. I think her personality will allow her to be cast in some great movies in the future. And I'm not the only one. Casting directors said that she has "irresistible charm, wit and confidence". To top it all off, she's got serious talent. I haven't seen the movie, but from everything I've heard it was downright amazing, and Sidibe had a difficult part. Rachel Tenner, a casting director, insisted that the star power Sidibe showed in Precious will be enough to push her past the presumptions about what type of role she can and cannot play.

I think this debate shows who we are as a nation; we are obsessed with the media, and although we claim to be accepting of diversity, we really aren't. The fact that her future was even questioned because of how she looks is unnerving. Does everyone have to fit in to some sort of mold to be successful?

Prom Cancelled

A friend of mine told me a story today about a school in Mississippi that cancelled its entire prom because I girl wanted to bring her girlfriend to the dance when the school documents said that one's prom date must be of the opposite sex. 18-year-old Constance McMillen tried to convince the school to change their views on the situation and allow her and her girlfriend to attend, but they refused, especially when McMillen requested to wear a tuxedo; the superintendent claimed that only male students were allowed to wear tuxedos to the dance. To top it all off, the superintendent also told McMillen that even if she and her girlfriend were to attend the dance, they could be ejected if others complained about their presence there. The school then proceeded to completely cancel the dance "due to the distractions to the educational process..." But there wouldn't have been a distraction if they allowed the girls to go to prom together.

The school is now facing a lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), that claims that officials at the high school are violating students' First Amendment right to freedom of expression. Constance McMillen just wanted to be able to enjoy her prom like any other student. "This isn't just about me and my rights anymore-- now I'm fighting for the right of all the students at my school to have our prom." She said in an ACLU news release. The school is now trying to paint McMillen as the villain who called everything off, and this isn't true; she is fighting harder than any of the other students to get the prom reinstated.

Do you think this is limiting her freedom of expression? And if so, should the school be allowed to limit these girls' freedom of expression or should they be punished for their actions?

When can free speech be limited?

I recently read a story on CNN that shocked me, and this picture was just the beginning. I will be perfectly honest and say that I do not particularly support the wars that we are fighting at the moment, but never in a million years would I imagine diminishing the brave acts that our troops are performing every day. I could never do what they do and I am thankful that there are people out there who are wiling to put their lives on the line for what they believe in.
This story addresses a small Kansas church that gained national attention when they protested at the funerals of US service members. They did this because they said they felt "That God's promise of love and heaven for those who obey him in this life is counterbalanced by God's wrath and hell for those who do not obey him." They felt it was especially wrong for homosexuals to be fighting in wars and the shirt that the women is wearing just goes to show how strongly they believe these things.
The high court recently accepted an appeal from the father of a US Marine killed in Iraq to keep the members of the church from demonstrating near memorial and burial services. This, of course, would be putting a limitation on their freedom of speech...

Is it ok to limit these people's freedom of speech? Think carefully because I feel like a lot of people's gut reaction will be to say yes it is ok solely because they do not agree with the particular views of this group of people.

The power of the crowd mentality

Driving home from soccer tonight, something crossed my mind that I had never really stopped to think about before. How does EVERYONE know that green means go and red means stop? Obviously, in the case of driving, we learn when we take driver's ed, but what about in other scenarios? I think it is fair to say that when most people see the color green they think go, even when it's not in the context of driving. How did this happen? How did something become so commonly accepted by society worldwide?

It seems so simple when you don't stop to think, but when you do, you have to wonder how we almost manage to think as a society. To me, the power of society and collaboration is amazing. I also wonder how long it takes for something like this to become ingrained in the minds of not only an entire nation, but practically the entire world. I'm sure there are many more examples of things that we don't even stop to think about anymore because, since we were young kids, we learned from the people around us that these things were true.

What do you think? Can you think of some other things that we just accept? How did it come to be and how long do you think it took to catch on?

Joannie Rochette

Just this past Thursday in Joannie Rochette of Canada won the bronze medal in women's figure skating. Of course, winning a medal is a huge accomplishment, and I don't want to take anything away from what she achieved, but it is certain that she would not have received as much press if her mother had not passed away due a sudden heart attack the previous Sunday. It seems like there always has to be some tragedy or horrible accident in these athlete's lives as if to prove their strength. This also makes her front-page news instead of the girls who won gold and silver.

