Nick's American Studies Blog

And We Thought Carter Sucked

2010-11-17T00:59:00.000-06:00

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

2010-08-30T21:52:00.000-05:00

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

2010-05-25T20:10:00.000-05:00

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

2010-05-25T20:00:00.002-05:00

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

2010-05-20T22:39:00.000-05:00

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

2010-05-14T09:47:00.000-05:00

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

2010-05-06T18:45:00.000-05:00

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

2010-04-30T09:54:00.000-05:00

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

2010-04-22T20:29:00.000-05:00

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

2010-04-16T09:37:00.001-05:00

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

2010-04-08T09:44:00.000-05:00

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

2010-03-24T21:41:00.000-05:00

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

2010-03-24T17:05:00.000-05:00

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

2010-03-19T09:56:00.000-05:00

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?

2010-03-11T21:36:00.000-06:00

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

2010-03-04T09:59:00.000-06:00

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?

2010-02-24T09:58:00.000-06:00

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?

2010-02-16T20:51:00.000-06:00

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?

2010-02-12T09:42:00.000-06:00

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?

2010-02-03T10:08:00.000-06:00

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

2010-01-27T10:01:00.001-06:00

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?

2010-01-21T20:42:00.000-06:00

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

2010-01-06T09:48:00.000-06:00

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?

Child Sent to Principal for Writing Rush for President

2009-12-18T09:45:00.000-06:00

Not so long ago, at an elementary school in the Jacksonville, Florida area, the administration made a survey wherein they asked the students whom they would have wanted to be elected for president: Obama, McCain, or other. One of the students replied "other" and specifically wrote down "Rush Baugh" (he meant Rush Limbaugh, obviously); consequently, he was sent to the principal and his mother was called in. The administration told her that it was inappropriate for her son to write that and that she "shouldn't be throwing [her] views on him."

HOW INAPPROPRIATE IS THIS? Seriously? First of all, why would you ask 10-year-olds whom they want for president? I mean, they're 10 YEARS OLD; what do they know about politics? And, some of the kids do choose Rush Limbaugh, how is that a problem? YOU'RE THE ONES WHO ASKED THEM! (Not you, I mean the school...) I bet that if the kid had written Keith Olbermann, the school wouldn't have cared.

Maybe I'm overreacting. But still, it annoys me to see people (especially youth) undergo discrimination for being Conservative. The public schools are responsible for much of this anti-Conservative bigotry. And I thought it was their job to remain unbiased, not brainwash kids to the left.

What do you think?

Is English More Important Than Math?

2009-12-11T09:57:00.000-06:00

I saw on the graduation requirements for New Trier that is it necessary to take 4 years of English but only 3 years of mathematics. I thought that this was rather weird because I've always been told that math and English are the most important subjects that you can learn in school. But if this is truly the case, why isn't there a 4-year math requirement here?

English is extremely important, especially at the high school level. We learn how to compose analytical essays relating to the literature that we read. Learning how to read in between the lines (read on a deeper level) and write persuasive and cohesive papers is something that we will need to use for the rest of our lives. But whether you realize it or not, you will use the skills learned in math (I don't mean simple computation) in the real world as well. Math really teaches you how to think, how to solve real-world application problems, the step-by-step procedures of using logic, something that everyone needs. Memorizing really long formulas is not the point of math (unfortunately some people think it is); the point is to teach kids how to think logically.

Essentially, English teaches kids how to read, write, and argue. Math helps kids in solving real-world problems that require the use of logic. It seems like they are both equally important to me; therefore, there should be a 4-year math graduation requirement here at New Trier. But the thing about English is, even though many people speak it or are learning how to speak it, not everyone does. But math is a "universal" language - it doesn't take any certain language to understand the concepts of mathematics (so anyone can "speak math"!).

So what do you think? Is English more important than math? Should this graduation requirement be changed?

