Connecticut School Shooting

This past Friday there was a shooting massacre in an elementary school. This tragic event led to the deaths of 26 people. This is an incredibly sad, unfathomable event. I believe it is extremely important for everyone to take a moment to think about the lives lost, so we can remember the victims. To receive more information on this very sad day, click here for the Chicago Tribune's coverage.



An event such as this was because of the insanity of one individual and guns. Although I believe people should think about the victims and their families in a time such as this, I also think it is important to think about the laws we have in place regarding the second amendment. This amendment, giving citizens the right to bear arms, was passed over 200 years ago. In this day and age, certain types of guns are available that could have never been imagined back in the 1790's. Yes, guns provide protection to some people, but guns also provide a means for tragedies, such as the Connecticut shooting. Guns need to be restricted on a national level, and the second amendment needs to be reconsidered. What do you think? How should the debate over guns be handled? For more information on this debate and the shooting, click here.

Football Icons

There is an ongoing conversation in Mr. Bolos' post "Sunday Suckers" that I would like to add onto. It seems obvious that Football is a fairly violent sport, that has led to many injuries at the professional level. Whether you believe the NFL should create more strict rules to reduce these injuries or not, is completely your opinion. But what about the children? Many kids, even up to the high school level, have icons in the NFL that they look up to. These icons can provide motivation for a kid who wants to be great in football. But is that bad? According to a 2001 study, kids playing football have many more injuries compared to all other sports...

According to the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System All Injury Program:

• In 2001, the number of sport-related injuries for each sport are as follows:
  • Gymnastics — 99,722
  • Baseball — 170,902
  • Softball — 118,354
  • Football — 413,620
  • Soccer — 163,003
  • Volleyball — 55,860
  • Track & Field — 15,113
  • Hockey — 63,945

Do professional football players play a role in this statistic by influencing the minds of young children to get involved in football? I would argue yes. When someone sees a role model do something, they want to do that. For that reason, many more children get involved in this brutal sport, and injuries rise. It is possible that if NFL football became safer, then children's football would also become safer because the influence these athletes have on America's youth. Therefore, there could be several benefits to making football safer.  What influence do you think NFL players have on children? 

Entertainment or Propaganda?

This past weekend I watched a movie released a while ago called "Act of Valor". It was a very inspirational movie about Navy SEALs and their heroic deeds.



Despite being amazed by some of the things these men did, this movie also got me thinking about the American movie industry. Is there ever a time where a movie depicts the wrongdoings of Americans? Although there is a bias because most producers are from America, it seems like most movies are selected specifically to make our country out to be "the good guys". Do you believe there is a secret motivation for movie producers to make our country seem great? And if so, why do you think that is?

Black Friday

Over this past weekend, many people looked forward to enjoying a large Thanksgiving dinner with their families. Additionally, many of those same people look forward to waking up bright and early to go shopping for black Friday. In fact, the turn out for this annual day of shopping was insanely high, once again. Stores prepare for a rush, and madness that isn't seen on any other day. Profit for stores generally raise. In fact, the mass amounts of people trying to get a good deal can lead to extreme situations, such as one employee getting trampled.

But has this day gone too far? When someone's life is lost because of something like shopping, should there be changes? In my opinion, there should be a better, and more organized way to handle the mass amounts of crowds, even if that means limiting the amount of shoppers per store. We shouldn't let good deals turn us into uncivilized human beings. What do you think?

A New Type of Patriotism?

There is an ongoing conversation in Mr. Bolos' blog "Born in The USA on Veterans Day". I wanted to continue this conversation through one of my own posts.

There are a considerable amount of songs that are criticisms of our government, or some aspect of our country, that have not limited by the government. But, there have also been some songs that were limited, such as many of Seeger's songs. I would argue that the government chooses to not limit some songs based on if they are still somewhat patriotic. Even though a song may be criticizing our country in some way, it can still be patriotic if evokes emotions of change for the better. For example, in "Born in the USA", Springsteen criticizes the Vietnam war for the purpose of saving American lives, and saving hardship for families. Therefore, there is a notion for change that would, in Springsteen's opinion, better our country. For that reason, this song can be considered patriotic, and was allowed to be publicized.



