Still No Progression

Carla Hale

     Has America progressed? This question has been a hot topic in my American Studies class recently and clearly, it is not so simple to answer. However, I recently read an article called "One School's Catholic Teaching" in the New York Times which showed one example of how our society has not moved forward.
     Carla Hale, 57, had worked at Bishop Watterson High School in Columbus, Ohio, for 18 years. She kept her personal life private from the people at school. However, when her mother died, Hale didn't think twice about putting her partner, Julie's, name on the obituary. As the article explains, a parent of one of the High School students saw the obituary and wrote to the school saying that she would not allow "women like Carla to educate catholic children." Just like that, all because of her sexual orientation, Hale was fired from her job. The article states that no one who had a part in firing Hale "claimed that she was anything less than a terrific physical education teacher and coach, devoted to the kids and adored by many of them." If Hale had been such an excellent teacher for 18 years, it is ridiculous to me that she was instantly fired just because someone found out about her personal life.
   Some might look at the progress of gay marriage and think that America is really getting to a place where people will not care about sexual orientation. Unfortunately, at this point, to me that mindset seems unrealistic. In fact, recently "in Greenwich Village, a young gay man was fatally shot in what’s been deemed a hate crime." Clearly, our society has a ways to go before it truly does not matter what sexual orientation someone is. Even if gay rights are becoming more prevalent in society, will America ever be able to reach a place that is, at least for the most part, accepting? In these regards, has our society progressed? Why or why not?

The Celebrity Effect

Angelina Jolie and husband Brad Pitt

   Everyday, we hear about celebrities. Most of the time, it's completely unimportant information: a break-up, a divorce, a fight, or even the occasional arrest. As pointless to us as this news is, Americans just can't help but listen.
    A few days ago, Angelina Jolie wrote an op-ed in the New York times about her decision to undergo a double mastectomy due to her high risk of breast cancer. In my opinion, this was a very brave thing for her to do. Jolie is an extremely well-known figure, so her speaking out about the surgery is sure to raise awareness and make women more open to having genetic testing and surgery, if necessary. As Linda Holmes stated on NPR, we live "in a celebrity-infatuated world." The word "infatuated," meaning an unreasoning or extravagant passion/attraction, is no exaggeration. American people worship the ground that many celebrities walk on and because of this, Jolie can easily make a huge impact on people's lives just by saying that she went through the genetic testing and surgery. While in some cases Jolie's impact might be a positive one, in others it might not be. For example, because Americans are so celebrity-obsessed, it is possible that people will want to get the genetic testing, even if it is unnecessary for them.
   Despite whether Jolie’s impact is positive or negative, it is also interesting to think about why we listen to and believe celebrities. Seemingly, it is for the wrong reasons.  When people think about Angelina Jolie, they are likely focusing solely on her beauty. Forbes describes her body as "An American Iconic Body" and in this Huffington Post Blog, she is described as a "goddess." If Jolie was not viewed in this way, as a perfect and beautiful figure, I would argue that her statement would not have had the same impact. In the celebrity-obsessed country of America, people listen to a “beautiful” celebrity about serious matters (such as surgery), over a doctor or scientist.
     The impact that celebrities have on the American people is just another example of how our views are constructed. Hearing one statement from a celebrity has the potential to completely change one's perspective. Do you see the impact that celebrities have in America as being positive or negative? Why or why not? Why are Americans so impacted by what celebrities have to say?

