Problems from Across the Pond

I am spending my winter break this year in France and I am shocked every time I come back at how different Europe even feels to the States. This is generally attributed to the fact that cultures are in stark contrast in many aspects.

While driving to dinner in downtown Lyon, my grandparents ask me if I ever see burnt cars on the side of the road back home. I answer a little put off, that no I didn’t think that I ever have. Curious, I ask why they would pose this question. They told me that around Christmas time ever year, it is common for young people to burn cars on the street overnight. They told me that it wouldn’t be unheard of for over a thousand cars to be set aflame on the night after Christmas. Naturally, I was shocked to hear this because a crime of this nature I don’t think would ever be allowed in the states, let alone in mass. This has become a national occurrence across all of France, and is leaving a lot of people distressed. In my opinion it’s crazy that people have to fear getting their car razed in their sleep, during what is supposed to be a time of peace. This led me to wonder why something like this would ever come to be a tradition in the eyes of the youth. The answer lies in one of the biggest, and most unspoken problems in France today. Just like in the states, rampant immigration is an issue in France. The investigations have shown an overwhelming percentage of immigrants of North African descent as suspects of these cases of arson. This issue has become unspoken due in large part to consistent rioting and demonstrations from these immigrating communities have left government officials reluctant to attack the issue, but also France has intentionally created a haven for struggling immigrants. There have been little efforts to confront this issue of immigration in France, until recently. I have decided to make this topic a series of posts, in which I will elaborate on issue, explain differing viewpoints on the topic and the roll the government is playing in all of this.

Night League Blog

I have recently been taking advantage of my blogspot account, but not to contribute to this blog. I, along with American Studies alum Jimmy Slovitt are currently running a Night League blog, specific to the 2011 class. Slovitt, the founder, made the blog to follow in the foot steps of senior night league blogger Michael Hermanson, and also to share the wealth of night league with thoset that were not able to participate The blog covers the spectrum, with individual game reports and player highlights. We discuss every thrusday (Night League is held weekly on Weds.) the week's results and decide MVP rankings for individual players. All facets of the game contribute to MVP rankings, including points, assists, board, leadership and the general understanding of the sportsmanship associated with Night League. We also confer on weekly rankings of the teams and also analyze each week's matchups highlighting a couple games as the games of the week.

Most people would just wonder why I would ever want to spend time on something that really yeilds nothing in return. The answer lies in the aura of night league, something that can only be experienced by participating. It all comes from that half hour of competition. It all comes from knowing that every wednesday night during the winter, there is something to look forward to This energy that derives from Night League is what makes me want to spend my time contributing to this blog. This post doesn't really criticize the world around me and frankly doesn't really bring a lot to the table for most people that will read this. I honestly just wanted to share on my AIS blog, a somewhat relevant and interesting thing that I am doing at the moment. Check out the blog at http://ntjnl.blogspot.com/.

Obama's Empty Promises

President Obama ran on a platform designed entirely to do exactly the opposite thing that George Bush had done in his two terms. While the health care system sucked the money from the sick people's pockets, Obama promised to devise a health care system to fix that, which he has tried to do, however poorly. Obama promised a troop withdrawal from Iraq after five years of stagnant military action. He has, as of recently, announced troop withdrawal, only to have them shipped right next door to Afghanistan. But Obama also promised to stop the Constitution-shredding that took place during the Bush administration. This post was derived in largepart from a post I read online concering Obama's civil liberties track record. My dad directed me to a blogger he knew of on salon.com , named Glenn Greenwald, who blogged religiously about current civil liberties issues. Here is the quote that really inspired me to write this post:

"Of all the things for an incumbent President of the United States to take political risks fighting for, obviously reducing the power of the executive branch is going to be dead last on the list. If you want to see civil liberties championed, that’s going to have to come from congress."

There are several big ticket items that Obama had on his agenda coming into this term, but for me to think that enforcing the very constitution that he swore to uphold is last on it was very troublesome to me. I understand that fixing these issues takes time, so I will not pass any harsh judgement yet, but I think we're letting Barrack off the hook a little too easy. In my mind, filling the gaps of the consitution that had been drilled into by the Bush administration is a high profile issue, and has to be taken care off. Is it just me, or should civil liberties be taken more seriously by the president? What topics on Obama's agenda do you consider the most important? Consider what topics you should would like to see focused on in Washington. These are all important questions to wonder as we will all be eligible to vote in the 2012 elections.

