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?

Has Music Become White Noise?

I have been talking to people about how and when they listen to music lately and their answers have seem to conclude that for many, music has become a form of white noise.  We talked alot in class about how white noise is something that people tend to use to help the brain focus.  For example, Mr. Bolos said that sometimes he would turn on TV static during tests to help students focus.  It seems that many people now use music for the same purpose.

This is actually a big component of my junior theme topic in which I will try to explain why so few young people listen to jazz.  I think Jazz is dead in part because it really can't be used as white noise.  I think good jazz commands attention making it hard to focus on anything else while listening to it.  Thus people turn to music that will wash over them without distracting them from a seperate activity.

It seems to me that people rarely really sit down and pay attention to what's coming through their ipods.  Music is mostly in the background, playing while "listeners" study or work out or drive.

This might account for why popular music, especially lyrics has devolved.  Given the purpose it serves, it wouldn't make sense for modern popular music to have compelling and poetic lyrics like those of the Frank Sinatra song, "The Way You Look Tonight" shown in the picture to the right.  Rather, generic and meaningless lyrics that wash over listeners without grasping any attention like those of the Justin Bieber song "Baby" make more sense.  People don't look to music for primary entertainment anymore but rather as background white noise or "muzak".

Is it Racist When You Make Fun of Yourself?

Russel Peters is one of my favorite comedians but given our classes discussions about racism lately, I have come to question the nature of his humor.  Peters is Indian and surprisingly most of his jokes are at the expense of his own race.

After watching the video to the right, do you think that Peter's is being offensive?  On one hand, Peters is making fun of a race of people, and one could think that the fact that he happens to be a member of that race is irrelevant.  He is still being racist because he is stereotyping Indian people in a derogatory way.

However, on the other hand, you could say that Peters is making jokes at his own expense and thus is not being racist or offensive.  I would be curious to know what your opinion is.  Do you think Peters is being offensive?

Criminal Minds Tokenism

Criminal Minds Tokenism

            Refuting Thesis-

            -refutes best dressed man

            -refutes the idea that minorities are underdeveloped stiff and distant characters

            -refutes the idea that minorities get less screen time

            -refutes the idea that minorities are only engaged romantically with other minorities

Supporting Thesis-

            -Minorities dealing with minority problem-father dying from gang violence, rough unsafe neighborhood, inadequate education,

Overall Opinion-

Over all I believe that Criminal minds mostly refutes Mr. Bolos’ thesis.  Derek Morgan is a fully developed character with a complex past.  He dresses casually and has a passionate, funny and loveable personality.  However I did notice that the show does support that minorities have to deal with minority problems.

Watch What You Say

Recently, an ESPN news reporter was suspended for using a racial slur that reefers to Chinese people while referring to Basketball’s newest phenomenon, Jeremy Lin.  It seems pretty straight forward, but here’s the catch, he used the slur in the following way.  “Chink in the Armor: Jeremy Lin's 9 Turnovers Cost Knicks in Streak-Snapping Loss to Hornets.” 

While you could certainly argue otherwise, let’s assume for the purpose argument that the use of the slur was in fact a total, subconscious accident.  My question is was his punishment justified, and if not is it to harsh or maybe to forgiving?

On one hand, the phrase he used is a commonly used expression.  Let’s not forget that the word “chink” is in fact a word that is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as “to crack” so given the context, its other meaning as a racial slur is completely unrelated.  Thus his use of it was perfectly justified and no punishment should be necessary.

On the other hand, as a person with such a strong voice in society, it is imperative that you watch what you say.  Obviously the word he used is incredibly offensive in certain contexts, so it could be argued that his punishment was necessary to teach him to watch more carefully what he says.

I think this whole incident really speaks to American Society.  What does it say about our society that one can’t even use a common expression without offending an entire race of Americans?  This is to the point that as soon as this announcer said the phrase, people immediately accused him of being a racist.  I think Americans tend to be so racially sensitive that they are actually adding to racism.

Respect for You're Enemy

While researching for my last blog post, I found an article that I wanted to blog about but thought I should talk about it in a seperate post.  Here is the article.  I chose to blog about this incident in a seperate post because I think they are two very different situations.  In the first post, while contrevercial, the soldiers could have simply been misleaded.  This, however, is disgusting and unacceptable.  

As you can see, a video has been leaked of marines urinating on the bloodied bodies of Taliban fighters.  Apparently in the video, one of the marines says, "Have a great day, buddy".  The Taliban responded to the video in the following way, "We strongly condemnthe inhuman act of wild American soldiers, as ever, and consider this act in contradiction with all human and ethical norms.”    Hilary Clinton, secretary of state, indicated that "It is absolutely inconsistent with American values and the standards we expect from our military personnel.”  