All About the AP

    As I near senior year and begin the college process, I am hearing more and more myths about how to get into a certain school or what classes "need" to be taken in order to have a chance at getting in somewhere. Although I probably participate in it at times, I find all this talk quite frustrating. I do not understand why people are advised to take a bunch of AP classes that they may not care for, when there are many other options that aren't AP that a person is probably much more interested in. Even more frustrating was an interview that I read recently in the New York Times with Jeff Rickey, the dean of admissions at St. Lawrence University.
      In the interview, Rickey was asked whether a student should take the most challenging  courses even if they are not at all interested in that particular subject. Rickey's answer to this questions was "Absolutely." Upon reading his answer, although I may have saw it coming, I was quite shocked. In my opinion, students should challenge themselves, but also be sure to take classes that truly interest them. Another question asked to Rickey was whether it is better for a student to receive an A in an honors class or B in an AP class. To this, Rickey stated that, "As we admissions officers say when we are asked this question, “An A in an Advanced Placement class!” Comments like these are the reason why so many students feel so much pressure to have to take AP classes. Not only that, but they have to get an A in the class, as well. What they don't understand, and what I learned this year in American Studies, is that it is not the grade that matters!!! If students are only focusing on that single letter, then in the end they will not end up taking anything away from the class. We need to veer away from this society where the only thing that students think is important is how many hard classes you are taking and what letter grades you have.  How, if in any way, will our society be able to divert from this way of thinking?

Mothers Everywhere

    Today is mothers day; a day when mothers are, deservedly,  given thanks and appreciation for everything they do and all the advice that they give. Mothers everywhere, no matter what social class they be a part of, are recognized on this day.
    As I discussed in my Junior Theme, once someone is born into the lower class it is hard to escape it,  especially when you are raised by a single-parent, particularly a mother. However, we should recognize that while doing so is difficult, it is not impossible. Just take Angelica Gonzalez, as described in this article, as an example. She and her brother were raised by their mother, who did not attend college (putting her at a disadvantage in today's society). She provided income to the family by working constantly. Today, she continues to work as a blackjack dealer in Las Vegas. Because of the society that we live in, it may be surprising to hear that this woman's daughter, Angelica Gonzalez, is now a professor at Yale University and a scientist in the field of tissue engineering.
    As explained by Gonzalez, " My mother may not know the ins and outs of academia, but she taught me the essential ingredients needed to make it as a scientist in a white, male-dominated field." It seems that people who live in the lower class are underestimated, as if they can not teach the same values as people living on the upper class. Clearly, this is not at all a fair generalization to make. She may not be college-educated, but Gonzalez's mother is skilled in interacting with others, has a great sense of humor, is determined, and very creative ("she can sew, crochet, paint, cook, sculpture, and do woodworking and metalworking"). Although her profession may not seem at all similar to a blackjack dealer, Gonzalez uses these skills that she learned from her mother in her everyday life at work as a professor, as well.
     Angelica Gonzalez has a story that is not often heard from people coming from the lower class. When (and how), if ever, will our society get to a place where stories like Gonzalez's are not rare?

Perks of Having a Dog

    Pets are a big part of the lives of many American people. In fact, according to this article, "Nationwide, Americans keep roughly 70 million dogs and 74 million cats as pets." This is no surprise, especially living on the North Shore where it is difficult not to see a dog on a single block.  It turns out that owning a pet, particularly a dog, has more perks than just being there to keep you company.
     On Thursday, it was discovered by the American Heart Association that "owning a dog...[is] “probably associated” with a reduced risk of heart disease." This makes perfect sense because people with dogs are more prompted to get outside to walk/run their dog. Another reason is that having a dog lowers your stress level, and therefore your heart rate as well.
    I found that this research relates to what we have been discussing recently in class, social classes. While it is true that people in the lower class might have a pets, it seems that they would be less likely to receive the same kind of benefits from it that people in the upper class do. One reason for this is that people in the lower class are more likely to be having to work two jobs. Because of this, they would not have the same time as someone in the upper class would to take their dog for a long walk or even just work out on their own. Clearly, the research above has some flaws because many people that do have dogs may be unable or just chose not to take their dogs out, and thus having a dog would not reduce their risk of heart disease. Although a small one, this is just another perk of living in the upper class over the lower class.