Stop Illegal Immigration

2009-12-04T10:35:00.000-06:00

I think that it's seriously about time to stop illegal immigration. I haven't seen much of an attempt to do this because many people don't realize that it is nothing but a detriment to our nation's economy and safety. The one politician whom I trust that has the capability of fixing this problem is Mitt Romney. He has a wonderful plan basically saying that if you stop giving them food, money, and jobs, they'll leave! I mean, seriously, is it that hard to understand? One of the problems I had with the Bush Administration is that they did not do enough to attempt to stop illegal immigration.

Since 1996, our nation has had to pay approximately $400,000,000,000 for social services for illegals. We are obviously in a tremendous amount of debt right now, and the last thing we need is to be paying 400 billion dollars for people who shouldn't even be here! Also, they are responsible for taking over 11 million SKILLED jobs. Now, pardon me for believing that these jobs should be handed over to the many, many unemployed legals in America who are willing to work hard. I mean, after all, they are the ones who live here legally. Additionally, since 1996 we have had to pay about 15 billion dollars for their education (K-12), which is incredibly unfair. We could have used all of this money to better the educational programs on which some schools need improvement.

The crime rate and drug trafficking has severely increased due to illegal immigrants. There are around 730,000 illegal alien fugitives. Many of the members of some of our nation's most vicious gangs that traffic drugs are illegals. The cost of incarcerations of illegal immigrants since 2001 is approximately $1,500,000,000. Plus, I watch America's Most Wanted sometimes, and many of the criminals wanted are illegal aliens.

Please don't misinterpret my argument. I am not against immigration, just illegal immigration. I just want to show you how detrimental it really is. If you want to come to America, please join us. But do so legally, and learn English.

(Note: these statistics were taken from an illegal immigration hotwire, immigrationcounters.com)

Capital Punishment

2009-11-27T12:42:00.000-06:00

Something tragic just happened in Florida. During a family celebration on Thanksgiving, a man shot his twin sisters, aunt, and 6-year-old cousin to death. This is obviously not the first time that something like this has happened, and it is not a pleasant thing to think about. But after I hear about these events occurring time and time again, I think about the appropriate consequences of these evil deeds. Should there be a death penalty?

Personally, I believe that there should be a death penalty. Well, it should only be used for very SERIOUS crimes–which would involve the death of at least 1 person–and there must be absolute 100% evidence that the criminal is guilty. This "absolute evidence" would entitle the use of DNA, fingerprinting, video cameras, witnesses, etc.

Let's look at Saddam Hussein. The man killed his entire soccer team for losing. He put his own people into plastic shredders. He ended up killing a grand total of approximately 200,000 of his own people. Now, this man is the definition of evil. As we probably all know, Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death by the Iraqi court. I personally think that the death penalty in this case is well deserved, but some people disagree with me. I mean, after Hussein committed all of those evil crimes, why should we have to pay for his cable TV in prison? Why should we have to pay for the many meals he will be eating in prison? It just doesn't make sense to me. For one, I think that if you are truly as evil as Hussein you don't deserve to live. And even if you were to live, you shouldn't be given such luxuries as cable television.

What do you think?

Thanksgiving

2009-11-19T20:06:00.000-06:00

As we all know, Thanksgiving is coming up relatively soon. Many people prefer to spend Thanksgiving with their friends and loved ones and stuff their faces with delicious food. In the spirit of the holiday, I read a poem about Thanksgiving written by Joanna Fuchs:

Thanksgiving Feasting

When the Halloween pumpkins are gone,
And the leaves have all fallen to ground,
When the air has turned windy and cold,
Then Thanksgiving will soon be around.

Thoughts of loved ones all feasting together,
Pleasant pictures from past times appear
To dwell in each heart and each mind--
Then Thanksgiving is finally here!

The kitchen has scrumptious aromas,
The dining room looks oh, so fine,
Decorations with pilgrims and turkeys,
And now we are ready to dine!

First the napkins are placed on our laps;
Now the prayer for the meal to be blessed,
Then we stuff the good food in our tummies,
And we hope for it all to digest!
By Joanna Fuchs

This poem got me thinking: Why shouldn't every night be a "Thanksgiving"? I mean, we obviously don't have to eat turkey every night, but why is it just once a year that we really show gratitude for everything that we have? Especially around here, we are very lucky and have many privileges that others do not. Although I really enjoy the food eaten on Thanksgiving, I believe that being thankful should be emphasized more than just once a year. One might even argue that you should be thankful for being born because the chances of life are so small. Anyway, the poem also got me thinking that possibly nowadays Thanksgiving's whole meaning (getting people to be thankful) has disappeared and that people only like the holiday for the food. My personal opinion is that being thankful is more important than the food, but obviously not everyone agrees.

