Connecticut Tragedy

    As most have probably heard, 20 children, along with 7 adults, were killed in Newton, Connecticut on Friday. Obama commented on the tragedy saying that we have to "take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this." What went through my mind while hearing this was, what kinds of meaningful actions and when?? This year alone there have been mass shootings in Oregon, Minneapolis, Tulsa, Wisconsin, Colorado, Seattle, and California, yet it seems that the government has made no progress taking a firm stand on gun control. As this article states, "It is more difficult to adopt a pet than it is to buy a gun." Judging by that statement alone, something needs to be done, and it needs to be done immediately. The government can not take their time settling on a gun control stance, while more and more mass shootings occur.
     What also stands out to me is the way that the media treats mass shootings. Flipping through the channels for the past couple of days, I have heard more about the killer than I have about any of the victims. In fact, I hadn't heard of any of the victims' names until I saw the front of the New York Times this morning, pictured in this post. The media is giving the shooter the attention that he wanted, when they should be focusing on remembering those who were killed. It is also being said that this shooting will rank as the second deadliest shooting, as if, as Morgan Freeman stated, "statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another." The victims need to be remembered, rather than the ranking of the shooting, or details about the killer. How do you think the media should handle these horrible tragedies?
   

Think Before You Sit

    In class a few days ago, Mr. O'Connor briefly mentioned how little a distance people walk per week. Most of the time they are sitting in a classroom, behind a computer at work, or just watching TV at home. According to this article, studies show that for people over the age of 25, every hour of television watched lowers their life expectancy 21.8 minutes. On the other hand, "smoking a single cigarette reduces life expectancy by about 11 minutes." It seems that people may be more aware of how dangerous smoking is in comparison to how much people know about the dangers of sitting. Another article states that sitting "slows the body’s metabolism of glucose and lowers the levels of good cholesterol in the blood. Those are risk factors toward developing heart disease and Type 2 Diabetes."  While it may be true that people are unaware, it could also be that people just disregard the information or are too lazy to do anything about it.
    Dr. Toni Yancey, a professor of health services at UCLA does her work on a treadmill, as seen in the photograph below. Dr. Yancey even sits on her treadmill in her office at work, but some people, like students sitting all day in desks, don't have that choice. What, if anything, can be done to make people not sit as much? Even if people are more exposed to the idea that there are many hazards of sitting a lot, do you think that they, like Dr. Yancey, will do anything about it?

Toys and Sterotypes

    As people begin frantically shopping for holiday gifts, I started thinking about how generic the presents given to girls and boys are. When I was little, I would receive presents like a new dollhouse or princess costume, while my brother would receive gifts like a toy car or a nerf gun. Things still haven't changed; each year I find my family and I picking out a doll for my little cousin Anna, and a toy car for Miles. What I wonder is, why is it this way? If we were to let kids choose what they wanted before just giving them toys that they are "supposed" to like, then would the girls automatically choose a dollhouse and the boys automatically choose toy cars?

   
    I looked up articles relating to this topic, and found this blog on the New York Times website. I have attached the picture that was put in the post. This is an ad for a Swedish toy company in which, as you can see, a girl is holding a nerf gun, a picture not typically seen. Do you think that this picture would catch your eye if you were to see it on TV? Please feel free to comment!

Ground Zero

"They were our neighbors, our husbands, our children, our sisters, our brothers, and our wives. Our countrymen, and our friends. They were us." -Mayor Bloomberg
  