I realize that I could never understand what soldiers who serve abroad are going throught.  This was the marines' second tour of afghanistan.  The stress they were under must be immeasurable but something must be done to preven such acts of inhumanity.  Perhapes better counseling to teach respect for enemy or stress relief should be offered.  Something must be done to preserve the values and ideals America stands for.

Symbols

Religious rights activists have recently called for the prosecution of a Scout Sniper team stationed in Afghanistan after the release of the photo to the right.

If you don't recognize the lower flag they are posing by, it is the flag of the Nazi SS.  The Marines claim that many Scout Sniper squads use it because the two S's represent "Scout Sniper".  They argue that, while they understand it might have and offensive connotation, they do not mean it to have any affiliation to the Nazi SS.

Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation believes that “If these guys just get a non-judicial punishment, it’s absolutely absurd.”  Thus far there has been no judicial punishment, however the scouts have been removed from Afghanistan.  A Marine official argued that, “We don’t believe these Marine Corps snipers had a historical appreciation for what this symbol meant.”


While it is hard for me to criticize the actions of those who chose to serve while I am here at home, far out of harm's reach, it is hard for me to accept that there are no other connotations other than the acronym.  There are plenty of ways to display the two letters, SS, why do they feel the need to display the exact flag of one of the most horrible organizations ever to exist.  It is my opinion that while there should be no judicial punishment, Marine officials would be more aggressive in making sure that such a sensitive issue is left alone.


Please comment with your opinion!

Getting to Ground Level

Ideas have never been a problem for me.  What I struggle as a writer with is not the initial brainstorming period but rather the hard work of taking that idea with such potential and turning it into a clear and cohesive argument. As my Dad always says when taking a look at my writing, "Aidan, your always at the 5000-foot level."  What he means is that when I write, I tend to stay at a conceptual and philosophical level and rarely do the work of explaining my points and arguing them through evidence and analysis.  I think this issue has really showcased itself in my earlier blog posts. Through blogging every week, however, my writing has progressed to where I think I am able to express my ideas in a much more clear, cohesive and creative way.  While there are certainly many other changes present in my blog, for this post I would like to focus solely on this particular improvement  which I believe to be the most substantial.

In my second blog post, A Violent Interest, I explored American's fascination in violence (serial killers, violent video-games, tv shows/movies). Mr. O'Connor posted the following comment on this post, "Aidan, Good topic to explore (and a potential JT topic). In order to plumb the depths of this issue fully, it might be nice to anchor your ideas to a text." This is what I have been hearing since middle school, great idea, no followthrough.  The argument I made lacked any evidence, analysis ore even any clear claim.  Thus the post wasn't really an argument at all but rather ramblings on only the beginnings of a claim.  A collection of unanswered questions.  I wrote the post the second I had the idea and didn't take the time and effort to form a clear viewpoint and argue that viewpoint, thus the post never became what it could have been.

With Mr. O'Connors advice in mind, I tried to ground every post from then on in a text and I focused on making every post a structured argument or conversation instead of ramblings about a thought that crossed my mind.  I think my most recent blog posts are fair representations of my progress in getting down to ground level with my writing.  I am particularly proud of a very recent post entitled, Success, which talks about the American notion of what success is and how it is in contrast to what I believe success truly is.  My argument is grounded in multiple texts and I think the post has a clear and supported claim.  I argue that Americans have come to believe that success is measured in money and power and in the following excerpt I quote a homeless woman talking about true success and analyze her words.

"One of the interviewees named Dani stated that 'I feel successful just being alive.'" and that 'I just want to be me. That’s all. That’s my idea of success. Just to be myself.' Dani also expressed, 'I don’t want all that stuff and to wind up not a good person.'" 

First of all, I believe this is a powerful quote that services my argument nicely.  In the following excerpt, I attempt to analyze and explain my quote.

"How can Dani call herself successful if she is neither wealthy nor is she powerful?  Because Dani finds success not in materialistic things like money which only corrupt people, but  rather in morals and character.  Dani believes that you can have nothing, and be more successful than any multi-millionare as long as you are a kind, caring and happy person who is true to his or her self."

I believe that this is a major improvement from my blog posts earlier this year but I also see plenty of room for improvement.  For example, I tied my argument to an interesting text, however the analysis of the text could use some work.  I never pulled out and explained specific words.  My analysis only scratched the surface of what I could have done with the text.  


I look forward to further improve my writing in the semester to come.

The Place of the News

I noticed the following video posted on Facebook recently.  When you watch the video below, try to think less about the interviewee, as tempting as it may be, but rather think more about the interviewer.  Think about how the questions are being posed and try to determine his intentions.