Technology Hazards

    Most of the time, I always have my cellphone on me. I check my email, Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram every few minutes, similar to the majority of Americans these days. In fact, one of the reasons why it is taking me so long to write this blog post is likely thanks to the fact that I have Facebook open at the same time.
    According to research from Carnegie Mellon University’s Human-Computer Interaction Lab, as this article explains, an experiment was performed at Carnegie Melon in which two groups took a test; one group was not interrupted and the other group was interrupted by an instant message. The result was that the interrupted group answered questions correctly 20 percent less often than members of the group who were uninterrupted. This is even further of an issue because "a typical office worker gets only 11 minutes between each interruption, while it takes an average of 25 minutes to return to the original task after an interruption." All these distractions really do make people dumber and less affective in getting things done.
     Thinking more about the issue of all these technology-based distractions, it does not seem like there is really any cure for it. Technology only continues to advance in America, which just increases our access to social media and other ways of communication through technology. Thus, we will just continue to have more and more distractions. While technology advancements are good in some respects, the harm that they do to a person's brain power need to be kept in mind. As the experiment described above shows how technology interruptions make us dumber, it also affect our social skills. Take me for example: just a few minutes ago I was sitting next to my mom typing away on my cellphone while she was talking to me. After five minutes, I realized that I had absolutely no idea what she was talking about, thanks to the meaningless conversation I was having via text message. The more and more we text, the less likely we are to have skills in talking to someone face-to-face. How, if in any way, can these interruptions be lessened, or are they already built too far into society?
    

An Irreversible Loss?

    Among the many factors driving the widening income gap between the rich and the poor is a replacement of middle-class jobs with low-class jobs. In other words, a decline in manufacturing jobs, an area where people with lower educations were able to make decent wages, has resulted in more people having to make a living working low-wage jobs instead. Despite Obama's efforts to aid this issue (increase in minimum wage and creation of the American Opportunity Tax Credit) as this article states, "inequality has worsened during his administration." Although he has made many efforts, "Real median income is eight percent below pre-recession levels and middle-class jobs continue to be replaced by low-wage jobs." The decline of middle-class jobs, particularly in manufacturing, began in the 1980s when large industries started finding cheaper labor in other countries.
    A documentary called Roger and Me, by Michael Moore, exposes how big of an issue it became when manufacturing jobs started to go overseas. As seen in the trailer attached below, nearly 30,000 people in Flint, Michigan lost their jobs all because the General Motors factory was moved to a different country. While the majority of Flint was affected by the loss, there were a few very wealthy people who seemed to care less about the issue because they were still extremely well-off. This reminds me of The Great Gatsby because most of the characters seem to only focus on their wealth and materials, and might not even know or care that poor people exist. The manufacturing jobs that have been lost do not seem to be coming back any time soon, which makes for a smaller middle class, and a much bigger lower class.

What even is the Income Gap?

  

    Before I began my junior theme, I didn't know anything about the gap between the rich and the poor. Sure, I knew that it was "widening," whatever that meant, but I never really understood how severe of an issue it is. And that's the problem. Americans know that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, but that's pretty much it. Many people don't know, or don't understand that, as the attached video states, "The richest 1% take home almost a quarter of the nation's wealth." I'm not a numbers person, but even I understand that a quarter of the nation's wealth, is a lot of money. People also may not be aware that "The CEO now makes 380 times the average worker's. Not the lowest paid employee...the average one." I can't help but ask myself, doesn't this anger people? A CEO could be working just as hard as one of its workers, yet it is making 380 times more?!? I'm sure that people are angry, but we just don't hear about it. 

    Finding a solution to this growing issue is going to take a lot of work involving many different aspects of our society (taxes, education, technology, etc.), but in my opinion, before any of that happens, the leaders in our society, and people in general, are going to have to start understanding, and being more open to how huge of an issue this really is. Just take a look at the video; it is clear that Americans' perception of how wealth is distributed is skewed, not even close to the reality. One of the reasons for this could be because of how politicians treat the issue. As Peter Edelman mentioned in his book So Rich, So Poor, in regards to the Recovery act, "Obama made little use of the word "poverty"...[but instead] used the word "vulnerable"...to characterize low-income people." Poverty is a real thing and as the income gap grows, it only is going to become a larger issue. If the leader of our country can barely make use of the word, then American people will not think of it as the serious issue that it is.