What do you think?

Friday the 13th

2009-11-13T09:58:00.000-06:00

Many people think that Friday the 13th of any month is an unlucky day. If this is the case, then 2009 has really been an unlucky year; we have had 3 Friday the 13ths (one of which is today!), and this only happens every 11 years apparently. An article about this topic entitled "Friday the 13th: Your Luck Is About to Change" grabbed my attention.

America has a tremendous fear of the number 13. In fact, in many buildings, apartments, hospitals, etc., there is no floor 13! It simply goes from floor 12 to 14. How strange is that? I personally think that's an embarrassment; this superstition needs to stop! Many historical figures have also had an unusual fear of the number 13. FDR, for instance, never traveled on the 13th day of any month and never hosted a dinner party with 13 guests.

This belief (that numbers are connected to life and the physical world) is called numerology. It has had quite a history, and now it is considered a para-science, just like astrology (don't even get me started on how much I hate astrology!). According to professional numerologist Sonia Ducie, "Numerology can 'make sense' of an individual's life...by recognizing which number cycle they are in, and by giving them clarity."

There's one little tiny issue here (which is why mathematicians dismiss numerology): THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF OR SCIENTIFIC MERIT!!!!!!!!!!!! According to astrophysicist Mario Lirio, "Seemingly coincidental connections between numbers will always appear if you look hard enough." This is why I am so annoyed by things like numerology and astrology; they aren't real! I wouldn't mind if this stuff were made illegal, personally, because I really think that people need to accept the fact that this stuff is a load of junk and should be spending their time worrying about reality.

What do you think?

Sarah Palin & The 2008 Election

2009-11-05T22:33:00.000-06:00

Approximately a year ago from now, we found out that McCain/Palin lost the 2008 election. Did you listen to McCain's concession speech? Well, if you did, you'll notice that it was pretty clear that Sarah Palin was standing near John McCain on the stage, but she did not say one word. Instead, McCain recited the entire speech himself.

I watched a 2-minute clip relating to this subject, and I found out that Sarah Palin actually wanted to speak. According to this video (taken from ABC News), in Palin's concession speech she would "praise" John McCain as a hero and explain how she believes that our country will do just fine under Barack Obama's presidency.

You're probably wondering, "Why couldn't Palin deliver her speech if she wanted to?" And the answer that the video presents is: the McCain Administration didn't trust her. No specifics as to why or how they didn't trust her were mentioned; maybe they thought she would mess up, were angry at her, etc. If Palin had something nice to say, I don't understand why they wouldn't let her speak. I think that it is unfair that she didn't get her voice heard. Don't get me wrong - McCain should have definitely delivered his wonderful speech - but Palin should have been given the right to speak as well. After all, she would have been our nation's Vice President, a very important role in our nation. Plus, many Republicans support Palin and think that she has future potential in the Republican Party. And if you think about it, between McCain and Palin, Palin is the real Conservative - McCain is only a Moderate Republican.

What do you think? Why didn't the McCain Administration want Palin to speak? In your opinion, should she have been given the right to speak?

Should American History Be A Graduation Requirement?

2009-10-26T21:07:00.000-05:00

So far at New Trier, I have taken World History, Modern World History, and I am currently taking American History obviously. I am really fortunate to have been able to learn about various different parts of the world and their historical significance. However, whenever I take a course (regardless of the subject material - could be math, science, social studies, etc.), I always ask myself the same question, "Should this be a requirement?" I even ask myself this question when I'm taking courses that are NOT graduation requirements. And this blog will discuss whether American History should be a graduation requirement.

