And We Thought Carter Sucked

I love my country but am ashamed of my president. I firmly believe that Barack Hussein Obama is systematically dismantling this nation, and I will convince you why. As Americans, we should always remember that it's "We the People", NOT "Me the President". Boy, I sure miss W...

1. The Obama regime is in favor of socialized healthcare. The Obama administration firmly believes that government-run healthcare is what America needs. It is important to understand that this healthcare legislation represents the biggest expansion of government power in over 70 years! In a nation whose success has always been driven by the principle of individual freedom, this socialist idea is absurd! Also, one must realize that socialized healthcare is expected to double our national debt, destroy the free market, ration healthcare, lower the quality of medical treatment, and cause half the doctors to flee! Oh, but Cuba has universal healthcare...and they have a black market for Aspirin! Folks, I am going to make it plain and simple: Barack Hussein Obama wants complete control over your life and your success.

2. Obama is against the concept of alliances. No American president has ever invested less time in maintaining US alliances than Obama. Whether it is condemning Israel (or sending Joke Biden there, who arrived 45 minutes late to the conference dinner...), trashing the Anglo-American Special Relationship, or siding with Marxists in Honduras against pro-American forces, the Obama regime has made an extra special effort to degrade our allies and praise our enemies! Great Britain, our mother country, is also unfortunately at the top of Obama's list of enemies. The man had the audacity to send back Churchill's bust! Also, when England gave us a valuable gift after Obama was sworn into presidency, Obama's "return present" was a box of DVD's that doesn't even work in Europe!

3. Obama hates America (and all of Western Civilization for that matter). When Obama was a Constitutional law lecturer at the University of Chicago, he made it abundantly clear that he is against the  utmost basic principles upon which this great nation was founded. Obama was recorded on several occasions criticizing the Constitution. And it is crystal clear that Obama's presidency is a reflection of his anti-American ideology; after all, the man goes around the Middle East and "apologizes" for us naughty, naughty Americans! In one of the twit's speeches, he claimed that it is shameful that so many Europeans learn English, but when we Americans go to france, "all we can say is 'parlez-vous français'". Well, Obama, did you ever consider why that is? It is because America wins; people come to us and learn our language because we are the greatest and most powerful nation on the face of the Earth!

4. Obama thinks he can change evil regimes. From extending the hand of friendship to Ahmadinejad and Chavez to turning a blind eye to the life-threatening danger that our friend (which, by definition, means his enemy) Israel is facing, President Obamadinejad reveals that he is truly living in "La La Land" and has no sense of worldliness!

5. Obama trusts Russia. A key element of Obama's nuclear deal with Moscow is the ridiculous belief that Russia should be trusted as a partner of the United States and that the treaty does not restrict America's ability to deploy missile defenses. Russia, on the other hand, expects to have a veto over a US missile defense system.

6. Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist. From endorsing that raging anti-Semitic pastor Al Sharpton to praising Jeremiah Wright (you know, the guy who told black-on-black criminals that they were "fighting the wrong enemy", who said that America has "supported state terrorism", who changed "God Bless America" into "God Damn America", who blamed 9/11 on the fact that Bush supports Israel, who claimed that Americans live by "making sure that Third Word People live in grinding poverty", and who asserted that the government "lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color" ... the list goes on and on!), Obama has clearly shown his deep-seated hatred for white people. Obama has further demonstrated his racism with his notion that white CEOs hate inner city kids, specifically claiming, "And I really want to emphasize the world responsibility. I think whether you are a white executive living out in the suburbs who doesn't want to pay taxes to inner city children..." Yes, those sick, rich, and white CEOs who are capitalists are America's problem, according to Obama, as they don't care enough about kids in the inner city. Do I smell racism? I think so.

7. Obama is anti-capitalist. The quote above degrading white CEOs is just one of many times where Obama has condemned capitalism. He also once said, "My administration is the only thing between [CEOs] and the pitchforks." And this man is a leader?