Less Stuff, More Benefits

Graham Hill in his 420-square-foot apartment

    Here in America, and especially on the North Shore, we have a lot (and by a lot I mean an excessive amount) of "stuff." Noticing the room I am in now, I see how many items devour the table at which I am sitting: books, magazines, computers, phones, clothes, a purse, a stapler, a three hole punch, and picture frames (it is messier than you are imagining). Looking to the room next to me, which I will call the "living room," I can honestly say that I do not know what purpose it serves; nobody ever seems to be using it! My point is, why do we have all this stuff and space, when it seems that much of it goes completely unused?
     Graham Hill, an entrepreneur from New York, had the same question, but unlike most of us, he eventually did something about it.  It started after he sold his company for a whole lot of money.  He was living in an enormous apartment, and buying endless amounts of "stuff." As time went on, Hill, as explained in this article, started to become "numb to it all." The word "numb," meaning deprived of feeling or responsiveness, reminds me of how many American people unknowingly are today. Buying so much stuff seems like no big deal, when, after years of being piled around the house, garage, or a storage unit, most of it just ends up in the garbage. After realizations and experiences, Graham Hill decided to stop putting so much to waste. Although he could be living in a luxurious home with an abundance of all sorts of "stuff," he instead decided to move into a 420-square-foot studio. In it he has a bed that pulls out from the wall, 6 shirts, 10 bowls, an extendable dining room table, and some books.
     Hill says that he is now lives a "bigger, better, and richer life." Although this is just the story of one man, the message that he is sending is one that many American people simply do not understand, or choose to ignore: having an excessive amount of material does not make someone have a better, happier life (proof is shown in a study conducted last year). So, why is this belief engrained in our minds? Even if we are aware that materials cause more stress than happiness, why do we ignore it?
  

A Change of Heart

    On friday, Republican Senator Rob Portman of Ohio announced that he  is no longer opposed to gay marriage. Portman, who is known for co-sponsoring the federal ban on same-sex marriage, and voting to prohibit same-sex couples in Washington from adopting children, is now the only sitting Republican senator to publicly support gay marriage. What, you may ask, caused this sudden change of heart?   Well, Portman's son came out two years ago and as this article states, he "did not want his son Will, who is 21, treated any differently because of his sexuality." I think it is interesting how this quote says that he didn't want his son treated any differently. I applaud Portman for his decision, but think it is interesting  that Portman didn't appear to have sympathy for gay people until one of his own family members came out.
     Personal experience gave Portman a reason to really think about the issue, rather than just go along with what he had always believed and with what the majority of his political party had always believed. No matter what it took to get Portman to the position in which he now stands in, I would say that it marks much progress in our society. It is a good sign that Portman, in a party known to be against same-sex marriage, was able to publicly announce his new position, instead of silently keep it to himself. Hopefully, hearing people speak out for same-sex marriage will cause others to rethink their position on the issue, not just for the sake of a family member, but for the sake of society as a whole. What do you think it will take (if anything) for more people, particularly political figures, to change their views on same-sex marriage?

School Closings for the Better?

    In Chicago, around 100 schools have been closed since 2001 and another 129 are being eyed for closure. Living on the North Shore and going to a school like New Trier, it's extremely hard to picture this is happening.
     Even if the schools that shut down were low on enrollment or struggling to afford to stay open, I still think it is important for schools, as this article states, to "serve as refuges in communities that have little else." The word refuge, meaning a condition of being safe or sheltered from pursuit, danger, or trouble, suggests that the students already live in a dangerous area, and it is made even more hazardous when their school closes, forcing them to walk or be bused further distances through more dangerous areas. For most students, closing down their school is not helping them to get a better education at another school, but mostly  just setting them up to be in an even worse situation.This is a sharp contrast to our lives at New Trier. We, at NT,  drive a maximum of 20 minutes to get to school and are in an extremely safe area. It would never cross our minds to be nervous about having to drive through Glencoe every morning, whereas for many students in the city, walking through their neighborhood every morning is a risk. Although we do not live in a town that has "little else," I would argue that New Trier also serves as a refuge, but in a different way than many of the schools downtown. Many students that attend Chicago Public Schools need their schools to serve as a safe place for them to go. On the other hand, at New Trier we take for granted the fact that there is pretty much always something going on and it's open to students many hours of the day, even when school isn't in session. We may not see New Trier as a "refuge" because there are already other safe places that we can go, including our homes, which may not be the case for some students in Chicago.
     According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 1,929 schools across the country were closed between the years 2010 and 2011. For me, this number was pretty hard to wrap my head around, and it made me think about how lucky I am to go to a school at which there is no possibility for it to shut down. What do you think it would feel like for your school to shut down?