    This weekend while I was in New York, I visited Ground Zero. It's hard to describe what it was like because so many different words come to mind when I think about it; beautiful, peaceful, calm, haunting, eerie, and so many more. Something I found amazing were all the little details that were put into the memorial. To begin, the names placed around the pools are based on where the victims were on 9/11. The placement of the names also represents the relationships that they had with others who lost their lives on that day. Many of the victim's families requested that their loved one's name be put near someone specific. For example, one family requested that their son's name be placed next to his close friend that he sat next to at work. Another detail is the survivor tree. This tree was planted in the 1970s in the World Trade Center plaza and was damaged on 9/11. Despite the damage, the tree was nursed back to health and returned to the site where it stood before the attacks. It represents hope and resilience.
    In addition to the tree, hope was emphasized all around the memorial. There were constant reminders in the pamphlets and signs that implied how important it is that the American people stay united, continue to rebuild, and never lose hope. 
    While I was there, I bought a book called "September Morning" which contains poems and readings that have been recited during the 9/11 memorial ceremonies. The quote from Mayor Bloomberg on the top of the post is from this book. Each page is moving, but here is an excerpt from one of the poems that stood out to me, it is called "The Names" written by Billy Collins: 

Names etched on the head of a pin. 
One name spanning a bridge, another undergoing a tunnel. 
A blue name needled into the skin. 
Names of citizens, workers, mothers and fathers, 
the bright-eyed daughter, the quick son. 
Alphabet of names in a green field. 
Names in the small tracks of birds. 
Names lifted from a hat
or balanced on the tip of the tongue. 
Names wheeled into the dim warehouse of memory. 
So many names, there is barely room on the walls of the heart. 


Below I have attached pictures from my visit. Please feel free to comment on Mayor Bloomberg's quote, the poem, or a picture.

Making a Difference...?

    On Saturday, my fellow classmate, Lily Schroeder, and I went downtown to serve a "thanksgiving dinner" to many homeless people and families who do not get to enjoy a thanksgiving meal on the actual day. Each year, my mom, along with Lily's mom and other members of our temple, organize this day at the Bethlehem Healing Temple on the west side of Chicago. We set up many tables with a whole bunch of decorations and serve food to around 400 people. There are always a lot of clothing items and shoes for the people to take, as well. Aside from the thanksgiving meal, once a month members from my temple make sandwiches and bring them downtown to hand out to people in need. As Mr. Bolos talked about  in his blog post, we are only helping these people a few days out of a 365 day year...so are we really making that big of a difference? In my opinion, we are making a difference, but definitely not a life changing one. Each year, we make this a special day for these people and give them a meal that they seem to really enjoy, but I realize that at the same time, what many of these people really need is an education, a job and a warm place to sleep. Giving these people food is only a band-aid, not a permanent gesture that will help support them for the rest of their lives.
   Before we started serving, a bunch of the volunteers sat in on a service that was going on in the temple. The people in the temple seemed so thankful that we had come, which really struck me. It made me think about how much I take for granted eating three good meals every day and going to a restaurant without thinking twice about it.  Each year I go downtown thinking that I'm going to make some big difference, but this year it just made me wonder what I could do that would have more of a lasting impact. The kids need good education and the adults need jobs, but what can we do to make these things happen?

An Election Without Polls

    In Mr. O'Connor's blog post, and in class, we have discussed the affect of media on the elections. The media makes every election seem like a horse race so that people continue to tune in. This way, the media companies will continue to make money and it will help their businesses. As seen in both of the poll photos in this post, the past three elections (including this year's) have been portrayed by the media to have been a neck-and-neck race. For example, in the pictures below, the difference between candidates is 1%, but that was most likely not really the case. I think it's fair to assume that the media pretty much always puts this spin on elections, and will continue to do so in the future. 
    I saw a discussion on the New York Times website that got me thinking about the question, "what would a presidential election be like if the media neither commissioned nor reported on any polls?" Maybe if this were to happen, elections would be completely different than what they are today. People would be able to make their own decisions, instead of having their ideas about what is going to happen in the race be shaped by news reporters and online poles. That said, if people already know that many times polls are just a way for media companies to make money, then why do so many still pay such close attention to them? The polls might not be the problem, it's just that many Americans have a constant need to anticipate what is going to happen, before it actually happens. What do you think elections would be like if there were no polls? 

