4th Quarter Meta Post

What I think this class aims to do is help its students look at America in a new way because of the ideas that we study and discuss.  What I struggled to see at the beginning of the class was how the blog that we were continuously writing played into that goal.  However, I learned as the year went on was that the blog was a way to show that because of what we have done in class, you look at situations in a critical, informed and new way.

I think the post that best fits the purpose of the blog that I have written thus far is my latest post entitled College Movies.  I am pleased with this post because it is a great example of me looking at media in a new way because of an idea we drew out in class throughout the entire year.  The post was about a skit that I saw on television that I first thought was just an observation about the plots of movies.  Without the skill I acquired in American Studies this year, that would have been the length to which I understood and thought about the skit.  But this year I have learned to think critically about media through projects like the TV Tokenism presentation and class discussions.  Thus when I saw this skit, I took the time to think about what message it was really trying to convey and because I did that, I was able to understand that the skit was really much more meaningful than it seemed at first glance.


I then understood that the skit was in reality, a commentary on an idea that we continuously discussed this year, the inevitablity  of upperclass whites going to colleger versus the question of lower class minorities going to college.  


While I think my blogging has improved drastically this year, I still understand that I have a long way to go.  I understand that there are still many problems with the post.  For example, I didn't find an article or piece of media to connect my observations to.  Without being grounded in fact, my observations were too general.  I should have looked harder for a study or article to support a statement like "It seems that for many upper class citizens, education comes second to socialization while attending college."  That would have made the article more interesting and increased my credibility as an author.


Overall, blogging this year has helped me not only increase my skills as a writer but has also given me a reason to think more critically and deeply about situations I would normally find mundane and uninteresting. 

College Movies

The video you just watched is a skit from "Key and Peele", a comedy sketch series staring two black comedians.  I thought this skit was hilarious but I am mainly posting it because I really think it touches on and idea we have talked about extensively in class this year.

For most upper class high school students, a vast majority of which are white, attending college isn't a question but rather an inevitability.  With financial security and outstanding education, upper class people don't have to worry about being able to attend college.

On the other hand, as the two comedians, Michael Key and Jordan Peele point out, for lower class citizens, most of which are minorities, college is a goal, not a gift.  Lower class citizens don't have advantages like excellent high school education, private standardized testing tutoring, college advice and most importantly, the ability to pay for college.  So the ability to go to college is by no means a given and something that many student have to work exhaustively to achieve.

Another interesting point that the comedians make is that college is often taken for granted by those who don't have to earn it.  It seems that for many upper class citizens, education comes second to socialization while attending college.  While I couldn't find any sources to support this, I personally have spoken with multiple upper class college students who have mentioned ditching class and putting partying before things like homework and studying.

 Meanwhile, they point out that college is taken very seriously by those that have to earn it.  I believe that this is because when you have to work as hard as many do to get to college, you truly understand what it means to be there.  Mr. Bolos gave the class an interesting personal example a few weeks ago about how when he was in college, he never ditched a class because he understood that one class period could cost hundreds of dollars out of his pocket.

Over all, I thought that this was a hilarious but insightful commentary on how class affects people's perception of a college education.  Please comment with you're opinions!

NATO Protests

With the NATO Summit in Chicago this weekend, I have been paying special attention to the news.  I have been thinking alot about the protests this weekend to be honest they have striked me as a bit hypocritical.

I read an article that explains the violent encounters that have happened so far and while there have been no real riots, there have been multiple violent encounters that seem to have been initiated by the protesters.

This instances include charging police lines, throwing bottles at policemen and slashing the tires of police vehicles.  Interestingly, there has been a great deal of public outrage both on the news and on Facebook about a protestor being run over by a police van.  But after some reseach, I found that the man was trying to swarm a police van to slash it's tires.

What I find hypocritical about the protests is that they are protesting for peace yet doing so with violence. While browsing the interned for photos, I was struck by overwhelming irony. I saw photos of people holding up signs that called for no war, peace and called NATO a "War Machine" along side photos of protesters attacking the policemen who are designated to keep peace.

While I completely understand and accept the protestor's right to march, it makes me angry to think about how wrongly the protestors are protesting.  It seems obvious to me that protests for peace should be peaceful.

Parenting and Video Games

As technology evolves, it is becoming harder and harder for parents to regulate what their children are exposed to.  This is a very interesting part of my paper about video game regulation and why it is so controversial.  The dilemma is that the government regulating these games make some parents feel like the government is violating their role to make choices for their children.  But at the same time, for many parents, it is hard to really control what there kids are exposed to, especially if government makes violent video games easily available.


There are many scientific studies that link playing violent video games to stunted social and psychological development.   (look to my previous post for more details)  With this in mind, many compare the regulation of violent video games to the regulation of cigarettes, where the harm is too clear to leave to the discretion of parents.  But, since the harm is less quantifiable or tangible for violent video games, regulating them is more controversial and complicated.


As the Entertainment Merchants Association believes, "Parents are looking for help. They are not looking for government to tell them what's 'right' for their children and what's 'wrong.'" (EMA fyi)  So as you can see, many believe that the government should let parents make their own decisions.

Is Stunted Social Development Worth Our Civil Liberties?

Earlier this year, as I am sure many of you remember (in agony), we wrote a paper on civil liberties in war time.  Now there were certainly the extremes on both sides, but most of you probably wrote that it was acceptable to violate civil liberties for the sake of national security.  Well, my junior theme has made me revisit this very topic only it is a little different this time.  I am exploring why video game regulation is so controversial.

Just to give some brief background information, the current state is that video games are completely self regulated.  There are ratings and some stores do enforce them, however technically speaking, it is your constitutional right to buy games like Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto and even a game like Postal (where you can corpses on fire, mutilate/decapitate other players etc.) even if you are, say 12 years old.  It is similar to the way some coffee shops don't serve caffeinated beverages to particularly young children, parents are advised about the risks, venders are told to use discretion, but at the end of the day, it is your first amendment right to buy that product.  There have been 9 separate attempts to change this, but every time, the supreme court has deemed regulating video games unconstitutional.

Now, back to civil liberties.  The reason so many states want to regulate these games is that recent studies show that exposure to violent video games certainly causes adolescents to feel more aggressive and less sensitive and in some cases, could cause adolescents to act more aggressively.  Take a look at this summary from the American Psychological Association of the more important studies regarding violent video game exposure over the past decade.   But its not that simple, the studies do not prove that violent video game cause adolescents to ACT aggressively, they only prove that adolescents tend to FEEL more aggressive after playing them.  And Many aren't sympathetic to kids feeling aggressive enough to give up essential liberties.

Surprisingly, even with this research however, not one single case out of nine has resulted in allowing lawmakers to abridge Civil Liberties.  What do you think?  Do you think the scientific findings of the past decade pose a legitimate threat to American citizens and merit the regulation of violent video game sales to minors?