Queen Bees of the Workplace

"The very women who have complained for decades about unequal treatment now perpetuate many of the same problems by turning on their own"(Wall Street Journal).

Image from the movie Devil Wears Prada

    For women in the workplace, getting a job might not be the toughest part. "Queen bee syndrome," although it sounds like something that would have been used in middle school, is actually a term that refers to when, as this article states, "women who achieved success in male-dominated environments
at times...oppose the rise of other women." The word that stands out to me here is "oppose," meaning to attempt to prevent something. In a world where men seem to have the upper hand in many fields of business, it seems that women in positions of power should want to help to make women more prevalent in the workplace, rather than wanting to prevent it. I have seen examples of this in many movies, including Devil Wears Prada (as pictured), but was unaware of how common it was in the real world, as well. A 2007 survey of 1,000 American workers, released by the San Francisco-based Employment Law Alliance, reported that of 45% of those who said they were bullied at the office, 40% were bullied by women. Another survey of 1,000 women workers, taken in 2011, found that 95% said to have been undermined by another woman during their career.
    The main reason that I think this happens is because, especially in a male-dominated work place, women are afraid of losing their jobs due to the fact that they may be one of the only women in a position of power. In some ways, this reminds me of Mr. Bolos' presentation in which we discussed why we still have inequality. One of the reasons was efforts of the powerful, which has to do with the fact that powerful people have the means to sway things in their direction. Women in positions of power have the means to undermine other women, and as awful as it may sound, they will use this to make sure that other women do not gain the same amount of power as they have. In my opinion, us girls have to stick together, but unfortunately, there are some queen bees out there who apparently don't agree with that motto. What do you think the reason for "Queen Bee Syndrome" is?

Our Imaginary Pedestals

Oscar Pistorius

    In American society, many people think very highly of their "heroes," especially those in sports. Sometimes we might forget that in reality, we know nothing about these people except for what we make them out to be in our imagination. Friday night at the Blackhawks game I found myself talking about Jonathan Toews (the captain of the team) as if I had known him my whole life, when of course that is not actually the case. Outside of hockey, Toews, at least from what the public sees, has a pretty clean record. On the other hand, there are many athletes that are, or at one point were, looked up to, who are not as great in the real world as they are in a sports game.
    As this NPR podcast states, "These have certainly been dispiriting times for those who admire athletes, who proclaim that sports build character." The word that stands out here is "dispiriting," meaning to cause someone to lose hope. When someone finds out something bad about their favorite athlete, they will at first be upset and down on hope, but it is likely that in no time they will have moved onto a new athlete to place on their pedestal. Recently, there have been several incidents that prove that sports may, in fact, do the opposite of "build character." The most extreme example would be Oscar Pistorius, who killed his girlfriend on February 14. Many looked up to Pistorius, a paraplegic olympian, for his courage and determination, but paid no attention to the fact that even before the olympics, he was accused of assault and spent a night in jail for it. Other athletes, including cyclist Lance Armstrong, have been proven to have used performance-enhancing drugs. To add to the list, as said in the NPR podcast, "Our glorious intercollegiate football champion, Alabama, has given us three student-athletes who were...allegedly mugging real student-students." The list goes on and on, but what does this mean for us sports-watchers? I can't help but think about all the young children who look up to people who may be good at playing a sports game, but are definitely not good role models outside of the sport. Why do we think so highly of people who excel as an athlete, but oftentimes not as people?