These are just some examples of Obama's utter stupidity; trust me, I could go on and on. But I am going to stop here. Thank you for your time.

Glenn Beck

This Saturday, Glenn Beck gave a tremendous speech in Washington, D.C. entitled "Restoring Honor". He succeeded in giving a nonpartisan speech whose sole purpose is to honor America and our troops, and to help restore traditional American values. Beck effectively discussed the themes of faith, hope, and charity, which are key elements of his show (Those of you who are fortunate enough to watch it should know this!).

Beck said that one of his goals was to honor Martin Luther King's message. Wait a second... I thought that Beck was a "racist" like the liberal media and that Keith Olbermann figure portray him to be...WRONG! How could a racist person have this intention?

Although Beck is seen as a "religious nut", I believe that this is false. In his speech he did encourage people to pray often and in front of their children, but he is simply showing his spirituality. I watched his show Saturday night where he answered questions from high schoolers all around the nation. In his discussion he CONDEMNED religious intolerance, claiming that a major problem in America stems from people shoving their religion down others' throats. This statement would not have been made by a religious zealot.

Glenn Beck is not as extreme as the media portrays him to be. He gave a great nonpartisan speech this Saturday and clearly is not racist or a religious fanatic. Just because he is very conservative does not mean that he is a monster! I really appreciate Glenn Beck... of course not as much as Rush Limbaugh!

Best Blog Post of the Fourth Quarter

My best blog post of the Fourth Quarter is the one entitled "Themes of the Kentucky Cycle". In this blog I compared three common themes in The Kentucky Cycle—racism, religion, and land—to Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and The Crucible. Not only do I discuss these themes in The Kentucky Cycle, but I also make parallels to other important texts that we have read this year. Also, as we are currently reading The Kentucky Cycle in class, this blog is relevant. This year I have grown as a blogger. I have improved on making my posts relevant and on choosing to cite more valid sources.

Themes of the Kentucky Cycle

Reading The Kentucky Cycle has many interesting themes that we have seen elsewhere this year, especially in Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and The Crucible. Although they have different plots, these two texts are very similar in their key themes and messages. I will examine how The Kentucky Cycle is similar to Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by looking at both texts' racist and religious messages, and I will also explain how The Kentucky Cycle is similar to The Crucible by considering the importance of land.


The Kentucky Cycle has some racist messages, as does Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. In The Kentucky Cycle, as Jessie and Sallie come in carrying a jug of whisky, the Judge asks, "Is that a jug, your nigger has there?" (87). Just out of the blue, without any purpose or even drama, the Judge decides to use the N-word. This idea of frequently using this derogatory term unnecessarily also appears in Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. For instance, after deceiving Jim, Huck realizes the effects of his misbehavior and says, “It was fifteen minutes before I could work myself up to go and humble myself to a nigger” (73). Here again the word seems to pop up out of nowhere. If Huck had been sincere about his apology, why would he have described Jim as a "nigger"? Huck obviously had the choice to not use this word, but he unfortunately did.


The Kentucky Cycle conveys important religious themes, especially ones that pertain to Christianity, as does Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. In The Kentucky Cycle, Tod asks about "Zion" (21). In Christianity, "Zion" refers to heaven, a very important Christian ideal. In Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Huck describes how the Widow Douglas would teach him about "Moses and the Bulrushers" (4). This quotation portrays the importance of religion, as Douglas made the effort to teach Huckleberry about the Bible.


The Kentucky Cycle shows the importance of land, as does The Crucible. In the dispute over land in The Kentucky Cycle, Taskwan portrays the land's significance by saying that it cannot be "'given'" to anyone else (28). Clearly, he feels very passionately about the land. In The Crucible, describes the long-standing hatreds of neighbors partly as "[l]and-lust, which had been expressed by constant bickering over boundaries and deeds" (7). As these neighbors were constantly fighting over land, they show how much they deeply care about it and do not want to give it up.


