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.