And the Oscar goes to...

     The Oscars are fast approaching. People are buzzing about who they think will win this award and that award, about what color Anne Hathaway will wear, and, of course, about what movie will win best picture. There are nine movies nominated in this category: Amour, Silver Linings Playbook, Lincoln, Life of Pi, Argo, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Zero Dark Thirty, Django Unchained, and Les Miserables. I am proud to say that I have seen three of these movies, which is actually quite a lot for me. The truth is, though, I may not have seen any of them had they not been nominated for an Oscar. I mean really, who wants to watch an Award show when they haven't even seen any of the movies? In fact, I think that the Oscars and other award shows probably shape the way that people, including myself, look at certain things. For example, if a person sees a movie that is up for an Oscar, it is doubtful that they will criticize it as much as they might have if it wasn't up for one. If it's up for best picture, is just has to be a "good" movie, right?!?
     The question is, how can we classify a movie as "good"? What qualifications must it achieve? I saw "Lincoln" and really enjoyed it. That said, there are parts of the movie that send the watcher completely false information. An article in the New York times states that, ""Lincoln" falsely showed two of Connecticut’s House members voting “Nay” against the 13th Amendment for the abolition of slavery." The motive behind this was most likely to make for a more suspenseful climax of the movie, but in my opinion, in a movie such as "Lincoln," it is more important that the watcher receives, at least for the most part, accurate historical information. Tony Kushner, who wrote the screenplay of Lincoln, responded to the criticism, stating that it is okay to “manipulate a small detail in the service of a greater historical truth." The word that stands out to me here is "manipulate," which means to alter or edit. Even in a movie, I am not sure the extent to which it really should be okay to alter history. In another movie up for best picture, "Argo," President Carter's chief of staff, Hamilton Jordan, is portrayed as having children, when in reality he did not have any at the time. Finally, there's Zero Dark Thirty, in which, as Maureen Dowd writes, it is shown that "torture was instrumental in the capture of Osama." Don't get me wrong, I will definitely be tuning into the Oscars this Sunday, but I wonder, to what extent is it okay to alter history in order to make a movie more dramatic?

A New Hobby

    A President's life is completely staged, which is exactly why it seems suspicious that the picture in this post was recently released by the White House. Obama claims that he has a new hobby, skeet shooting. The photo was released just two days before the President left to promote his gun-control proposals, so clearly there was some motive behind the photo. In an interview, Obama claimed that he skeet shoots "all time time," but based on his stance and position of the gun, the National Skeet Shooting Association pointed out, Obama is definitely a beginner. This article in the New York Times quotes Obama saying, "I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations. And I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake.” The word that stands out to me here is "respect" because Obama, by releasing this picture, is seemingly trying to gain respect from gun rights supporters in an effort to ban gun rights. The National Rifle Association is not buying it, though. They do not think that skeet shooting proves someone, even the President, as being a supporter of the second amendment.
    It seems pretty clear that this photo being released was no coincidence. This picture could have been put out months ago and it would have made it seem a little bit more realistic, but instead it just so happens to be released just as Obama is heading out to talk about gun control. It was never even mentioned that Obama had ever shot before, which makes it even more unrealistic. What do you think the motive of releasing this picture was? In what ways, if any, would this picture have affect on defenders of the Second Amendment?