Once I got over how overwhelmingly ignorant Senator Santorum sounded, I started to think about how this story was told.  I think we can all agree that the interviewers views and opinions were very clearly expressed both in is questions and responses to the Senator.  To me, it felt more like a debate or even an interrogation than an interview.

Although Senator Santorum is chiefly responsible for how he appears in this video, the certainly did not help.  I believe it is the place of the news to simply report events, or in this case, allow someone to express their views in a non-judgemental environment and allow the viewers to judge for themselves.  I could be wrong but it seems to me that this is not what is going on in this video.  The interviewer's harsh tone of voice and constant interruptions showed that Fox News was clearly trying to portray Senator Santorum in a specific manner, which is absolutely not their job.  Santorum was asked harsh and judgmental questions and then often wasn't even allowed to express his views fully due to the interviewer constantly interrupting.  Then to top it all off, the interviewer read the quote about mixed races in the army to Santorum as if to say "gotcha".   Fox was clearly trying to invoke a specific reaction, which robs us of the potential for individual thinking and making our own decisions.

This clip has really made me think about the stories we are told, particularly by the news.  In this case, the bias was fairly obvious, but it make me wonder, how often does this happen?  How often are components of stories left out, or are people portrayed in a certain light because it makes a better, more provoking story?

What do you think the place of the news is?

Success

"I just want to be me. That’s all. That’s my idea of success. Just to be myself."


Today in American Studies, we talked about how parent's work tirelessly so that their children can be successful.  I started to think about what success means in modern American society.  It seems to me that Americans generally associate success with money, power and things like cars, nice clothes and big houses.  The dictionary definition of success is actually quite fitting.  It reads as follows, "the attainment of wealth, position, honors, or the like."  It is hard for me to accept such a shallow definition which only allows rich and important people to be successful.  


Many of my heros and role models do not fit this criteria, but I would certainly think they are successful.  I will take one example, Clifford Brown.  Clifford Brown was and still is looked at as one of the greatest Jazz trumpeters ever to be heard.  He was certainly not wealthy, nor was he powerful, however he did what he loved and used his creativity and ability to create beautiful music and make a difference.  I see this as incredible success.


During my research for this blog post I found a project entitled What It Means To Be Successful: Lessons From the Lives of Homeless Women.  I strongly suggest reading more than the mere quotes and excerpts I can offer in this post, this collection of oral histories is truly eye opening.  One of the interviewees named Dani stated that "I feel successful just being alive." and that "I just want to be me. That’s all. That’s my idea of success. Just to be myself." Dani also expressed, "I don’t want all that stuff and to wind up not a good person." 


How can Dani call herself successful if she is neither wealthy nor is she powerful?  Because Dani finds success not in materialistic things like money which only corrupt people, but  rather in morals and character.  Dani believes that you can have nothing, and be more successful than any multi-millionare as long as you are a kind, caring and happy person who is true to his or her self.


I find the message that Dani conveys is profoundly true.  It is not what you posses that defines you and your accomplishments but rather who you are.

Equal Opportunity

My mother and father have recently been looking in to an SAT/ACT tutor for me to work with a bit.  I decided I would take the liberty in looking into some of the tutoring companies.  I was shocked by what I found in my research.  I read this article in the NY Sun about what the top SAT tutors in New York make per hour.  The article said that people pay as much as 400 dollars an hour to have their children work with Ivy League degree holding tutors.  While I couldn't find any article confirming this, my father told me he had heard that the top New York LSAT tutors charge up to 750 dollars an hour to tutor folks.  This salary is more than many lawyers make.  To me, this is absolutely obscene.  People are so desperate to give their child the competitive edge they need to get it to the best schools, that they will pay several hundred dollars an hour to have someone give their child all the secrets to standardized testing.  And why is all this necessary, because colleges use a number to gage the intelligence and potential of their applicants.  With the unfair advantage given to the fortunate and wealthy, these numbers become overwhelmingly distorted, it is hard to imagine how inaccurate these portrayals are.

Americans strive to create the image of equal opportunity, but the reality is that this is impossible.  For the past 25 minutes I have been staring blankly at my computer screen, unsure what to write, but I now understand that the reason for this is because I have been trying to search for a solution that simply can't be found.  If colleges lower the acceptance rates for people of lower socioeconomic status, those of higher status will argue that they are being cheated.  However, at the current state, those of lower socioeconomic status are at a clear disadvantage.  

Thus how can we say that we are a nation of equal opportunity?  Equal opportunity is fundamentally impossible, there will always be rich and poor, there will always be those at an advantage and those at a disadvantage.