Obama Winning Nobel Peace Prize

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?

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

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

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

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

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?

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.