Obama in 100 Years

     As Barack Obama enters his second term as President, us Americans can't help but wonder how he will be remembered many years from now. According to surveys taken by presidential scholars between 2008 and 2011, Abraham Lincoln is the highest ranked President in American history, followed by Franklin Roosevelt and George Washington. The top 8 Presidents on this list all have something in common: each of them were elected into office for a second term, just as President Obama recently was. Obama will serve as the 17th President to have been re-elected to two terms. As this article states, "Most of the best-regarded presidents have won...at least 90 percent of the electoral vote in their second-term bid." Obama, on the other hand, won by a closer margin, winning 62% of the electoral vote. Using the graph on the right, it can be estimated that Obama will be ranked as the 17th highest president, but of course, numbers and statistics cannot always be trusted.
    Despite much criticism, Obama has already achieved a lot in his first term, including, as The Week magazine states, "his universal health-care law...his bailouts of Wall Street and Detroit...he ended the war in Iraq, is pulling us out of Afghanistan, and has already reduced the deficit by $3 trillion over the next decade." While this is an impressive list of accomplishments, Obama's remembrance might rely more on how he handles his second term, free from the pressure of getting reelected. As this article states, presidents "are judged by whether they get a few very big decisions right or wrong." As this statement suggests by using the word "few," often times many of the decisions that a President makes, whether they be good ones or bad ones, are ignored in the long-run. Only few decisions are remembered, and those are the ones that end up shaping a President's legacy. Although it may be impossible to tell so early, how do you think Obama will be remembered? In general, how do you think Presidents are remembered?
    
   

All About the Hair

    The President gave a great speech at the inauguration, but I'm here to talk about something a little more important: Michelle Obama's hair. If you have been hiding under a rock for the past few days,  then you probably haven't heard the BIG news: the First Lady, Michelle Obama, has bangs!
     When I first saw them, I didn't think much of it. I get haircuts all the time, but nobody ever seems to think of it as a big deal. The First Lady's haircut, though, had America buzzing. People across the country are talking not only about how they think Obama looks with bangs, but also about why exactly they think she did it. There is even a Twitter account called "FirstLady'sbangs" (that's when you know its a huge deal). As much as I love having to deal with my own hair everyday, thinking so hard about someone else's, as well, would probably give me a headache. People have come up with all kinds of hypotheses about why Michelle Obama got bangs. To begin, some say its the "youth factor." This one's pretty simple, she's just trying to make herself look younger. Others say, and this Washington Post article quotes, "she's expressing her inner self." In other words, now that it's Barack Obama's second term in office (and her second term as first lady), she is feeling more comfortable and free to express herself.  Others ponder that perhaps the First Lady has gotten bangs representing the fact that she "has plans to forge a new and expanded role in the second term, taking on different issues." Upon reading that, I thought to myself, "since when do bangs have such deep meaning?"
      These ideas could be realistic, don't get me wrong, but why can't the woman just get a haircut and not have all this speculation surrounding it? I'm not hating on the hair, I actually think it's quite trendy, but I just don't completely understand what all the fuss is about! Why do people pay more attention to the First Lady's hair than they do to issues facing our country? 
    

