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.