                                                                 

2004 election poll 

2008 election poll

Big Win for Women

Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts' first female senator

    Obama won the election, but he could not have done it without help from many different groups of people, including women. As this article from Time magazine states, Obama "carried 55% of the demographic — about the same percentage he carried in 2008 — including nearly 67% of single women." Based on CNN's exit polls, 55% of women voted for Obama. Aside from helping Obama get reelected, women themselves also seemed to have won pretty big on Tuesday night. This year, congress will have the most number of women House members since 1992. The number of women U.S. senators have increased to a record number of 20, three more than last year. Heidi Heitkamp became the first woman elected  as North Dakota's U.S. senator, Deb Fischer became Nebraska's first woman senator since 1954, and Maize Hirono became Hawaii's first woman U.S. senator. Hirono is also the first Asian-American woman to become a U.S. senator. To continue, Elizabeth Warren became Massachusetts' first female senator, and Tammy Baldwin became Wisconsin's first, as well. Baldwin is also the senate's first openly gay U.S. senator. Lastly, all six women democrats that were up for reelection won their races.
    After watching the election and seeing the growing power that women have in the government, I wonder if it will speed up any changes that may happen with the role of women in everyday life. I also wonder when the time will come that it will be just as "normal" for a woman to be elected into a government position as it is for a man to be. Even with the growing presence of women in government positions, I think that our country still may have a while before we reach that point. We've made progress, but there is still a ways to go. What do you think? What does the growing presence of women in our government say about our country?

Impressive or Concerning?

   This morning I was sitting at my kitchen table when a picture in the New York Times from this article caught my eye. It is the same photo that I have put in this post, and if you look closely enough, you will see the third person from the left; a sixty pound girl named Kaytlynn Welsch. She, 12,  and her sister Heather, 10, run in some of the most grueling races in the country alongside some of America's best runners, most of which are three times the age, and size, of the sisters. While they run in some races that are meant for children, most of the time the girls are running in races meant to be a challenge...for adults. Kaytlynn and Heather recently ran in the national championship trail run in Utah and as the New York Times states, "These children sweetened the scene with a dollop of cuteness, but curious onlookers were unsure whether to be intrigued or appalled." Similarly, Claudia Spooner, a 42-year old runner who was beat by Kaytlynn in a major race in Texas, said that they were "beautiful but teeny girls." Spooner has an 8-year old son and as the New York Times states, "she would never put him in such a race. It was too hard on young bodies. It could harm their growth." The girls are pushed by their father, who seems to be very hard on the girls for such a young age and says that his daughters have "too much talent to quit."
    When I first read about these girls, I was in shock. I think that races meant for adults, should be for adults. There should be age limits on races because I think it is unnecessary and dangerous for people like the Welsch sisters to be running in them. They could just as well run in races meant for kids their age and wait until they are older to participate in the other ones. Parents need to be less harsh on their children, especially when they are at such a young age. The Welsch sisters are not even teenagers yet, so how could they possibly know that running is all they will want to do for the rest of their life? Their parents need to push them to explore other activities while they are young, instead of just pushing them to run, run, run. It is simply unhealthy for the girls to be running so often (Kaytlynn ran around 90 races in a 2 year span) and although I know little about the sport, their dad seems unqualified as a coach. What do you think about this story? Do you think, as the title of the article suggests, that the Welsch sisters are going "Too Fast, Too Soon"? Why or why not?

Cancelled at Last

    Hurricane Sandy has brought an incredible amount of devastation to the east coast, and it has also brought controversy over whether the New York Marathon should take place or not. As of November 2nd, Mayor Bloomberg (the mayor of New York) officially called off the race, which was planned to be held today, November 4th. This will mark the first year since 1970 that the race has not been held. Within these years includes 2001, when the marathon was held just two months after the attacks of 9/11. Mayor Bloomberg and Mary Wittenberg, the marathon director, were both supportive of the race taking place and as this article states, they "said the event would provide a needed morale boost, as well as an economic one." Unlike many others, Bloomberg did not believe that holding the race would pull attention away from all those suffering. That said, Bloomberg ended up changing his mind and the race has been cancelled, despite the thousands of people, including many from other countries, who have come in for the marathon. The cancellation was announced just 48 hours before the race, which left many of the 40,000 people who had already flown in quite unhappy.
    In my opinion, cancelling the race was a no-brainer, but I do think that the decision should have been made earlier. All the focus needs to be on the areas and people who are suffering from all the damage caused by the hurricane.  Holding the race would bring controversy and an unnecessary divide to New York, which at a time like this, needs to be united. Maybe a solution would be to postpone the race for a few weeks, but I am aware that doing this would be much easier said than done, considering the amount of people who flew in from all around the globe. What do you think about the race being cancelled? What benefits, if any, would there be if the race was held? Why do you think it took the mayor so long to finally cancel the marathon?