Golf God Above the Law?

This past week, the world's only billion dollar athlete, Tiger Woods was involved in a slow moving one car accident outside of his home in Orlando. A neighbor called in the incident at approximately two twenty five on the morning after November. (quite strange that Woods' neighbor was so alert and ready to call incident in at such an hour, but thats beside the point). Woods, somehow ran into a fire hydrant just outside his driveway, and left himself unconcious. New information has divulged that he was badly bruised and had sustained many cuts in the incident, and for some reason barefoot. His wife then supposedly ran out of the house, golf club in hand. This is where the media takes hold of the story. One rumor is that Woods and his wife, Swedish supermodel Elin Nordegren had been having a dispute that evening and Woods left the house and she followed him out and proceeded to smash the windows of his car. The other rumor, one that I personally believe is that alcohol was involved, and he crashed his car. Those are the simplest and most believable circumstances I can see. The story for me takes a turn when the police attempted to assess the situation. Woods refused to comment or even subject himself to alcohol testing. He made no public statement for several days and had no apparent contact with the police either, despite their numerous visits to his home in the ultra exlusive gated community of Isleworth, FL. My only hesitation with this story is why was Woods allowed to defer any questioning from the police. He's a normal law obiding citizen just like me, but I think that if I crashed my car outside my house I couldn't just keep all the information to myself. This leads me to suspect that Woods, simply for being a celebrity was afforded different treatment. How could we justify this when every day people are arrested for very similar offenses, and Woods can just defer all the heat until he is ready?

Did To! Did Not!

"Why the Statesman's publication was delayed The Chicago Tribune on Thursday, November 19 posted an article implying that Stevenson High School delayed publication of its student newspaper over concerns that it contained articles harmful to the school’s reputation. The charge is false. Students in the past have run articles related to smoking and drinking, teen sexual activity, and crime, and they will in the future. The Statesman’s publication, originally scheduled" (d125.org)

"Administrators at Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire spiked Friday's edition of the school's award-winning newspaper because of concerns about stories on drinking and smoking by honor students, teen pregnancy, and shoplifting, the editor said." (Chicago Tribune).

The first quote was taken directly from the Stevenson High School website. This was released as a statement from the administrators. The second quote was the first paragraph of the Chicago Tribune article in Friday's morning paper.
I write about this because if you look at this issue with an unbiased perspective, there is certainly a civil liberties issue underlying. SHS is claiming that they postponed the release of this weeks edition because the paper itself was not fit to be released and not because of inappropriate content. They argued that topics such as underage drinking, smoking, and sex have been prevalent in the past, and will continue to be present in future publications of SHS's "The Statesman".
On the other hand, the article from the trib says that the school chose to put its foot down finally, barring these inappropriate topics from the paper. The article sees it as a violation of the student's freedom of press and speech.
Initially, the rebel inside of me sided with the tribune, believing that our schools are always trying to subdue everyone and protect its image at all times. But I tried to be a cynic for once, and discovered a very logical way of explaining these events.
The paper has been publishing these stories for years according to the statement from SHS. I consider then that someone at the tribune was opposed to the publications of such taboo topics, and maybe tried publishing this article in order to stop SHS from printing these stories.

I was wondering if anyone could think of any other reason why these events took place? Who was right or wrong in the situation. Should the media have the right to make potentially harmful accusations such as these?

Dueling Tragedies

This past week the US experienced another tragedy, this time in the form of a mass homicide at Fort Hood Military Base in Killeen, Texas. Thirteen were pronounced dead in the shooting. The events proximity to the Veterans Day holiday has lead to mourning across the country.

I first learned about this incident on my Yahoo homepage. I was shocked at Yahoo's decision of making this headline a secondary story, overshadowed by an article about "the ten best suburbs in America". I could not understand the reasoning for this order. I looked on and read a three sentence long report of the incident, this only added to my disbelief. Our country had endured a great loss and all Yahoo has to say about it is three measly sentences. These circumstances by which I learned of this horrific story generated a terribly impersonal rationale for this occurrence. I have a hard time admitting this now, but I essentially looked past the incident, thinking that because soldiers had died it wasn't so bad. I had gotten myself to believe that soldiers were in a line of duty, and death was a bi-product of their work. After thinking about the incident more deeply I realize the exact opposite was true. Soldiers are a beacon of heroism for this country, and should be immensely valued and respected for their commitment to their nation