When comparing The Kentucky Cycle to Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and The Crucible, there are many similar themes in these texts. I explained three important ones: racism, religion, and land. Personally, I like making parallels to other texts because they denote the themes' societal importance throughout history. What do you think?

American Studies Day Reflection

Today was American Studies Day, and I have been thinking about it. I enjoyed the day and thought that it was productive. It was interesting how the teachers were able to gather all of these different people - including the directors and poets - as well as compile their own presentations and ask AIS students to lead some of their own. This was a very unique day.

I enjoyed listening to Maria Finizzo and seeing part of her film. I appreciated the fact that she addressed both sides of the argument relating to stem-cell research and did NOT voice her own personal opinion in the movie, keeping it professional. I do not know too much about stem-cell research, so it was interesting to keep and open mind and listen to both sides of the argument.

I also appreciated Mr. Tragos' presentation, taking a deep look at some of the photographs presented. I never knew much about analyzing art or photography, so this session was pretty interesting.

The last presentation I saw before the lunch break was "The Other AND America", and I thought that it was well conducted. I appreciated the fact that the leaders engaged in discussion with the audience members and did not just speak in a monotonous voice the whole time. Everything presented by all of the group members was connected well.

I am glad to have gone to American Studies Day. What do you think?

Arizona Immigration Laws

The Arizona Immigration Laws have become a prominent discussion topic for many politicians. Obviously, there are some who support it and others who oppose it. According to an April 23, 2010 edition of Daily Postal, entitled "Arizona Immigration Bill - SB 1070 Law Text", the law would require police "to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally".

Personally, I believe that this is one of the most plausible and rational means to rid America of its many illegal aliens who, according to immigrationcounters.com, the #1 site for real-time illegal immigration statistics, are responsible for TAKING AWAY over 11,600,000 jobs that could be done by the some of the many unemployed American citizens. The total cost of social services for illegal aliens since 1996 has been roughly $400,000,000,000, and this number is only increasing EXPONENTIALLY. I think it is UNFAIR that we have to pay so much money for people who don't even legally belong here! This is why I am pro-Arizona Immigration Laws. I think that it should end up in the deportation of many undesirous illegals. Although some people say that these laws incorporate "racial profiling", police will only question people if there is a valid reason to suspect that they're here illegally, as said in the quotation from the Daily Postal.

What do you think?

Junior Theme Reflection

I am glad to be (almost) finished with the Junior Theme! Although this paper was the longest and most difficult paper of the school year, I have taken the most away from this essay. I have learned how to conduct a research essay, something that I never really learned before (The 8th grade research paper was more of a report, not really an analysis.). I believe that this experience will help prepare us for college, where we will be writing tons of research papers. I appreciate the somewhat open-ended form of the Bolos/O'Connor Junior Theme, where each student gets to pick his or her very own "why" question.

Most importantly, I learned how to assess the validity of certain sources and how to properly include a variety of scholarly sources in the paper. I also really improved on my quoting abilities, really condensing the quotes to only the necessary words or phrases that I need as support. I also made sure that everything in my essay somehow relates to my thesis/map -- no "fun facts" or unnecessary historical background information!

What are your views on the Junior Theme?

Junior Theme REVISED

I've had some difficulties with my Junior Theme, so I have had to reconstruct my map. My "why" question (Why do Americans use their cars as vehicles of self-expression?) is okay, but the body of my essay needs more emphasis on history.

My first bloc will be exploring how America's dependence on cars has come to be. I will be investigating the construction and costs of the interstate, suburbanization, how the interstate is superior to other means of public transportation, and how in many big cities the public transportation is inadequate, resulting in the need for cars.

My second bloc will be exploring cars' accessibility, relating to the postwar spending spree in America. I will also bring up the idea of how, currently, many Americans are attached to their cars.

My third blog will be about the "Americanism" of American cars, and how they are preferred over foreign cars, in many cases. I will also discuss the economic and governmental policies (tariffs, fuel costs, etc.) that have helped shape this realization.