From the start, I think it is extremely important to learn about the country in which you live. After all, that is essentially your country - it shapes your everyday life and is arguably part of who you are - making it important for you to learn about. Plus, many people believe that the country in which we live is the greatest on Earth, due to its many significant historical figures, pure freedom, and magnificent world-wide contributions. So, if you are one of many people who believe that America is the greatest country on Earth, you will probably find it necessary to learn about America's history.

However, some people do not find it enjoyable or necessary to learn about US history. Some believe that we should spend more time in school learning about other nations in South America, Europe, Africa, and Asia. Also, many people believe that people should be given the choice to take whatever history courses they desire; if one does not wish to enroll in a US history course, he or she should not have to. Additionally, some people think that America is not that great of a country, so they find no need to learn about its history.

Personally, I believe that American History should be a graduation requirement. I think that there are so many important aspects of America's history that should definitely be taught to students. For example, I find it important to learn about many great American historical figures - such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Benjamin Franklin, etc. - whose great minds and contributions have shaped America and other parts of the world. I also think it's essential to learn about America's major contribution in WWII, possibly one of the world's most significant occurrences. Basically, because America has a rich history and has strongly impacted other countries, it is important to learn about its history.

What do you think?

To how much privacy should we be entitled?

2009-10-19T19:16:00.000-05:00

Today in American Studies, we had a discussion on privacy. Should privacy be a right? How much privacy should everyone be allowed to have? I was wondering about these questions, and even came up with my own: Should there be a school directory, or is that an invasion of privacy?

I believe that privacy should definitely be a right. However, there are appropriate times when you must "give up" your privacy. For example, if you're registering your kid at a certain school, you must give the school your name, phone number, home address, email address, etc. But you should only have to "give up" your privacy when necessary; it is NOT necessary to share any of your personal information with a telemarketer, on-line website, etc. (unless you want to...). And, of course, there are certain things that you should never have to tell anyone, like your social security number (unless you're applying for a job). Basically, I believe that each person should have the right to disclose however much about him/herself as he/she desires, but at the same time, there are certain times when one must disclose some of his/her personal information in order to accomplish something (like school registration).

I think that having a school directory IS an invasion of privacy. I believe that, if you want the school to put your address and phone number in a book that everyone will see, you should have the right to; but if you don't, then it shouldn't be a requirement. There will always be people who abuse directories and take other people's addresses and phone numbers and use them in the wrong way (like prank calling). And besides, there are some people who just don't feel comfortable knowing that 4000 other students can look up their address and phone number. I think that we should respect these people and, consequently, not list their address and phone number in the directory.

What do you think?

Obama Winning Nobel Peace Prize

2009-10-16T10:02:00.000-05:00

Everyone knows that President Obama recently won the Nobel Peace Prize. He accepted it as a "call to action" to work with other nations in attempt to resolve current issues. I wanted to look into Obama's winning this prize, so I read an article about the subject entitled "Obama: Nobel Peace Prize 'a call to action.'" I tried to be open-minded, so I got this article from msnbc.

Personally, I never understood why Obama won this award. He hasn't done much for America, and a lot of what he has done has actually hurt our economy. And, importantly, Obama hasn't done anything for peace or humanity, the whole point of winning the award! According to the article, though, "Nobel officials said their stunning pick was meant to build momentum behind Obama's initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism." Essentially, they gave him the award because they thought that it would help to resolve current issues.

So apparently, the Nobel officials did have a rationale for selecting him. But I still don't understand their logic. How can giving him the Nobel Peace Prize possibly ease tensions with the Muslim world? I just can't quite grasp the concept that giving someone an award will all of a sudden lead to world peace!

I think that there might be other motives behind the Nobel officials' giving Obama the award. This may have been a "stab" at former President George Bush. Maybe the Nobel officials are so happy that Bush is gone (because they think he was a horrible president) that they gave Obama this award to rub it in Bush's face.

What do you think?

What is race?

2009-10-07T10:15:00.000-05:00

This week in American Studies, we have been discussing race. What is race? How would we define it? The documentary we watched added to this theme. Personally, this theme grabs my attention, and I have taken some time to think about it outside of school.