But I could not let this go. I began to wonder how I let myself come to this conclusion. I'm not a bad person and I support our military completely, how could I have justified such a horrible crime? I drew a connection very quickly to the Virginia Tech shootings. It was a shockingly similar situation. Two individuals, both deranged, and both motivated by a dislike of their standing in society and the ideals of the country they lived in. Despite the similarity of the massacres, I had a very different reaction to the VT shootings. Basically, when I learned about the shootings, I was scared. I learned of this incident in a similar manner, except TIME had don't a little better job than Yahoo. I remember the headline in all caps across the entire page, with an image of the victim's family members crying.

I was impacted by the VT shootings more than the ones at Fort Hood simply because I was selfish. The tragedy at Fort Hood occurred on a military base, a context that is foreign to me. But the murders at Virginia Tech, on the other hand, took place in a school, a realm that I experience on a daily basis. I had, however naively, come to believe that schools should be, and were immune from the horrors of violence. This assumption was shattered by the events at Virginia Tech. This left me demoralized, and even slightly scared that the possibility of such a thing happening at my school. But where had all these sentiments stemmed from? My initial reactions of both the shootings had come from the media. Those initial reactions to these shootings led me to rationalize poorly, and even made me think inhumanely. This makes me wonder if the media should really be charged with dispensing such news if the manner in which they do it can affect a persons own humanity. Do we charge the media with too great of a task? Do we even trust the media to deliver such information?

The Rights of a Petitioner

We were asked to blog about a specific right that petitioners should or should not be afforded. The right in question is that of the publication of the results of certain petitions, should peoples names be shared with the public along with their vote. The issue that was briefly discussed was that of Gay Rights. The specific example that was provided was :if somebody voted against gay rights, should that vote be made public?
My answer to this question is yes. First of all, if anyone is so adament about an issue that they wish to voice their opinion via petition, then they should be prepared to defend themselves (verbally of course!). I answer yes mostly because people should be proud of their political standpoints, ridiculous or not. If someone were to argue in the other direction they would be arguing that it is an invasion of their privacy for their vote to be made public. But I see it in the completely opposite way, if somone were to go out of their way to voice their opinion then everyone should have the right to know. The truth is that anyone that would vote in favor of keeping petitions private is most likely a coward, trying to avoid conflict but at the same time prohibiting people from living their lives with a single signature.
It is hard for me to clearly say what I am thinking in this post because the sheer thought of anyone arguing against gay marriage aggravates me beyond comprehension. The point I am really trying to make is, if you want to prohibit people from living the way they want by way of petition, you gotta man up and stick to your guns.

American Censorship

My step brother just began his new job as a teacher in Tulsa, OK... Very random right. Well thats the point. He recently got the job after a rigorous selection process. The only difference between him and the other teachers is that he got his job through the Teach for America program. This program takes bright, fresh out of college students and sticks them in the middle of blue collar America to shape the minds of the youth. This program was established when it was discovered that teachers with experience degrees had no desire to teach in lower income areas.
Anyways he was set up with housing and a job and will now spend the next three years of his life in Oklahoma.

He is a former New Trier graduate who lived a pretty typical North Shore life and is now being transplanted directly into the "real America". With these circumstances, it is understandable that he may experience strange things that he wants to share with friends and family. For this reason he chose to make a blog.

Making a blog about being a teacher in a disadvantaged community, while being a Teach for America employee is not as easy as it sounds. There are so many politics involved, that the second he began posting things about his class, T for A was all over it. They made him take it down immediately. My only problem with this is that this became a political issue, that he would in the long run say something that would make the program look bad. I haven't doubt in my mind that nothing but constructive and humorous stories would come from this blog, and yet it is disbanded within days of its creation. It is simply because everything is too monitored. Let's say he did make a comment about something that was seen as "politically incorrect" (HOLY MOLY), his superiors would immediately correlate his behavior to the T for A program, something they could simply not allow. Potential suspensions, punishment and drama, etc. would ensue and the situation would become a mess.

It sickens me to think about how limited our society it is the status quo to be politically correct all the time. There are probably hundreds if not thousands of publications that could be public if it were not for their lack of conformity. This only makes me think about the knowledge and the stories that we are all being deprived because of these standards. Even in a country that is renowned for freedom of speech, I still see it as overly censored.