An article I read on CNN mentioned them briefly, and mentioned quickly that Kim Yu-Na broke the record with her long program and total score, but that was it. I think this is unfair because not only did she break the record, she shattered it; her total was a 228.56 and the record before that was around a 215. To top it off, she had the weight of an entire nation resting on her shoulders. Throughout her performance, the commentators kept saying how anything less than gold would be a disappointment, and when she had come in second at previous competitions she had received emails and letters asking her why she didn't win, rather than congratulating her on a good performance. So why isn't Yu-Na front page news? Probably because her story isn't tragic, and she won't be receiving anymore emails asking why she didn't win. To top it off, Mao Asada, the silver medalist from Japan, was the first women to land two triple axels in a single competition, and I believe the commentators said she was the first person (male or female) to land three. This was not even mentioned in the article.

Why does the media focus on what's going on outside the arena more than the actual performance? And why do you think tragedies get more focus than happy endings?

White Privilege

We recently read in class a piece entitled White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack by Peggy McIntosh, written in 1988. The summary of the piece was broken down into fifty points, which the author believed were privileges that she had because she is white and that someone of color would not have. Some of the points seemed more obvious than others, and some made you stop and think; most of the time, I agreed, though there were a few where I wasn't sure I completely agreed. For example, one of the latter points stated "I can easily find academic courses and institutions which give attention only to people of my race." Maybe it was not true when the article was written, but there are quite a few historically black universities, and it is against the law to deny entry to a college based on race (although I believe this still happens).

However, McIntosh made two very interesting claims, both of which I had never really stopped to think about, but I believe are true. One stated, "I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group." I never realized it, but people of minority groups, I feel, are often asked to state how their entire racial group feels about a certain topic. There is no regard for the fact that people's views can differ within these groups. For example, we read an article about women on college campuses today (women are not numerically a minority, but I feel that they are legally a minority), and many of the interviewees made rather broad generalizations about how women handle certain situations or their behavior. Often, the class did not agree with these statements, and we felt that the author should not have used these broad statements as evidence. The white majority, however, is never asked to represent the views of their entire racial group, but why? Another interesting point stated was, "I can chose blemish cover or bandages in 'flesh' color and have them more or less match my skin." I believe that as part of the white majority, I never stopped to think about, or perhaps I never realized that they were labeled 'flesh' color; the fact that they matched my skin color was one of the things I simply took as the way things worked.

What do you think about academics? And do you think that people purposely single out minority groups or give an advantage to the white majority on purpose? Why?

New Trier Referendum

Last night when I got home I found out that the referendum for New Trier had not passed by a significant margin. I was a supporter of the referendum, and have some trouble understanding why some people were so vehemently opposed to the renovation. I can understand if people think that parts of the renovations were unnecessary because I too felt that way about parts of the project. However, I take serious issue with the fact that there are several areas in our school which are not handicap-accessible; I think that this is unacceptable. What if you're in a wheelchair and you want to take AP Art or be a part of an orchestra? Too bad, you can't do that. We get away with breaking all sorts of codes because our school was built before the codes were put in place; that in and of its self goes to show how old the school is. We eat lunch in a 98-year-old cafeteria that is not big enough to hold the student body, and has leaks in the roof. A friend in orchestra recently reported that they had to stop class when the roof started leaking even though they are not on the top floor of the building and it wasn't raining. To me, it is clear that our school needs work. Not to mention, if the referendum had passed we would have received partial government funding for the project, but now that we have voted it down and put it off, the grants will no longer apply making future project more expensive. 
The other fact that severely bothered me is that numerous people I talked to could give no reasons behind their decisions other than the fact that they didn't want construction going on during their senior year and they didn't have any younger siblings so they didn't think it was worth it to have their taxes raised. Those, to me, are horrible excuses.
I know for some people this is still a touchy subject in some regards, and there are obviously plenty of people who were against the project, but I would really be interested in hearing what people think. Also, what were you basing your opinion on? Gut reaction or careful consideration?

Character Dimensions... human dimensions?

Today in class we discussed the difference between a 2-D character and a 3-D character, specifically using examples from The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn which we are currently reading. To sum up what we came up with in class, we decided that 2-D characters are unchanging, stereotypes, shallow, and linear. While 3-D characters were well-rounded, adaptable, and often have a back-story. Obviously there are other qualities that could define these characters, but this was our outline. It got me wondering, though...