Free Speech Zone or Free Speech Campus?

    In class, we have been talking a lot about free speech and when, if ever, it should be limited. I was recently reading an article about how free speech is limited on college campuses and some of the information that I read really surprised me. There are still some colleges that contain areas known as free speech zones. One specific example is at the University of Cincinnati; their free speech zone took up just .1% of the school property. Students were told that if they were protesting or showing other forms of free speech outside of the zone, they would be charged for trespassing. Thankfully, the court proved the zone to be unconstitutional, but still, the idea that colleges still have free speech zones is jaw dropping to me. For my perilous times project, my group is studying the Vietnam War. During this time there were many protests happening on college campuses, which ultimately contributed to the hastening of our withdrawal from Vietnam. In my opinion, especially on college campuses, the whole school should be a free speech zone, not just one small area, unless the well-being of the student body or the institution are at risk.
     Other actions, besides creation of free speech zones, are also done to limit a student's first amendment rights. For example, there was a resolution passed in California that bans students from making anti-Semitic speeches.  At Christopher Newport University, students were not allowed to protest a visit from Paul Ryan.  At Ohio University, a girl was banned from putting a sign expressing her political views on her door and at Yale, a student was not allowed to wear a shirt with provocative language on it. As Greg Lukianoff wrote in the New York Times, "In a study of 392 campus speech codes last year, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, where I work, found that 65 percent of the colleges had policies that in our view violated the Constitution’s guarantee of the right to free speech." This to me is ridiculous and I do not think that authorities should be able to hold people's own rights against them.
     As we have seen in class, many of the acts formed during wartime seem very general, and the same goes for many rules that are made limiting a student's free speech on college campuses. For example, as Greg Lukianoff states, "Harvard freshmen were pressured by campus officials to sign an oath promising to act with “civility” and “inclusiveness.”" What exactly is meant here by civilty and inclusiveness is impossible to tell, but to me it just seems like the most vague way to tell students that they better stick with the status quo, or else they will be punished. Especially during a time when students are in college and, as many call it, "finding themselves", they should without a doubt have a right to voice their own  opinion, no matter what it may be. What do you think of all these limitations on college campuses? Are they fair or immoral?

Big Issue, Few Words

    A topic that is rarely spoken of by either President Obama or Governor Romney is gun control. Around 30,000 people are killed from being shot each year, and according to Gail Collins, a writer for the New York times, "there have been 43 American mass shootings in the last year." These numbers are clearly very high, and while, yes, there are other issues that are important for the candidates to talk about, gun control should be somewhere near the top of the list. Whether or not the candidates want to talk about the issue or not, it is necessary that it be discussed.

AK47 

    Nina Gonzalez, an undecided voter, asked President Obama at the second presidential debate, "During the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK47s out of the hands of criminals, what has your administration done or plan to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?" Obama went about answering this question by giving quite a general answer; he said that he does think that the ban on assault weapons should be reintroduced and changed topic soon after. Romney also avoided discussion of gun control, speaking a scarce 42 words on the topic before switching subjects. Romney's reason for trying to stay away from the subject could likely be that as the governor of Massachusetts, he was in favor of new gun laws, but in an effort to be elected, his role on this issue has been reversed. As Gail Collins states, "When it comes to gun control, both presidential candidates are strongly in favor of quality education." In other words, nobody really knows where either candidate truly stands on the issue or what they will do to help control it because when asked about it, they just simply avert into an off-topic matter.
    The second amendment states that citizens have a right to bear arms, but with all the harm that this has caused in our country, where should the line be drawn? What limits should be made, if any, so that the people in America feel safe from assault weapons, but also have their second amendment rights protected?

