Blagojevich=Kanye=OJ Simpson

"O.J. Simpson was sentenced to up to 33 years in prison for his role in a sports memorabilia robbery. Afterwards, O.J. said, "Let that be a lesson to all you kids out there: Stick to double murder.'" --Conan O'Brien.

Kanye West was arrested for assaulting a paparazzi.

Federal authorities "accused [Blagojevich] of attempting to benefit financially from his position to appoint Barack Obama's Senate replacement."

In recent weeks, numerous infamous arrests took place by leaders of our community and role models to children. Too many people admired by thousands have thought that they are above the law. Authority figures and people looked up to should have a higher standard for the way they live their life, not the idea that they can do whatever they want. In Self-Reliance, Emerson says that "envy is ignorance... imitation is suicide... take himself for better, for worse, as his portion..." (20). The truth is that people should not follow others, but children looking up to their favorite singer or sports player getting arrestted think what they are doing is normal and ok. Our own govenor, Rod Blagojevich, attempted to sell a position for senator. The evidence against him shows him being arragent and obvious about his crime, not even trying to disguise calls or meetings. Imitation is bad, but everyone, especially children, do it, and when they decide who to copy, it can easily be someone famous for going to jail for thinking they are above the law. Imitation should not happen, but bcause it does, we need to make better role models for our next generation.

Whose Job is it to Donate?

This weekend me and other members of New Trier ELS (Enriching Lives through Service) and Special Olympics stood outside of Starbucks' around the North Shore, asking for donations. We asked everyone who walked by if they would like to donate, and although many people were very generous, some didn't even give us the courtesy of a yes or no. Some people walked into the other door, hiding behind their phones or jackets, trying not to make eye contact. Now, I do understand that not everyone donates to the same causes, some people give their time and money to other organizations that they are involved in. This is how Emerson is with his causes, and while I do acknowledge this and agree that it is their choice, the way that some blatantly ignored us seemed unnecessary. After buying a $4 drink, I wondered if people simply wanted to use their money on their causes, or just didn't donate at all (which is also their choice). Standing out for two hours in this 20° weather (some people were out there for longer), I thought about Emerson's views on the topic in Self-Reliance:

"I tell thee, though foolish philanthropist, that I grudge the dollar, the dime, the cent, I give to such men as do not belong to me and to whom I do not belong. There is a class of persons to whom by all spiritual affinity I am bought and sold; for them I will go to prison, if need be; but your miscellaneous popular charities... though I confess with shame I sometimes succumb and give the dollar, it is a wicked dollar which by and by I shall have the manhood to withhold" (22).

Emerson doesn't donate to a cause to look good to others, he believes in his causes and does what he needs to do for them. While this is probably true for some of the people who did not donate, I wonder if the majority had the same beliefs or just didn't want to donate. If someone had told us that they donate to another cause and that's why they didn't to us, that would be different than being completely ignored. Emerson believes that he shouldn't have to donate to causes just because, but I have to wonder whether these people had his views, or were just to uninvolved to acknowledge us.

Is there a conspiracy against everyone?

Ralph Waldo Emerson says that "[The voices we hear]... grow fain and inaudible as we enter the world. Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members" (21). Conspiracy is a strong word, and yet his point is strongly made. In class, I'm sure many people have had an experience where they've had an idea or an answer, but were too afraid to say it for fear that it is wrong. And maybe it's not being afraid to speak in class, maybe you've wanted to buy an outfit, but thought other people wouldn't like it. Everyone is guilty of this in some form or another, because of society, and New Trier's society is very guilty of this. You look down the hallways and masses of people are wearing very similar outfits, with very bags, listening on their iPods to very similar music. I'm not saying that I am innocent in this conformity, while I try to be myself I cannot say that I don't worry about what other people think, and while Emerson would scold me for this, it is true for most people. It is hard to be completely yourself in our society with so much judgement, but according to Emerson it is necessary. When we lose ourselves in conformity, it is hard to recover, but if we don't break away, we will be lost in the conspiracy against us all.

Is silence ever necessary?