Do these "character dimensions" say anything about real people?
In many cases, I think that characters from books are based off of real people, or they are a combination of people that the author may know. Therefore, can one assume that the "dimension" of the character could be applied to the human model? I know you can call someone shallow or stubborn (unchanging), but do those characteristics automatically place them in a broader category... I've never heard of a person referred to as 2-dimensional that I can recall.

Also... Are the main characters usually the main characters?
As a class we decided, rather unanimously, that Huck and Jim were the only 3-dimensional characters in the book thus far. All the other, more minor characters, seemed to fit much better with our description of 2-D. I wonder if this is always the case or if this is often the cases in books. Perhaps it makes the books more interesting or more relatable to the reader if the primary character in a book is something other than a shallow, undeveloped personality.

I am rather undecided as to what I think on both issues, but what do you think?

The Giving Tree

Recently in class we have been looking at the role of women and children in American society and secret messages hidden in children's books. I'm pretty sure most people read Shel Silverstein's book, The Giving Tree, at some point during their childhood. For those of you who never read it or don't remember the story line here's a brief summary.

There is a boy and a tree, and when the boy is very young he always comes to climb the tree, swing in her (the tree is referred to as "she" in the book) branches, and eat her apples. Both of them are happy with this simple relationship and not needing more. As the boy gets older, however, he visits the tree less and less and after a long absence the boy finally goes back to the tree, but claims he is too old to play and asks the tree if she has any money she can give him. She does not, but offers him her apples to sell. Time goes by and again the boy comes back to visit, but is too old to climb the tree or swing in her branches, and again wants something from the tree. She eventually gives him everything, until she is nothing more than a stump. The boy comes back one final time and is happy to simply have a place to sit and rest, and so the tree is finally happy again.

I think, essentially, the underlying message of the story is that sometimes you have to give everything away in order to get something in return. However, I also think that there is a great significance in the fact that Silverstein calls the tree "she". It made me think that the book might have been written to show a mother-son relationship. To the kids, the message is that they should always come back to their kids and that, in the end, money and material objects are not the things that are going to bring you happiness. I also think, however, that there may be a message to the parents in this story. I believe Silverstein is encouraging parents to do everything for their children and, in the end, they will be happy.

What do you think the message might be? Is their a significance in the fact the the tree is a "she" and not a "he"?

New security measures at airports

After multiple terror scares over the holiday break, the US has decided to implement new security measures for US-bound flights, especially if you are flying from or through a country that is part of the list of "state sponsors of terrorism or other countries of interest". The list includes 14 countries, and anyone traveling through or from those countries will automatically be subject to more intensive screenings at airports. Passengers from other countries could still face increased security measures, but not necessarily.

While watching the news, it appeared that many people were criticizing the new measures as too intensive and too intrusive due to the nature of the new scans and increased number of pat-downs. However, the most controversial subject was the list of 14 countries that was compiled. Some believe that this will contribute to the narrative that the US is fighting their war against Islam and one went so far as to call it racial profiling.

What do you think? Is this list going too far or do you think it could be considered racial profiling? Are the new security measures to intense?

Ever wanted to live on the moon?

Apparently some people find the idea of setting up a permanent colony on the moon an interesting and, now, feasible idea. I, personally, am not sure I would ever want to live on the moon. It would be cool to be able to visit and walk around, but I never found the idea of outer space particularly intriguing. Some, however, now believe that it would be possible to live in or station a base in a lunar lava hole.

According to an article I read on CNN, scientists recently discovered a large hole on the moon that might be suitable for a moon colony or lunar base. The hole is situated on the near side of the moon and is about 213 feet wide and more than 260 feet deep. This hole, however, is not just any lunar lava hole; it's unique in that it is protected from the moon's harsh temperatures and meteorite strikes by a thin layer of lava. Also, it does not appear prone to collapse. It has been reported that NASA is working on plans to return to the moon by 2020 and to set up a temporary lunar colony by 2025.

I, however, do not see why we would be so inclined to colonize the moon because of the living conditions. Although, this hole could reportedly protect one from such conditions, it would mean being confined there constantly. Why do you think people are interested in colonizing the moon? Would you want to live there if you could?