To read Gail Collins' full article click here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/20/opinion/collins-the-least-popular-campaign-subject-gun-control.html

American "Hero"

    Lance Armstrong was an American Hero; he won seven straight Tour De France titles and was a Cancer Survivor. Some may have even said he was the best cyclist in history. Recently, though, it seems that Lance Armstrong is really no hero at all. As Juliet Macur states in the New York Times, "...accounts were revealed Wednesday in hundreds of pages of eyewitness testimony from teammates, e-mail correspondents, financial records, and laboratory analyses released by the United States Anti-Doping Agency" that provide proof that Lance Armstrong was doping, using performance enhancing drugs.  Not only was Armstrong using the drugs, he also forced some of his fellow teammates to do the same and threatened them by saying that they would be off the team if they didn't do it. Just like Parris in The Crucible uses intimidation to make people stay with the church, Armstrong did the same to pressure his teammates into using drugs. To top it off, there were team managers and doctors present to help the cyclists inject the drugs that would raise their oxygen carrying capacity and improve their stamina, ultimately to make sure that the team would win. In order to make it less likely for the cyclyists to test positive during a drug test, they were careful to inject the drug into their veins, instead of their skin, so that it would shortly leave the blood stream.
    Armstrong has been been stripped of all of his Tour De France titles and banned from cycling, but is this punishment too harsh? I don't think so, but Michael Specter of The New Yorker said that "a cyclist once told me that if you don’t use drugs during a race like the Tour de France it’s as if you are observing a sixty-five mile-per-hour speed limit on a highway—while everyone else is driving eighty." In other words, many of the top cyclists use performance enhancing drugs, so then maybe Lance Armstrong really was the best. Doping has become so common in this sport, so should it just be legalized? If so, under what conditions?  If so many are already using it, then wouldn't the competition be more fair if everyone was on it, instead of just a few people? Personally, I do not think that the drug should be legalized. Many performance enhancing drugs can be very dangerous, and it sets a very poor example for kids to see that the only way their hero succeeds is by using drugs. People should not have to rely on a drug to help them win, but the sad truth is that many people are so set on winning, that they will do whatever it takes.

To read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/sports/cycling/agency-details-doping-case-against-lance-armstrong.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&ref=opinion

More Moderation

    In class a few days ago, we were talking about presidential debate moderators. This year, Jim Lehrer, 78, moderated for a 12th time. After saying that 2008 would be his last debate, the new format brought him back once again. As Brian Stelter of the New York times explains, the new format "allowed for six 15-minute conversations, each starting with a question and two-minute answers from each candidate." It appealed to Mr. Lehrer because as a moderator he tries to stay out of the way and let the candidates speak. Unfortunately, Mr. Lehrer may have stood a little too far out of the way at the 2012 debate and has been greatly criticized for his performance. It seemed as though he just did not have enough control. Throughout the debate when Lehrer would speak, President Obama and Mitt Romney would often times either ignore him, or talk back to him and continue on. For an example, watch the following video:

     Personally, I think that the moderator plays a very important role and it is necessary that they stay in control in order for the debate to run fairly and smoothly. In this case, it seemed that Mitt Romney was more in control of the debate than Lehrer was, which could be argued to have given Romney an edge up. President Obama, as seen above, interjected Lehrer as well, but not nearly as often as his opponent. If the moderator does not stand their ground, as witnessed on Wednesday, then the candidates will pretty much disregard them. Also, although Lehrer had said that as a moderator he tries to stay out of the way of the candidates, I think it would have been a much more fair and informative debate if he had asked the candidates more specific questions, instead of letting them get away with some very general answers. What do you think the role of the moderator is? What are your thoughts on Lehrer's performance at the presidential debate?

    

    On a side note, the next debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney on October 16 will be moderated by a woman, Candy Crowley, for the first time in 20 years. I am very interested to see how having a woman moderator will differ the debate from what Americans have watched for the past 20 years.