What is your opinion on this? What makes the government limit certain songs while allowing others to become widespread? Also, can a song criticizing our nation also be patriotic?

Wasteful Thinking?

During class this week, Doc Oc proposed a question about if there are jobs that are a waste of education. I kept this in mind when I went to visit colleges this weekend, and something interesting occurred to me throughout my conversations with other students. Several times, I was told something was a "bad major" because you couldn't get a "good job" from it. Or I was told not go over to certain buildings because there were classes for "dumb subjects" taking place in it. As a part of my research I looked up what majors were the "best". The results were all of the classes that led to high paying jobs.




This didn't shock me but it made me think. Is it a waste of an education if your major leads you to a "bad job"? I think not. If one wants to pursue something that is interesting to them, but differs from the usual path of a college student, they should be encouraged to. After all, all different sorts of jobs are required for society to function, and for that reason I believe there is no such thing as a waste of an education. What do you think?

Election Lies?

We are two days before the presidential Election Day, and the news stations are doing everything they can to create a good story for us Americans. Last Friday, in class, we held a minor discussion about the accuracy of major news networks polls’ on the race. As a result I looked up several different articles about who has the lead in the presidential race. Every network differed but it seemed as if they all held one thing in common. Every source tried to make the race sound like it was extremely close and exciting, and it was going to come down to the last vote. In reality, this race is no more exciting than any other presidential election. CNN's article is a good example of this type of news.









So why do this? Why should a news station try to make the election more exciting than it is, instead of just giving the entire truth? One reason could be to boost their stations ratings. The more exciting a race is, the more viewers it is going to get, and in turn, the better ratings that station is going to get. Why do you believe most sources of news make the election sound so close and exciting when in reality, it isn't. Also, how can we trust the information that we are getting now? If news stations aren't being entirely truthful, then where can we receive information that is reliable?

America's Obsession

The month of October is a big month for sports. Among some of the biggest games being played, Indiana University won its first football game against another big 10 team in the last 2 years at the University of Illinois' homecoming game. This came as a shock to many because, to state it nicely, Indiana's football team has not been too good in the past. Although this year, their team is composed of a majority of freshman players, so there is a glimpse of promise for the future. Watching this game got me thinking about the nature of sports and why it sucks in so many followers. One reason in my opinion is that the worst team in the league, in any sport, can turn out to be the best team a few years down the road with some rebuilding. That is why you hear so many managers label a season as a "rebuilding year" so the fans feel a hope for a successful season a few years down the road. That is one of the reasons why many Cub’s fans come back to watch season after season, decade after decade despite their inability to win the pennant. Although they haven't won the World Series in over 100 years, there is always hope that the next year can be a breakthrough season. This unpredictability is also another reason why fans seem to be enthralled by all kinds of sports. On any day, the underdog can play well and pull of an upset that will get a city or University truly excited, just like in the Indiana game. These are not the only reasons why the sports industry is so massive though. What are some reasons that you watch sports and why do you think it is such a popular pass time?

 click here if you want to read more about this game.

Privacy: How Much Do They Deserve?

This week a lot of our class discussions revolved around the idea of the freedom of speech, and what we as American's are allowed, and not allowed to say. This discussion caused me to research if either of the Presidential candidates had a comment similar to Tagg Romney’s comment that we also discussed in class. During this research I came upon an article on one of Romney’s comments about American's that shocked many people. He said "47 percent of Americans are dependent on the government and see themselves as victims". This comment evoked a lot anger from many voters. Although, what really interested me was the context of this comment. Romney said this in privacy at a fundraiser, and somehow, someone in the audience picked up a recording of his statement. Although I believe this comment was not something smart to say, and could only hurt Romney’s campaign, it was said in privacy and was not intended to be made public. This got me thinking about if anything either candidate says is really private, and should they deserve any privacy because of their positions in society. It seems like they have no right to voice their opinions without it being all over the internet within a few hours. This is very similar to famous athletes or performers. Anything they say has the possibility of being recorded and made public. Do these people deserve more privacy? Or do they deserve not having the luxury of the type of privacy most American's have because of their position in society?