My fourth bloc will be bringing up the idea that, because cars are so prominent in American culture, people use their automobiles as vehicles of self-expression, especially through bumper stickers.

Finally, my last bloc will be about status; you are what you drive. What does your car say about you?

If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please let me know. Also, if you are a student whose Junior Theme topic can be connected to mine, please let me know, and hopefully we can cite each other in our papers.

Junior Theme Update

I am well on my way with my Junior Theme. I have already written my introductory paragraph and will soon make an outline for my essay.

Yesterday, I had a telephone interview with Mark Gilman, Chairman of the Board of Gill Studios, which is the company that originated bumper stickers. Since part of my essay will be on bumper stickers and how they relate to Americans' expressions through automobiles, I thought that it would be a great opportunity to interview the head of the company where bumper stickers were created. Overall, the interview went well.

I first asked him, "Why do you think people buy bumper stickers?" He said that it was a "natural progression" and briefly described the history of bumper stickers and advertisement. I then asked him, "What do you think it says about someone if he/she buys a bumper sticker?" He then described some of the bumper stickers his company has been asked to make - some of which are outrageous - and said that some people feel really strongly on certain issues. He then explained how effective they were (not very effective), but people think that they are, which is in some cases why they have them. Lastly, I asked him, "Why do Americans choose to use the bumper sticker to express themselves instead of a yard sign? (What is it about the car?) He responded by mainly saying that, in a car, a person is isolated and insulated, so he/she can put a message on the car and still be protected.

I might interview another person who worked in the car advertisement industry in Detroit, MI. Any comments on the interview described above?

More on Junior Theme

I have been making progress on my Junior Theme. Again, my "why" question is: why do Americans use their cars as vehicles of self-expression? I have found probably around 10 articles and have already selected 3 books.

One element of my research is why many Americans use bumper stickers. A possible interview candidate is a professor from the University of Missouri who wrote a long article on bumper stickers. Another interesting fact I learned was that the more bumper stickers you have, the higher the probability that you'll resort to violence. I will hopefully try to find out more about the psychological reasons for having bumper stickers.

Another element of my research is examining why certain Americans buy certain cars. I think I will be reading a book on pick-up trucks, as well as mini-vans, to try and find out why certain cars appeal to certain people. In many cases, people buy certain cars because of their cultural values. For example, Mrs. Gressel told me that her sister, who lives in the Deep South, bought a pick-up truck, because that is sort of the "Southern culture".

I am reading my main book right now, and that is about car culture in America. It is basically describing the key roles that automobiles have played in American history.

What do you think?

Junior Theme Topic

I have finally narrowed down my Junior Theme topic, and it relates to cars. Specifically, the "why" question I will be investigating is: Why do Americans use their automobiles as vehicles of self-expression? I was either going to do this topic or something about gambling, and this one seems more interesting and applicable to me.

I will be investigating why many Americans personalize their automobiles, almost treating their cars as part of the family, and why certain Americans buy certain cars. I will look into why many Americans put bumper stickers on their cars. By letting the world know that their son/daughter is an "honors student" at ETHS, do they possibly feel the need to brag? Also, why are many people very possessive about their cars, constantly fixing and polishing them? Do they treat the car as a family member? And finally, I will be researching why certain cars, including their color and interior, appeal to certain people. Why don't many teenagers appreciate Buicks? Mrs. Gressel has shown me an encyclopedia of all of the cars in the 20th century, explaining which type of people each car attracted. I will definitely use this encyclopedia as a resource.

What do you think?

Public Transportation

One of my possible Junior Theme topics would be to investigate why humans depend on public transportation. I initially thought that humans depended on cars way too much; however, after I read an article from the Washington Post entitled "Public Transit Ridership Rises To Highest Level in 52 Years", and I was proven wrong.