My definition of "race" is someone's ethnic background, relating to the countries from which his or her ancestors came. Race and religion are completely separate, and someone's race is not always related to his or her skin color. In my opinion, "white" and "black" are NOT races; they are simply skin colors. "British," "French," "Chinese," "African," etc. are races, as they are adjectives describing actual countries and continents.

Different races have different values and cultural aspects; no race is the exact same as another, although some may be similar. For example, the Asian culture strongly promotes education. Some races do not get along well with each other because they have different beliefs. For instance, the Israelis and Palestinians are in conflict because they disagree on who should be given Israel. In the United States, we have gotten to know many different races because so many people of different ethnic backgrounds have immigrated here.

I am interested in hearing your opinion...

2016 Summer Olympics

2009-10-02T10:10:00.000-05:00

The host city of the Games will be announced today. Some people are very excited and, especially around here, want Chicago to be the host city. Personally, I have always enjoyed the Olympics and am hoping that Chicago will be the host city.

I read an article entitled "Ten Reasons Why Chicago Should Host the 2016 Olympic Games" (written by Sophia S. Mark). It was a pretty convincing article. Obviously, we don't have time to discuss all 10 reasons, so I'll talk about the ones that I find most important and interesting.

For one, Chicago has a lot of different ethnic neighborhoods, so it is a very welcoming city. Say that someone visiting from Greece becomes homesick. He/she can just go on over to Greektown. Say that someone visiting from China becomes homesick. He/she can just go on over to Chinatown. You get the idea...

Also, Chicago cabbies are extremely aggressive. Not only does the article say this, but I have also personally experienced aggressive cab drivers here. If someone is running late for an Olympic event, the cabbie will have no issue getting that person to the event as quickly as possible.

It is my personal belief that Chicago is the most beautiful and tourist-friendly city among the different candidates. Miggs Field, with its majestic view of Lake Michigan and downtown Chicago, is a wonderful place for the Olympics.

What are your beliefs about this topic?

Obama on Late Show with David Letterman

2009-09-24T22:04:00.000-05:00

I was reading this article from the Los Angeles Times called "Obama gets personal on the 'Late Show with David Letterman.'" Obviously, Obama got quite personal in his interview with Mr. Letterman. He talked a bit about his daughters' lives inside and outside of school, a movie that he and his wife have recently seen, and some of his dates with his wife. In addition to talking about his personal life and his daughters, Obama brought up some controversial topics like race, healthcare, and the situation in Afghanistan.

After reading this article, I couldn't help but wonder if there is something a bit strange about this whole incident. Should the president of the United States be allowed to go on a comedy show? I mean, obviously he has the right to, but should it be encouraged?

Personally, I don't think that having the president on a comedy show (which would include Saturday Night Live as well) should be encouraged. In my opinion, the president has by far the hardest and most serious job in the nation -- in many senses, our safety and well-being lies in his hands. Therefore, I think that the president must make it clear to the people that he is a very serious person, as his job must be taken seriously. And comedy is the opposite of seriousness. So, by going on a comedy show, the president is not giving the right impression to the citizens of the United States.

I am interested in hearing your opinion...

The Impact of our Environment

2009-09-21T19:17:00.000-05:00

Last week in American Studies, we discussed the thematic question "How does our environment impact the way we act?" when talking about certain characters in Reservation Blues. This question is extremely applicable, and everyone can relate to it.

It's not at all a bad thing to "change" your personality/appearance when you're around different people -- it can actually be pretty wise. For instance, if you are in a college interview, you probably don't want to act like you would around your friends. And you would probably talk to your school principal differently than you would to your parents. Essentially, you act differently around different people because some people are more formal than others and you don't feel as comfortable around certain people as you do, say, your best friend.

Some people, though, see this change in behavior as superficial and fake. Is it possible that they're right? Should we always act the same way and never "disguise" our true behavior? Let's say you have a job interview, and the interviewer doesn't appreciate your "casual" behavior. You don't act too smart; you just act like you normally do around your friends. However, had you changed your behavior and sucked up a little, the interviewer would have loved you and given you the job.

Now, this leads us to the important question: Is it morally right to alter the way you act around different people? Personally, I think it is. Not only will it help you (like in a job interview), but I also believe that it is a good human quality, and your instincts tell you to do so.