To read more about Romney's comment, and see Obama's reaction click here.

Style vs. Substance

The Vice presidential elections took place this last week, and although they usually don’t have a large impact on the overall race, many people were talking about it the next day. I heard many people throughout the school talking about how strong Biden's arguments were, or how accurate Ryan's rebuttals were, but one thing in particular stood out to me. I agreed with much of what Biden had to say, but the way he said it came off as rude, and demeaning. In many cases he is shown laughing at important issues and interrupting Ryan. In fact he interjected over 80 times throughout the debate. 

(You don't have to watch the entire video)

Setting aside being a Democrat or Republican, debating in this form seems very immature, especially for a vice President. What do you think? Does it matter how one debates as long as they get their arguments across?

America's American Airlines

A large topic in the presidential debates is domestic safety, and how to keep Americans safe. Although, American's may be at risk right now and not even know it. American Airlines recently canceled many flights because seats were coming loose during flights (a deceivingly dangerous occurrence). The hazard was due to "a combination of wear, poor design and even soda spilled into the tracks that caused pins to pop out of the grooves". Despite the issues American was having, my parents put me on one of their flights because the tickets were cheapest. In fact, the flight I was on was packed full. Because of the issues American was having, they lowered their prices, and as a result, increased their amount of customers. Despite fixing the issue, I thought it was unfair for a business to risk their customer’s safety without any repercussions (especially for airlines). What do you think? Should there be some type of punishment for businesses that fail to perform their task or keep their customers safe? 

CHICAGO

Recently we went downtown Chicago to see the play "Jitney". This sparked debates in class about the differences of our lifestyles in the north shore compared to that of the north side, or south side of Chicago. Instead of sharing my personal experiences, I decided to explore different maps depicting various statistics of Chicago. I want to see what affect these maps have on us, and our perception of Chicago. 

My first impression of these maps was that, even though representing very different things, they looked fairly similar. Each map has a clear division between the north and south side of Chicago, while the west side is scattered with variety in each map. Although, there are some areas that these maps greatly differ. For example, most of the areas with extreme violence seem to be in poverty, except there is a large region in the south east side of Chicago that is extremely poor, but only moderately violent. That is why it is not fair to generalize and say that all areas in poverty have higher crime rates, because that might not always be true. Do these maps make your perceptions of Chicago change at all, and if so, how? Do these maps provide a different lens for your vision of Chicago? For me, they seem to confirm the segregation Chicago faces, and how living only a few blocks away can make a difference. 

American Taxes-What's Fair?

Recently, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney announced that his tax rate last year was around 14%. This type of rate is relatively low, especially for someone who is earning 13.7 million in one year. Although Romney gave around 30% of his income to charities, many people are still very outraged at his low tax rates.

Democrats especially seem to be outraged at this low tax rate, while Republicans seem to avoid the topic. Do you think it is fair for Romney to have a lower tax rate than most Americans? In my opinion, it comes down to one's ideals, and which party they support. Republicans seem to favor giving the upper class tax breaks for trickle down economics, while democrats favor giving the middle class the tax breaks because they need it more. What seems more fair and why? Does it have anything to do with American ideals? To read more on this topic click here. 

The Reluctant Hero

Many great movies that display some of the greatest heroes follow a trend called "the reluctant hero". This trend is explained well by Joseph Campbell in the "Hero with a Thousand Faces": "The hero may refuse the adventure or deny the ability to move beyond the status quo". But then, for some reason, the Hero feels obligated to step in and follow his calling, and save the day. This trend is seen in many films like "Spiderman", "Batman", and "The Blind Side". But films are not the only place where this trend can be followed. In fact many Presidential candidates try to take on this story line to make them seem more desirable in the peoples eyes, as we discussed during class this week. This made me wonder why the reluctant hero was so desirable to Americans, and is this something unique to our country?