According to the American Public Transportation Association President William Millar, "Now, more than ever, the value of public transportation is evident, and the public has clearly demonstrated that they want and need more public transit services". As of March 2009 (when this article was written), the amount of people using public transportation services was at its highest in 52 years. According to the above quote, it would behoove the lives of many people to increase the amount of public transportation available. Undoubtedly, less people are using cars - the opposite of what I had initially thought.

I am still amazed that public transportation is at its peak. Why is this? Is it possibly because cars are increasingly expensive? Is it possibly because the quality of many automobiles is declining and many car companies are going out of business? Could it be that people don't want to spend money on gas?

What do you think?

Best Blog Post of the Third Quarter

My best blog post this quarter is the one entitled "Effectiveness of Billboards". We spent a lot of class time reading about and discussing advertisement, so this blog really relates to what we learned in class. Also, I am challenging my beliefs in this blog post - I discuss how at first I believed that billboards were NOT effective, but after doing some research and reading an article from which I quoted in the blog, I changed my mind. I have a claim (that billboards are effective), evidence (quotes from the article), and I explain the evidence that I present.

Effectiveness of Billboards

In class recently, we have been discussing the different methods of advertising. Billboard advertising is very common; I see it on roads and highways. I generally only get a 2-4-second glance at each billboard, so I never really understood why people think they are effective. Our class discussion on billboards, as well as my skepticism, got me to do some research, and I have concluded that they are indeed effective.

I read an article written by Stephen Rampur entitled "Billboard Advertising Effectiveness". Advantages are discussed in the article, including the fact that many major businesses consider this form of advertising because of its "cost effectiveness and saving". Also, because of billboards' "colorful, innovative, and catchy product and service advertisements", billboards "create a brand awareness and a strong name recognition among passers-by". Not only are they economically beneficial to the companies, but billboards also really do capture the driver's attention, even though they are generally seen for only about 2-4 seconds. I can especially see how the ones advertising food are effective; if someone is hungry and there is a big McDonald's billboard, then the person may very well think, "hmm...I want McDonald's now". Also, the billboards advertising TV shows can be very catchy. I remember once I think I saw a catchy one that was somewhat funny, advertising the Bernie Mac Show or something like that.

Well, I guess I was wrong; billboards really are effective. What do you think?

Second-Hand Smoking: Fact or Fiction?

There are many people in America whose agenda is to condemn smoking. Now, it's not debatable that smoking is unhealthy, but when people start bringing up second-hand smoking, that is completely different.  The whole idea of second-hand smoking has never been proven, and although it is a possible hypothesis, some people have completely overreacted. For instance, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle outlawed smoking in every Wisconsin restaurant because he believes that smoking is not only harmful to those who smoke but also to people in the same environment. I believe that second-hand smoking is a myth, and it annoys me how people hype it up.

I read an article from ABC News entitled "Myth: Secondhand Smoke Is a Killer" written by John Stossel. According to the article, "[T]hey studied people who were exposed to lots of smoke, often shut in with chain smokers for years in claustrophobic situations like homes and cars. Even then, some of the studies found no effect. Nevertheless it's been enough to launch a movement to ban smoking most everywhere". Clearly, although few people may have been affected by second-hand smoking, there is not enough scientific data to prove that it's harmful in general. And, just like anything in life, there are people who exaggerate the dangers and actively try to ban smoking in public places. To support this assertion with specific studies, I read another article written by Michael Shaw entitled "Up In Secondhand Smoke: What Does Science Tell Us?". Scientists conducted a 39-year study on second-hand smoking, which involved 118,094 adults. They focused on over 35,000 who never smoked themselves but had a spouse with known smoking habits. And according to the article, the scientists concluded that "the results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality". The article also stated that the relation between exposure to smoke and heart disease and lung cancer "may be considerably weaker than generally believed".

I admit that smoking is unhealthy. But, as the evidence presented in this blog supports, it is unfair to ban smoking in public places because of the belief that smoking has a powerful effect on those in the vicinity. I think that second-hand smoking is largely a myth and that it's unfair of Doyle to ban smoking in restaurants in Wisconsin.