Voting

2009-09-10T20:40:00.000-05:00

Voting is an American right, a right that many people consider us fortunate to have because many other countries are not democratic. However, I have been questioning the "wonderfulness" of voting and have found some flaws.

First of all, I don't know if 18-year-olds should have the right to vote. For one, they can't even drink. Personally, I think it's absolutely preposterous that someone can have a say in who becomes president of the United States but can't even have a glass of wine. Also, many of them are still in school. Most educated and well-informed voters have experience. And, honestly, how much worldly experience can an 18-year-old possibly have? Also, many political issues are extremely controversial and require a tremendous amount of understanding. Your brain doesn't fully develop until you're in your twenties, so in many cases, some of these political issues would be a bit too difficult for an 18-year-old to fully comprehend. I am 16 years old (which is pretty close to 18), and there are plenty of economic issues that I don't understand that well. Additionally, because of school, most 18-year-olds don't have full time jobs, and some of them don't even have any jobs. I think that voting is a responsibility (it takes a lot of work to become well-informed and truly comprehend controversial political topics). And how responsible can you be if you don't have a (full time) job? After all, jobs require a lot of responsible work.

Second of all, I'm not sure if everyone's vote should be counted equally. I think that people who serve their country (in this case, the United States) in the military should have the biggest say. I mean, they risk their lives in order to help defend their country. As they work really hard to serve their country and face plenty of life-threatening obstacles while doing so (and many, unfortunately, don't even make it home), I think that people in the military should be given an enormous voice voting-wise. It's sort of like a gift; they do something nice for America, and America gives them the biggest say in who becomes president. This is the only circumstance under which I would be okay with an 18-year-old voting, because there are plenty of 18-year-olds in the military.

I'm interested in hearing what you think...

Americans & Science... A Good Match?

2009-09-07T14:15:00.000-05:00

Nowadays, it seems like much less people have an interest in science. In fact, there are currently less science majors in universities than there have been in previous years. But one would think that, with all of the scientific advances in America, there would be more science majors nowadays than ever. Science is a wonderful and essential subject matter that shapes every single aspect of our universe. Without science, we would be nowhere.

I read an article called "Bringing science back into America's sphere" by Lori Kozlowski. In her article she states that half of American adults don't know that the Earth orbits the sun once a year. Clearly, much more people need to be educated scientifically. But, why aren't they? Is it because they think that learning science will challenge their religious views? Or is it because they were just never taught that much science in school? Well, according to journalist Chris Mooney, none of these is the case. He says, "Science has become much less cool." So, maybe this is the answer -- people have no interest in learning something "boring" and "uninteresting." Maybe the schools are the ones to blame here.

I am going to agree with Mooney. I think that, should the schools make scientific studies more interesting and applicable, more students will be interested. When I took biology, sure I learned the parts of the cell and memorized a million vocabulary terms relating to human anatomy and physiology (which was NOT fun), but I never really learned how applicable it is, which is something I would've liked to learn (If I'm studying something, I want to know how useful it is!). So maybe we should've spent less time memorizing all of those terms and more time learning how and why biology is "essential."

Once students become more interested in science, they will be willing to study it much more. And then, maybe a lot more discoveries can be made. But again, the key to making kids like science more is to improve the ways of teaching it in school.

First REAL Post

2009-08-30T15:17:00.000-05:00

Why do so many people in the United States take a foreign language?

This is something I've never fully understood. I take a foreign language (Spanish) for pure enjoyment; I like learning languages. However, it seems like everyone around the world knows English. In foreign nations, most people involved in the industries of business and tourism speak English. And why would an American visit a foreign country, besides for vacation or business purposes? Clearly, it is more important that people in other countries learn English than we learn other languages. Maybe so many people here take a foreign language in high school because they think it'll help them get into a good college. Or, maybe they just think it's important to know another language. But at the same time, if it's so important, then why isn't it a requirement to take a foreign language at New Trier?

First Post

2009-08-28T14:54:00.000-05:00

This is my first post! Yeah!