I also see a deep correlation to the civil liberties issues that we have studied. The Teach for America program is essentially restricting its participants from speaking their minds, maybe in attempts to prevent dissent as past US administrations have.

So in conclusion I pose the questions: Do you think the US has too much censorship? Why is it that we have a standard for behavior in the US? Who is responsible for that? Is this type of incidence a violation of civil liberties?

The College Rejection Process

I, for a change will not scour the web for intresting tid bits, but I am rather intrigued to write about some new developments that I am experiencing right now.
As a first semester junior I am beginning to think about the college admissions process a little more as the time nears will I will have to narrow down the establishment that I want to give ten years of savings away to. My problem is not with the absurd amounts of money that these schools are raking in, but rather just the stress which it puts on the participants and their families.
The story is that I have been playing tennis since I was about 9 and have loved it my entire life. But recently I have lost my passion for being out there on the court. I walk around the court just counting the minutes until I get off. I have however played tennis at New Trier my freshman and sophomore years and had always planned on continuing to do so as an upperclassmen. The only problem is, if you cannot connect the dots, that I now have no desire to play, I instead want to quit and play another sport.
I chose to divulge these sentiments to my parents recently and did not recieve the reaction I was hoping for. The dilemna is that they believe that the idea of committment is important to colleges, thus making my desire to quit undesirable. My parents are simply not willing to let that happen. So not only am I contending with pressure from potential colleges, but the famous parental pressure simultaneously.
Let me make it clear that the sheer thought of playing tennis everyday for 2 months straight makes me nauseous. I am forced to ponder cliches nonstop, the most common one being "Life is too short to do things you don't love".
The important thing here is that it is insane that colleges force these things on students, although not directly, and there is nothing that anyone can do about it. Especially not me. I bought new strings this weekend.

Limbaugh Claws his way into NFL

The recent interest from conservative radio show host Rush Limbaugh to buy the struggling 0 and 5 St. Louis Rams, has players and the public yearning for intervention. This development began when Mr. Limbaugh decided to partner up with St. Louis Blues owner Dave Checketts.

For anyone unaware of Limbaugh's reputation, he is an extreme right wing republican radio show host. He has in his years on the airwaves become notorious for remarks concerning minorities, and more specifically African Americans. He once said in regard to the nation's African American population, "they're 12 percent of the population, who the hell cares!"(http://newsone.com/elections/top-10-racist-limbaugh-quotes/).

However his most recent development has taken shape in his desire to buy St. Louis' NFL team, the Rams. Immediately the league, and the public have been in uproar about the possibility of permitting a public bigot to be at the helm of one of the dynastic franchises in NFL history. The only things that must occur for this to actually fall through are the approval from the commissioner Roger Goodell, and a three fourths majority vote between all the current owners.

The owners, as not to even remotely parallel themselves with Limbaugh have been reluctant to comment in where they stand on the issue. The most important thing to see is who really are the NFL owners. The truth is they are nearly all older white republican men, who, maybe not as vocally, share the same political opinions as Mr. Limbaugh. More importantly, these men are all men of business, looking for the next way to make a quick buck. If a person has the interest and most importantly the money, epecially in these times, then it would be perfectly logical for them to allow Rush into the exclusive group of NFL owners.

But unfortunately, I think that in these harsh economic times, money will overpower morality. They will find compromise in telling themselves that one other rich white republican guy can't hurt that much, even if he did wish Obama would run the country into the ground just to say 'I told you so'. This is simply just another testament to the greediness of America's elite, who will only fuel other more complicated problems in our society.

Hannity vs. Moore

Over the weekend I was flipping through the channels and came upon at interview being held between conservative talk show host Sean Hannity and film-maker Michael Moore. I knew that any combination of Michael Moore and a republican would make for quality television, and I was not dissappointed.

I was particularly interested in this because I have been an avid fan of Moore's films for many years. However I have felt that unchecked, Moore at times manipulates information for a more dramatic effect in his films. I was intrigued to see if Moore could stand his ground against a more then competent adversary in what was for all intents and purposes a debate between conservative and liberal.