What do you think?

Gambling

When I was walking down the hall the other day, I heard some students talking about how they can't wait until they will be able to gamble. This reminded me of my personal beliefs on gambling: I think that it's wrong because it feeds on human greed and encourages people to place their trust in possessions. Plus, not many people benefit from gambling; more people end up losing their jobs, homes, and in some cases even lives due to gambling. It is for these reasons that I believe that casinos should be closed.

I read an article by Roger Dunstan, entitled "Economic Impacts of Gambling." Although he talks about the few benefits of gambling, such as the fact that building a casino can create more jobs, he discusses the many cons of gambling. For one, locally-owned business can easily go bankrupt because consumers and tourists have changed their monetary focus on casinos. Also, these casinos buy more out-of-state products than the businesses they replace. Another important fact is that casinos lead to increased social costs (such as police), as well as the costs of problem gamblers. Additionally, many families are broken and lives are ruined because of someone's gambling addiction and greedy belief that he/she can be fulfilled by a jackpot.

I think that the cons of gambling outweigh the pros. Although some jobs can be created, I do not believe that this is the best way. According to a commentator after the mayor of Chicago proposed a gaming project that was supposedly meant to help our economy, "We could create plenty of construction jobs by building brothels and opium dens." Clearly, he is being sarcastic. What he is saying is in agreement with my argument; just because jobs can be created doesn't make it right!

What do you think?

What is the best form of assessment?

I have been in school for quite some years now, and I have been exposed to many, many different forms of assessment: tests, quizzes, papers, projects, presentations, and even laboratories. Having been doing all of these for so many years, I have been thinking a bit...what is the BEST form of assessment?

Personally, I believe that the best form of assessment is a toss between non-multiple-choice tests and essays. The reason I say non-multiple-choice tests is because, in many cases, multiple-choice tests are nothing but tricks; they don't assess your knowledge, but they assess your ability to memorize really in-depth details. Free response tests are generally more broad but at the same time can be challenging. Also, in terms of essays, it is really important to take a rational stance and support your claims with evidence in an organized manner. Making an argument is a great form of assessment, to see how well the student can support what he/she is saying.

In many cases for projects, the more time spent is directly correlated with the overall grade. There have been projects on which I have spent hours on end and, consequently, received a good grade. Projects embrace creativity and can be very tedious. Although some people think that they are fun, I do not believe that these are the best form of assessment. Presentations are a nice way to introduce a certain topic (i.e., give a presentation on photosynthesis before you start studying it), but generally do not take as much thought as essays.

What do you think?

Were the Copenhagen climate talks a success or a failure?

I was thinking a little bit about the Copenhagen climate talks and their outcome. They were more prevalent in the news a few months ago, but some people still value their importance. These talks raised many controversial viewpoints from both Democrats and Republicans. Were the Copenhagen climate talks a success or a failure?

Personally, I believe that they were a failure. For one, they did not unite the two parties; it is even arguable that they split them apart even farther. Many Republicans believe that the statistics given on "global warming" were fudged; in fact, professors and scientists at a university in the United Kingdom have been researching the "global warming" facts presented to assess their validity because they are doubtful. This led to a sense of mistrust, the opposite of the initial goal of the talks. Additionally, the talks did not unite different countries together; they did just the opposite. According to the Financial Times, dated December 4, 2009, the environmental minister of India noted that he wants to improve the environment only for India's own self-interest. He said, "Forget Copenhagen. Forget the United States". Undoubtedly, he does not want to collaborate with other nations.

What do you think?

Should Blacks Be Given Reparations?

Yesterday in American Studies we discussed the whole concept of "reparations." I learned that reparations are not necessarily monetary. I found this subject very interesting and gave it some more thought.