 To watch more of Lehrer from the first 2012 debate click here:

http://on.aol.com/video/mashup--jim-lehrer-gets-bullied-517496754 

Who's Ranking is it Anyway?

    As a Junior in high school, I am starting to hear, talk, and think about college quite often. In class we were talking about what it means for something to be nice, which reminded me of a similarly general word, good. Joe Nocera from the New York Times says that "the single-minded goal of too many high school students...is to get into a "good" school." I hear people use the word "good" while talking about college all the time, and I wonder what people mean by it as oppose to what it really should mean. Recently, the U.S. News and World Report came out with their yearly ranking of colleges, and not surprisingly, on the top of the chart were schools including Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and Columbia. The title of the list as seen to the right, uses the word best, but what makes one school better than another? Why do so many people rush to see it if it's really just a list made by magazine editors who are simply trying to sell as many copies as they can? Nocera states that "U.S. News cares a lot about how much money a school raises and how much it spends...it cares about how selective the admissions process is." In my opinion, school rankings should not be based on these factors, but more on the satisfaction of the students that attend each specific school.
    People pay so much attention to these lists even though it shouldn't be about going to a school that is harder to get into, but instead about going to a school that a person genuinely thinks they will enjoy and have a good experience at. Especially at a school as competitive as New Trier, people should not be so obsessed with going to a school just because it's number one on a bunch of lists. What's "good" for some people, could be completely wrong for others. A "good" school should not be defined as one that is on the top of college ranking lists and is extremely hard to get into. Instead, I think it should be defined as a place that someone believes is right for them specifically. What do you think "good" means in this context? Why is there so much pressure for students to get into a school that is considered "good" because it is on top of many charts?

To read Joe Nocera's article click here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/opinion/nocera-the-silly-list-everyone-cares-about.html

Super Size No More

    A few days ago as I was watching Glee, I noticed one of the characters holding a super size soda cup. Whether or not it was coincidental, it reminded me of the recent ban that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg placed on super size soda drinks in New York City. According to Michael M. Grynbaum, a writer for the New York Times, the ban "which bars the sale of many sweetened drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces, is to take effect on March 12." Personally, I do not think that this is a particularly fair ban to place. Two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese, but I am not sure banning a soda size will really help. Even though there is a serious obesity problem in the United States, is it the government's job to tell people what they can and cannot consume? I think it should be a person's own decision and should not be influenced by anyone else. It is true that drinking a lot of soda increases risks of obesity, but just because the super size cup is going to be taken away, does not mean that America's obesity problem will just disappear. On the other hand, if it ends up going well, then it could be a wake up call to many Americans to start making healthy choices. I am very curious to see how big of an influence the ban ends up having. I commend Mayor Michael Bloomberg for his efforts regarding the health of Americans, but I wonder is where it is headed next...a ban on french fries? Bic macs? Candy?
     It is more important that the government educates Americans about the importance of keeping a balanced diet and exercising, so that they are able to make their own healthy choices. Do you think that this ban is a fair one to place? Will it be helpful in improving the health of Americans?

To read more about the ban click here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/nyregion/health-board-approves-bloombergs-soda-ban.html?_r=0

Share the Focus

     In class, we were discussing the incredible amount of attention that 9/11 receives, but looking at the big picture, is it too much? In Afghanistan, an average of 31 American soldiers die each month and recently there has been an increase in the number of soldier and veteran deaths as a result of suicide. In fact, as Nicholas Kristof states in the New York Times, "For every soldier killed in war this year, about 25 veterans now take their own lives." A likely cause of this is that the health of the veterans is not as big of a priority to the government as it should be. Of those who served in Iraq or Afghanistan, "45 percent...are now seeking compensation for their injuries, in many cases psychological ones." It does not seem fair that these soldiers fight for our country and then come home to have to fight for their psychological health. The government is concerned with whether or not the soldiers come home, but are not thinking enough about the conditions that they may be in when that happens. An army veteran, Maj. Ben Richards, who suffered two concussions while in Afghanistan, told Kristof that 90 of his soldiers were hit by a bomb blast, but barely any of them got much treatment at all. While in service, soldiers may have to wait around 396 days to retire, even if it is due to a medical issue. For the amount of work that soldiers put in to help our country, it is a shame how little focus they receive from the government, and how little sympathy they get from American citizens.
      Is it right that people still pay so much attention to 9/11, a tragedy that happened 11 years ago, even though there are tragedies happening every day for American soldiers and their families?  9/11 was an unimaginable crisis and deserves to be respected, but so do the soldiers that have continuously fought for our country.