Many times, when a presidential candidate uses this story line, it is to show that they didn't want to intervene, but feel like they have to because they are the only one that can fix the nations issues. An example of this is our 40th president, Ronald Reagan. He made the country believe that he had the solutions to the countries financial issues with "Reaganomics", which is why he needed the job as president. Why this trend is so common in American history, and not as much around the world is very hard to answer. I believe that it started in earlier films and had a large impact, and therefore stuck with our culture from there on. In other words, it is a deep part of America's history, and is a very effective storyline, which is why it remains today. What do you think, is the reluctant hero unique to our country, and why is it so frequently used?

Is the United States Really Exceptional?

Many people find it easy to say that America is the best country in the world because of our democracy, great freedoms and wealth of opportunities.  Although one might not directly state that America is superior to other countries, there are many different ways which support this notion of American Exceptionalism. For example, during our class discussion on Thursday, we analyzed several different history textbooks including Fonner's "The American Nation". Although a very simple title, it connotes the uniqueness and immensity of our country. As a result, I began thinking about whether it was fair to assume this American Exceptionalism. 

Recently, Romney put some pressure on Obama after the President said that American Exceptionalism is no different than Greek Exceptionalism, British Exceptionalism, or any other country's patriotism. Although maybe not the smartest thing to say when running for reelection, I agree with Obama. It makes little sense to call us the best country when looking at the facts. 

For example, America's educational system is consistently outside the top ten on every list, when comparing it to the rest of the world. Additionally, the U.S was ranked number one on the list comparing countries with the highest reported crime rates. America is also responsible for lots of international violence around the world. One example is how the U.S backed contra-war in Nicaragua killed some 30,000 Nicaraguans. Also, America has killed over 250,000 Muslims over the past three decades. Although all countries are guilty of some international or internal violence, America has certainly been a militaristic power that has a history of a heavy international presence. Finally, the notion that the U.S has unique responsibilities is false. Several different nations have believed this exact same thing; yet have no good examples of why. For example, the British thought they held unique responsibilities with the white mans burden.  Every country at some point may think this way, but there is no basis for their claim. Every country holds responsibilities that are essential for the world to continue functioning.

No single country is perfect, and there is certainly no way to tell which country is the "best". Obviously, certain countries excel in fields in which other country's struggle, but ultimately there is no factor that determines "Exceptionalism". It is great to be patriotic and support your country, which I believe I do, but I do not think it is fair to go as far as to believe in American Exceptionalism. For further information on this topic please click here. 

Andy Roddick and American Athletes

Andy Roddick, an American tennis idol, announced a few days ago that he would be retiring after this years U.S open.  This announcement came as a shock to most tennis fan, especially those that grew up admiring his powerful game style. A tennis friend and I had a discussion about what affect a professional American athlete has on the community, and if the athlete is more than just an entertainer. Given Roddick's recent announcement and his popularity with the public, Roddick seemed like the perfect example for this discussion.

The first argument one could make was that Roddick inspired many young American kids to become active and play tennis. Roddick endorsed many different children's tennis products to do exactly that. Additionally, Roddick takes a portion of his salary (over 20 million throughout his tennis career) and gives it back, by donating to charities. Some such charities are: "City Harvest", "Willow Foundation", and "Laureus Sport for Good Foundation". His largest charitable contribution is probably the starting of his own charity called the "Andy Roddick Foundation". "The goal of the Andy Roddick Foundation is to improve the quality of life and enhance educational and economic opportunities for all children based on the principles of respect for family, education and morality." Andy Roddick decided to be a part of something larger than just tennis, and that's why I believe he is more than just an entertainer.
Today in sports, many athletes are viewed as being overpaid. But a good question to propose is whether there is a reason for that? With Andy Roddick I believe there is.