My personal intake is that blacks should NOT be given monetary reparations. Would the point of giving them monetary reparations be to "pay off our guilt" (give them money to make us feel less guilty), or to actually help them? You see, the first possibility is to simply give them money so that we don't feel guilty anymore. Personally, I believe that this is an insincere way to apologize. For instance, if you get into a fight with your friend and really hurt his/her feelings, you don't just buy him/her a gift to make up for what you did wrong. The second possibility is to try to help the blacks in America by giving them reparations. Although this is good intent, I do not believe that it would end up working out as one may expect. Look at all of the welfare programs - I have not seen a ton of people benefit from these.

Slavery is a horrible aspect of our nation's history, and it should never be forgotten. But I believe that there are other ways to make it up to black Americans that don't involve giving them money. I have seen many benefits from affirmative action, for example. I also believe that slavery should be taught in schools and that museums should be made in recognition of slavery (like the Holocaust). This should raise people's awareness of the evil ways that blacks were treated and should hopefully stop the racism to a degree.

What do you think?

Is the US auto industry dead?

Over the last few months, many newspapers and journals have been shifting their focus to America's auto industry. There have been studies relating to costs, benefits, profits, etc. for each American car company (Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler). At the peak of the recession, General Motors and Chrysler were really down in the dumps and accepted government money, but Ford was always relatively strong and rejected any aid from the government. All of this raises the question, is the US auto industry dead?

Personally, I believe that the answer is NO. I have seen immense improvement in Ford (who wasn't even that bad to begin with) and especially GM. For one, according to the Wall Street Journal, Ford has lowered the cost of many of its vehicles, which has led to more cars being bought. Ford clearly understands that in such a recession people don't want to spend so much unnecessary money on a car. Consequently (and also according to the Wall Street Journal), Ford's annual profit for the year 2009 was $2.7 billion, compared to a LOSS of $14.7 billion the previous year. Wow! Ford's great techniques have really helped them! Additionally, GM has really improved, especially due to the fact that just last week they finally sold Saab to Spyker (a Dutch sportsmaker). According to the Financial Times, this trade resulted in GM obtaining $74 million up front, as well as $326 million in preferred shares. This money can really help General Motors. Also, many people refer to Buicks as "old people cars." Well, Buick was aware of this and, in order to gain more customers, has recently changed the design of many of its cars. For instance, they have made the new Lacrosse and Lucerne as European-looking sports sedans. Now, which is more appealing to the average American family, an "old person's car" or a European-looking sports sedan? I'd go with the sedan. This change in design has additionally helped GM, Buick specifically, gain more publicity.

What do you think?

Extra-Curricular Activities

As second semester juniors, our focus has somewhat shifted toward colleges and the application process. Advisers, teachers, and guidance counselors are emphasizing the importance of grades and "extra-curricular activities". My guidance counselor has noted that extra-curricular activities are just as important as grades, and I have heard from numerous reliable sources that in order to get into some top schools you must actively participate and excel in a high school sport.

I found this news somewhat shocking. I think that, quite frankly, it is quite a rip-off that most people must be involved in a sport in order to get accepted into a top school. What about those kids who aren't interested in sports? I don't see how COLLEGE (the place whose main focus is teaching academic rigor and preparing students for graduate school) admissions should be based off of something that isn't really related to learning. Although sports may make campus life more fun and entertaining, they have nothing to do with academics, the major focus of college.

Recently, these extra-curricular activities have been deemed just as important as grades. Personally, I am involved in quite a few extra-curricular activities (none of which are sports), and I really enjoy them. But aside from my personal bias, I don't think it's fair to weight non-academics just as much as actual academics and SAT/ACT scores. Colleges say that they want students who have good "time management." And they're failing to consider the whole concept that people have other non extra-curricular activity-related commitments that force them to balance their time wisely. For instance, say someone is on the basketball team, and practice is each night for 1 hour. This hour has been taken away from the student's homework time, so he must manage the rest of the night wisely. Now, say that there's another student who drives and picks up his/her sibling to and from piano lessons. Let's say that the place where the sibling gets his/her lesson is 15 minutes away from the house. So, you drive the sibling there and then return home, using up 30 minutes. When the lesson ends, you pick up the sibling and come back home, which takes another 30 minutes. AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU BOTH USED UP AN HOUR OF YOUR TIME, REGARDLESS OF THE REASON, AND MUST BALANCE THE REST OF THE EVENING WISELY. You see, it seems like colleges fail to take this into account. Now on the college resumes, the first student is going to say that he/she was on the basketball team. But the second one can't say, "I drove and picked up my brother/sister to and from piano lessons." That's not going to fly. It doesn't matter how the hour was spent; the point is that both of these students need to manage their time wisely.