In Self Reliance, Ralph Waldo Emerson argues that people's opinions drown out in society's conformist views: "These are the voices which we hear in solitude, but they grow faint and inaudible as we enter into the world" (21). This is true, many ideas are suppressed for fear of being wrong, and according to Emerson, this is shameful. While shame is a strong word to describe timidness, maybe he's on to something. In class, I'm sure most people have had experiences in which they had an answer or idea, but withheld it for fear that it was wrong or against the common belief. While Emerson speaks mostly of ideas being held back, sometimes it would be easier if we could censor some. Many times, as Emerson agrees, brilliant ideas can go unnoticed because of fear, and society could be improved with new, determined ideas. But when people with adamant ideas effect society for the worse, censorship seems almost like a good idea. I believe that freedom of expression is a large part of what this country stands on, and with this great privilege comes abuse of privilege.


"Cross burnings. Schoolchildren chanting "Assassinate Obama." Black figures hung from nooses. Racial epithets scrawled on homes and cars." This is the way in which Jesse Washington began his article in the Chicago Tribune, Barack Obama's Election Spurs 'Hundreds' of Racial Incidents Around the Country. Being able to burn a flag in front of the White House is a liberty that we as Americans have, but it can be taken too far. In Standish, Maine a sign in a general store read: "Osama Obama Shotgun Pool." Customers signed up to bet on a day in which they thought Obama would be assassinated, for $1. The sign continued: "Stabbing, shooting, roadside bombs, they all count." And the last statement was the most disgusting: "Let's hope someone wins." While hate crimes are punishable by a more severe sentence, nothing can be done against threats. When hate elevates to the point in which people are betting on an assassination, there is a problem. The worst part is that this disgusting behavior is legal under the first amendment. I wonder what Emerson's views would be on this matter. The problem with this extent of freedom, is that if someone says it, there will be others listening who are just as twisted. Given the right to say this and gather others who agree, it is easy to escalate to action, and Washington gives examples of how this is a reality. Some ideas should not be held back, and others should never be said.

Are we equal yet?

California was one of the few states in which gay marriages are legal, and although I believe this should be the case across the US, it is only going downhill. With Proposition 8 passed, chances of this country moving forward in tolerance is minimal. Now, I do understand the belief of marriage being between a man and a woman. It is said that heterosexuals reproduce, and therefore are "natural." But this cannot be the only factor determining peoples' lives. When I think of a relationship being natural, it is natural because a person is naturally attracted to another person, but what about those naturally attracted to the same sex? Reproduction making something "natural" should not make a difference, whether or not people are legally married they will still have the same relationships, so why not. If someone interprets the bible as saying that homosexuality is bad, it shouldn't matter: the church and state are separated in this country, and this should not even be an argument. The truth is there should be no argument, because the Declaration of Independence tells us that that "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The pursuit of happiness for many people includes marriage, no matter what their sexual orientation.

Recently Barack Obama was elected president and it seemed that we were finally making a real difference in our equality, the first black man was elected president. At the same time that we move forward with the elimination of racism, we are moving backwards with gay rights. The picture above is from a protest against proposition 8 (they were held all over the country). The man holds a sign saying that we all are one, but are we treated like that? Too recently, blacks and women could not vote. Were we equal then? What about when schools and public places were separate yet equal, are we all one then? And are we all one when people only have the right to marriage based on their sexual orientation? How can the government say that we are all equal, we are all one, when there is still so much discrimination? If our country's government can truly preach that we are all equal under the Declaration of Independence, passing this bill is complete hypocrisy. So basically I have to ask those opposed to homosexual marriage one thing: why do you care? If you don't approve of gay marriages, don't get one, but let those who it actually effects have the same rights to marriage as you do. All people want marriage for the same reasons, and your sexual preference should not matter. If we are all equal under the law, shouldn't we have the same rights without discrimination as well? With this bill being passed, we need the government to prove that we are all equal.

a fake id to vote?

I was watching some tv today and a commercial stood out to me: character from the show "Greek" were wearing shirts that read "vote," and they were all saying how important it is to vote (specifically younger adults, new voters). The characters from the show are using their status to inspire young adults to vote, hoping that people who like the show will follow their example. And this is a good thing, because lately it seems as if the best way to capture peoples' opinions on important social issues is to make it a new trend. Recently the cool thing to do was to go green. And you could do this by actually recycling (even though it is better to buy less in the first place), buying eco-friendly clothes bags and more. Besides doing this, numerous businesses made it the mainstream idea. From t-shirt stores, where none of the profit goes to one of the many go green orginazations, people are buying shirts, bags, shoes, buttons, and other accesories with catchy slogans about going green. Now, you can buy the same products incouraging people to vote (in general or for a specific candidate). While it is good that these trends get people to vote or involved with a good cause, but shouldn't we want to vote because it is a priveledge that we get that can change the course of our country for life? Shouldn't we protect the environment becasue it effects every single person on our planet? Even if this isn't the reason, I guees the ends can justify the means. A scene from the movie the breakfast club sets a good example for young people today: Brian explains that he knows having a fake id that says he's 68 is bad, but he took that risk to vote. What if everyone wanted to vote that badly and everyone who could did? He got a fake id so he could vote, what will everyone else do?

