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?