What do you think?

Referendum: Good or Bad?

Recently, the New Trier Administration has spent much time trying to explain the "referendum" to parents and students. Today during advisory, we went and saw Dr. Dohrer's very persuasive speech about what the "newly constructed" NTHS is supposed to look like and all of its "advantages" that the current NTHS lacks. Some people were convinced whereas others were not. I have seen many lawn signs either supporting or refuting the referendum, so there are plenty of people who feel passionately about their beliefs regarding the referendum.

I must say, the NTHS Administration is being very partial in their claims. It is pretty evident that they want this referendum, as they over-exaggerate the current conditions of the school and spend very little time addressing the MAJOR tax increase that would occur should the majority of the people vote in favor of the referendum. Additionally, the administration is ambiguous in many of its claims. They have never addressed specifically how the referendum will improve the ability to use technology in classrooms (why, in every current classroom there is an overhead projector, computer, etc.). In a poorly-written letter to the parents, they said that some American Studies classes had to be conducted in an art room due to lack of space. I have NEVER heard of such a thing; first of all, I do not believe that there currently are any AS classes conducted in art rooms. I know many people in 4- and 9- level AS, and they are in a regular classroom on the 4th floor. Maybe once 3 years ago there was an AS class in an art room. Furthermore, I don't see how this is a problem. Students should be able to learn effectively no matter where they are - it could be in a garage. I don't see how the classroom itself interferes with the teacher's ability to TEACH the material well.

I am not so much attacking the referendum itself, just the administration's partiality. I do think that the new library, cafeteria, and gyms are much needed. But I don't know if it's worth it given the tremendous tax increase. I have not fully decided what I want (even though I don't even get to vote!). But I do think that it would be better if the administration disregarded its personal wishes when trying to explain the referendum to people.

What do you think?

The Truth About Multiple-Choice Tests

Earlier this week in American Studies, we spent a little bit of class time discussing multiple-choice tests. Essentially, we answered the question: Are multiple-choice tests an EFFECTIVE way of assessing one's knowledge? Multiple-choice tests are commonly used in school, but also for standardized achievement tests (like the ACT and SAT). Basically, many who work in the field of education believe that multiple-choice tests are great ways to test kids' knowledge.

On the other hand, I think that nowadays multiple-choice tests are horrible ways of testing kids' knowledge. I appreciate the whole idea, which is essentially to help kids by giving them all possible answer options so that they know that the answer is right in front of them somewhere and do not have to answer questions in their own words. But nowadays, educators have taken these tests to the next level. They put in so many tricks, awkwardly-worded questions, as well as the awful, horrible "mark all that apply" questions. I hope that these teachers realize that they are defeating the whole purpose of multiple-choice tests! They aren't even testing kids' knowledge; they are simply thinking of sly ways to trick the students! I thought that there was only supposed to be ONE answer, but these stupid "mark all that apply" questions break that rule! And the bad thing is that teachers don't even give partial credit for the "mark all that apply" questions - you either get it all right or all wrong.

I do believe that it is fair to put some trick questions on tests. But I think that they should be put on the short response/show your work section of the test so that kids can get partial credit. I am a big fan of partial credit (If you understand the problem and get it partially right, you should get some credit!), and the problem with multiple-choice tests is that they deny students the ability to receive partial credit.

What do you think?