After a brief introduction, the drama commenced, and Hannity wasted no time cutting directly to big name topics. Hannity attacked Moore's 2007 movie "Sicko", in which Moore argues for the benefits of univeral health care. He lets Moore begin and within minutes, the two are in a an all out verbal brawl. All I could hear from the TV for minutes was "can you please let me finish", "did I talk when you were speaking!", "that's just ridiculous", "I understand what you're saying but that still makes no sense". After two grown men behaved themselves like mere infants on national television, the part that I was awaiting came. They both laid out the basis of their argument. Moore considered Hannity unpatriotic for not supporting those in need in this own country. Hannity, on the other hand, challenged Moore to give ninety five percent of his income to the goverment, as a display of his patriotism. And to this Moore had no answer.

When the interview finally ended, I was exhausted. This interview was essentially an episode of Jerry Springer with suit wearing men as the stars of the show. However exhausted I was, I sure had enjoyed the show. I enjoyed it nearly as much as anything on television these days, and I have a hard time believing that I am the only one that feels this way. This prompted me to question why we do not have more unformal debates such as these on television these days. It was both interesting and informative at the same time and a perfect way for anyone to refresh themselves on the big topics in politics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0EKWDisi7Y

Obama Seeks to Lengthen School Year

Obama, following suit after the in-school streaming of his speech to his country, continues in his efforts to change America's education. He is now proposing that school days and years be lengthened in attempts to meet the "global standard of education".

"Young people in other countries are going to school 25, 30 percent longer than our students here," Duncan told the AP. "I want to just level the playing field." This was a quote taken from Arne Duncan, the education secretary for the Obama administation. The aspect of this that interested me was the conclusion that more school would lead to more success. Obama and his advisors see it more as an issue of quantity and not quality. I, as an average high school student, could not disagree more with this idea.

If the government wishes to improve productivity, then they should look into the curriculum instead of the hours. This, as I think about it more and more seems like a cop out by the government, to not make any real change but to rather just take the easy way out.

Most people that keep in relative touch with current events has heard of the recent incidents at the US Open concerning its 3 time champion, Serena Williams. She, in her semifinal match against a resurgent Kim Clijsters, threatened a USTA lineswomen after a foot fault on a second serve at 15-30. She had also, earlier in the match broken a racket and was issued a warning. Therefore, with the sudden outburst she was issued a point penalty and subsequently give Clijsters a ticket to the finals in Flushing Meadows.
The question, in my opinion is not the ruling on the court or the severity of the punishment. What I found interesting was that a person’s behavior could potentially nix them from the biggest tournament in professional tennis. This ruling is a nationally adapted rule. I, as a competitive junior player dealt with the same rules. One infraction costs a warning, 2 costs a point, 3: a game, 4: a set, and finally 5: The match.
I found this interesting that in a professional, and even moreso individual sport, an individuals behavior could be their downfall. Its not the same thing in soccer, if you get a carded and have to leave the game, there are still 10 other guys out there to finish the game.

A New Theory of Taxation

Sugar, rum and tobacco are commodities which are nowhere necessaries of life, which are become objects of almost universal consumption, and which are therefore extremely proper subjects of taxation.”

— Adam Smith,

Taxation, ever since Obama laid out his policies has been one of the most talked about topics in politics. Members of opposing political parties returned continuously to Obama's decision to incease taxes across the board, in attempts to illegitamize him as a candidate in the 2008 elections. But maybe the Obama administration just shouldn't be looking directly to increasing property and sales taxes, but rather to other more obscure avenues of taxation.

Just in random conversation during this summer, the topic of a possible soda and sugary beverages tax arose. I also learned that all money attained from this new tax would go directly to the funding of Universal Health Care. Not only would this slowly fund our health care system, but would also help combat another more small scale (no pun intended) issue, obesity. When I heard of this I quickly joked :If this tax actually existed I would be broke within months. I myself consume a fair share of sugary beverages, but I also understand there are millions of americans downing coke after coke throughout the day. I read about the statistics
of US consumption of soda, and I found it simply astounding the number of cans of soda the average american will drink over the course of a year. Which now makes me think about the money that could be made in this tax.

At first I saw this as merely another small supplementary sales tax, but after closer examination I see it is not just something to be looked over. I am confused that legislators have not yet enstated something like this yet. I realize that taxation is a major issue in politics today but if we had a fast food tax, a sugary beverages tax, an ice cream tax and so on we could possibly make begin to beat one of the biggest problems in current politics.

first post

dummy post