the pursuit of happiness

The Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal... [and their rights include] Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Changing property to happiness does leave the document more open for interpretation, but what is the pursuit of happiness in real life, for real people who are created equal. In the movie The Pursuit of Happiness, based on a true starring Will Smith, Smith is homeless and trying to support for him and his son. He states at the end of the movie, after receiving a long desired job, that that part of his life was happiness. So is it money that means happiness? Alan Krueger, an economist from Princeton University states that "Income... matters very little for moment-to-moment experiences." Other studies have proven, and I am paraphrasing, but if a person has enough money for basic necessities such as food, clothing, and housing, from that point money on has no effect on a person's happiness. So maybe Will Smith was only trying to support for him and his son to attain basic necessities, but knowing this, why are so many people so interested in making money? It seems almost pointless to have many luxuries if we know it will not make us happier. And yet, money and income is a very common interest between people.

The declaration also states that all men are created equal, but in what sense? At first, women and blacks were not even allowed to vote, so if they were born white males, they would have been born of a higher status, able to vote. How is the word equal actually defined, and how does it effect a person's pursuit of happiness? Maybe it means that all people should have a fair shot at life without discrimination or judgement. This makes sense, and yet, it appears as if it is nowhere near the truth. People born into almost any minority are said to be equal, but why then is there so much trouble later in life trying to find happiness; it should be the same for all people as stated by the declaration. We are born the same people that we are when we are older, so if we are created equal shouldn't we always be equal? The answer is yes, and yet, so many people are subjugated by others and still find happiness. Maybe it is because they are idealistic and want to see the good in everyone, or maybe they are pragmatic and know that they have to ignore others and find happiness on their own, but either way, happiness is found with or without being in the majority or having more money. The pursuit of happiness is very different to each person, and it should not matter what luxeries someone has or how other people view them, because happiness can and is found despite everythings else.

Gitmo Soldiers

After recently doing some research on Guantanamo Bay, i came across an article that surprised and disgusted me. It portrays the women soldiers at Gitmo to be inappropriate with the detainee, giving them lap dances, seductive talks and watching them undress. It made me wonder about how they could think that terrorists who are willing to kill thousands of people at a time would give into this: "Does anyone in the military believe that a coldblooded terrorist who has withstood months of physical and psychological abuse will crack because a woman runs her fingers through his hair." The fact that it is happening is bad enough on the reputation of US soldiers, but what about women in general?

For years women were subjugated from men, and it took the strength and idealism of these women to receive the right to vote, for example. After years of comodification from men, these women make are doing it to themselves. Acting the way they do with these random men, it gives a message to the whole country that this is an ok thing for women to do with men to get something from them. Although the article states that it has not accomplished anything, why does the commodification go on, and in some cases self-inflicted?

Depression or Regression

While discussing depression and regression in class, I found an article about the differences of the two. Lately it seems that too many people are falsely thinking that our country is in a depression. According to USA Today, 33% of 1,011 adults surveyed said that our economy already is in a depression.

A regression is defined as a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters, and a depression is said to be "any economic downturn where real GDP declines by more than 10 percent [for a longer period of time than for a regression]." Starting in 1929, during the Great Depression, there was almost a 33% decline in the country's GDP. And while that was clearly a very perilous time for the country, the word recession was made to show the differences from the Great Depression to now, for example.

With the definitions of these words so clear cut, how can a person still believe that we are in a depression. Yes it's true that our economy is in a time of perril, and maybe even in a regression, but we do not fit into the catagory of a depression. When comparing our country's current economic situation to the Great Depression, it is easy to see similarities, but more importantly it is easy to see obvious differences. In the Great Depression, from 1929-1942, as shown on the chart to the right, the unemployment rate went from about 4% to nearly 25% in a matter of a couple of years. The most current unemployment rate, in september 2008, was about 6.1%, and as the graph (small, right) shows, has been increasing for a number of years now. Comparitivelty, it is obvious which time period has the most dramatic results, although the ideas are similar.