To read more from Nicholas Kristof's article click here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/opinion/sunday/war-wounds.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www

Family Matters?

    As I sat in my room doing my homework on Thursday night, I heard my mom call from downstairs, "Lily, come look at how old the girls look!" I thought maybe she was talking about a picture of my cousins or a family friend that I hadn't seen in a while, but I came downstairs to find the T.V. paused on a shot of Barack Obama's daughters, Sasha and Malia. People follow Obama's campaign and his plans for the future, but it seems that many also pay close attention to his family and personal life.
     As we talked about in class, politicians aim to make themselves seem like relatable, self made people. Even Bill Clinton in his speech at the DNC quoted Bob Strauss who "used to say that every politician wants every voter to believe he was born in a log cabin he built himself." While many politicians use this technique to make themselves relatable to their fellow voters, other politicians, including Barack Obama, use their family as well to give them an edge up on the competition. Obama shows America his family man, father figure side, proving to people that he is a normal person just like everyone else. Many people in the United States who pay even the slightest bit of attention to Barack Obama know that he has two daughters. They probably also have no idea what either one of them sounds like because, well, we never hear them talk. What we do hear, is Michelle or Barack Obama speaking fondly of their daughters as the video camera briefly pans over their faces. Sasha and Malia Obama are characters in Obama's strive to win a second term in office. In fact, one of Barack Obama's opening lines in his speech at the Democratic National Convention was, "Malia and Sasha, we are so proud of you. And yes, you do have to go to school in the morning." This of course brought laughter to the crowd and most likely smiles to the faces of people at home who can totally relate to this comment made by this seemingly normal guy, who also happens to be the President of the United States.
     Of course the goal here is electability, but shouldn't there be more focus on the burning issues facing our country? Every candidate strives to make themselves seem like an approachable, relatable person, but in the big scheme of things, shouldn't there be more focus on who is actually in it to help our country?

Barack Obama and his family at the Democratic National Convention

Do the Punishments Fit Their Crime?

    Yesterday, as many Americans may know, college football started. Personally, I am not a huge football fanatic, but did however watch some of Penn State's game. The result was not in their favor and to be honest, I felt sorry for the players. Because of the sickening actions involving child abuse and the inability of important people at their school to say anything about it, the students and entire Penn State football community are having to pay the consequences. Don't get me wrong, the actions of Jerry Sandusky, Joe Paterno, and the others involved are inexcusable and deserve to be severely punished, but it is a shame that the whole school is being pulled down with them. The following video shows Mark Emmert, the NCAA president, talking about the sanctions that will be placed on Penn State (begin video at 2:00):

  
     In an article regarding these sanctions, Michael Rosenberg, a writer for Sports Illustrated magazine says that due to the fact that Emmert took 20 scholarships per year away from Penn State's football program, "65 Penn State players will likely get their butts kicked on Saturdays as punishment for crimes that they didn't commit." Of course sanctions needed to be made, but why should students be punished for something that wasn't their fault? Also, if the message that the NCAA is trying to send is that winning is unimportant in comparison to something like child abuse, then why is it even necessary for them to strip Penn State of their wins? Aside from consequences affecting the football program, the fine that the school has to pay ($60 million), is not allowed to be used towards Penn State's educational programs. If the whole school is already being punished for the crime, wouldn't it at least make sense for the NCAA to allow the school to have money to teach students about sexual abuse?