In order to decide whether or not we are currently in a depression, we must ask ourselves a couple questions. Although there are similarities between us and the Great Depression, is it to the same extent? And do we better fit into a regression because of the time frame and percentages? As a country, we must admit we are in a perilous economic time, but is it really a depression?

Will Wrigley Field lose their booze?

In a recent editorial that I read in the Chicago Tribune, Troy Smith refers to the possible ban on drinking at Wrigley Field. The ban would be during the game for about an hour. He attempts to connect with the reader on a logical (logos) and personal (pathos) level, but I believe he does not clearly emphasise a thesis in his piece. He does, however, clarify his point in the last sentence of the article, saying to "...Let the bars serve all the alcohol they want... As long as the laws are enforced and people are arrested when they break the law [for public intoxication], there won't be any problem" (Smith 34). He does give legitimate examples that any person who has been to a sports game can relate to, and with this connects with people with related personal experiences. Even so, his whole argument seems to be examples of drunken conduct, and with this, he seems to contradict himself when he gives these specific examples of disgusting and crude things being done by intoxicated fans at games. Although at the end he does make the point that he wants them to be arrested, it appears by all of his other statements that he would have approved of the hour band on drinking, but that seems to be false as I read on. He is trying to appeal to non-heavy drinkers who share his views in not wanting all the drunken displays, but still is apposed to the ban with his one ultimatum for police. But how can police catch every single drunk person displaying disorderly conduct? He makes the point that it is bad and drunk people should be arrested when in public, but his opinion on the ban is never clearly stated, and is contradictory throughout. I suppose you could assume that he disagrees with it because of his quote on letting bars serve all the alcohol they want, but then there is still all the negativity towards this conduct in public. Overall his point is not very clear, but he does make strong points about the negative effects of people being drunk in public, and with that relates to the readers that sympathize with him. While the article didn't necesarily get his specific views on the subject across, he did make the point of the problems of drunk people in public.

Author: Troy Smith of Buffalo Grove

Publisher: Tony W. Hunter

Only Puritans Aiming for the Elite?

The puritans insisted that their fate was predetermined but still acted as though they needed to prove something, just in case, hinting that maybe they didn't believe their preaches as much as they led us to believe. While thinking this, it came to my attention that that puritans were not the only ones who aimed for the elite. With the presidential elections right around the corner, it appears that everyone is trying to act with stricter self set guidelines. Both of the presidential candidates and all of their teams, vice presidents, etc., need to always be aware of everything they say and do. As with the puritans, everything they do and say is being judged with the harshest of criticism, and they would probably prefer the process if it had less critique and stress. But they can't. Because running to be the leader of our country turns into a lifestyle, just like the puritans chose their lifestyle.

When running for president, everything you do is under a microscope, and the puritans had the same. For Obama and McCain, a mistake or ill-spoken word is viewed by the pres and the whole country, and for puritans, their whole community is watching. Apologies to the whole communities have been used for the puritans, and they are not even trying to lead a country, they simply want to live their lives. McCain quotes Ronald Reagan in saying that we must be a city on a hill, implying that we all must act as though we are the elite, not just the puritans and presidential candidates. If everyone aimed for the elite and acted like the puritans, we would probably have a world with no, or close to no, sin. But what would be left?

Sept 11, 2001 and authority in fear

Today, September 11, 7 years ago, the United States experienced the tragic event of a terrorist attack on the twin towers. And this terrible event did demonstrate one thing, that the authority of a country can be dramatically altered by certain events. Although George W. Bush's rating increased dramatically after the events of 9/11 , and have dramatically dropped since, becoming about 30%. It's interesting to compare his ratings to different events in history such as 0/11 and the Iraq war where his ratings increased and decreased dramatically. In times of trouble and fear, a country's leader can go from hero to scapegoat in a matter of weeks, and this can be clearly demonstrated.

In Logan and Lawler's blogging "experiment" today in class, the issue was discussed of power. What happened to the unity of the class when in fear? Some united and identified together, defending their fellow classmates, their community, and others tried to seperate the "guilty" from the "innocent." It's hard not to wonder how much this had to do with the fear placed over us that we could be in trouble, and if not us individually, the class as a whole.