Final Exam: A "Candid" Shot of Mr. President

    Barack Obama is America's first African American President, but in the long run, will his bust deserve to be placed next to Martin Luther King Jr., Abraham Lincoln, and George Washington? This photograph of Barack Obama in the Oval office is an important contemporary artifact and relates to many texts discussed in class.
     The caption under the photograph, taken by the White House photographer, Pete Souza, claims that the picture is “candid.” I doubt this to be true because the President’s life is completely staged. Obama happens to be sitting in the company of some very important people in American history; Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Martin Luther King Jr. This relates to another photograph we looked at in class where Obama is surrounded by no less than eight American flags. Rachel Hoying commented that Obama “had to prove how American he was.” The word that stands out to me is “prove.” Obama cannot just tell people that he is American, but has to prove himself by showing it. In my artifact's case, Obama is surrounded by American icons, again trying to prove to his doubters that he is an American. George Washington, the father of our country, hangs above everything else in the picture, but Obama is on the same level as MLK and Lincoln. If the lower part of the picture were cut off, Obama’s bust would fit in quite well, showing him as another great American leader.
    Specifically, Obama’s bust would closely resemble Lincoln’s. Their heads are in almost the exact same position, looking down. In the movie “Lincoln,” Abraham Lincoln is shown as very calm. This photo seems to be channeling that side of Lincoln in Obama by making him seem very poised, despite surrounding pressure. Also, because the eye reads left to right, a viewer starts out focusing on Obama, and ends up on Lincoln. This makes it seem like the photographer is purposefully comparing Obama to Lincoln, rather than to MLK. This reminds me of the movie “Glory” when Trip, a member of the 54th regiment, asks Colonel Shaw, “What about us? What do we get?” The word “we” stands out because Trip is not just referring to himself, but all the freedmen. The picture may be trying to show African Americans and White people as equal by making Lincoln and Obama similar, but the problem is that having an African American President does not mean that there is complete equality for African Americans, the “we” that Trip was referring to.       
    This picture could also represent pressure surrounding the President. Despite the eyes constantly watching Obama, he still looks calm and collected; his arms rest casually on the chair, and his face reveals little, if any, emotion. The pressure that this photo may be portraying reminds me of the progress myth: to do better than your parent’s generation. Bill T. Jones said that “we’re supposed to do better than our parents.” The words “supposed to” stand out to me. Parents work hard so that their children can succeed, which may cause pressure for kids to feel like they must live up to a certain standard. In Obama’s case, the pressure is not from his parents, but from the leaders before him. MLK and Lincoln seem to be acting as the agents, or people who made it possible that an African American could become President. Obama has pressure to use his power and help society progress. 
    Clearly there was some motive behind the photo. It seems that the underlying theme beneath it may be to glorify Obama. The question is, will Obama will only be remembered because he was the first African American president, or because of the progress and accomplishments he made while in the White House? What do you think the photographer’s motive was?

Honorable, yet Shameful

Hubertus Strughold

    Should an American award be named after a man who worked on experiments for Nazi concentration camps? The Space Medicine Association (SMA) is currently discussing this issue. Every year the SMA gives out the Hubertus Strughold Award, which is named after a man who played a large role in helping American astronauts walk on the moon. Subsequent to Strughold's death, though, US Army Intelligence documents were released, proving that he was involved in experiments in Germany during World War II that assisted the Nazi Regime. The experiments he worked on were extremely harsh and killed hundreds of inmates at Dachau concentration camp. 
     Due to his involvement with the Nazis, many of Strughold's honors have been stripped. A library at Brooks Air Force Base was named after him, but his name has been taken down. Likewise, his image on a mural at Ohio State University was removed. On the other hand, the Space Medicine Association has not changed the name of the Hubertus Strughold Award...yet. This article from The Wall Street Journal quotes Professor Proctor, a critic of the award's name, who says, "You can't whitewash history." I question this comment...haven't we whitewashed history plenty of times before? Take George Washington for example. Most just think of him as a hero and altogether ignore the fact that he owned slaves. Franklin Roosevelt, another American hero, had affairs with women while he was married, but it’s rare to hear mention of that. Many American people focus solely on the good that these men did for our country, whitewashing the flawed parts of their lives.
    Clearly loads of respect toward Strughold has been lost, and rightfully so, but why can't he be honored for his accomplishments (as the two men listed above were), instead of dishonored for his wrongs? How do we change the present because of certain pasts, but not others? Where is the line drawn? 

Forgive and Forget

    "Forgive and forget" is a commonly used phrase, and especially typical to hear as we enter the new year. The phrase dates back to "Don Quixote de la Mancha" written by Miguel de Cervantes in 1605. He writes, "Let us forget and forgive injuries." It also appears in William Shakespeare's "King Lear," in which he writes, "Pray you now, forget and forgive." As you can see, over time the words forget and forgive have been flipped, possibly implying that if we first forgive, we will later forget. I hear these words together so often that until now, I have never really had a chance to think about them. Personally, I think that forgiving and forgetting is much easier said than done. In fact, often times I do not think trying to "forgive and forget" is necessarily the right thing to do. In many cases, it can be good for someone to forgive in order to move on, but not necessarily helpful to completely forget.
    Certain circumstances seem simpler than others. For example, as of today, the NHL lockout is over. Despite the 113 days of waiting fans have had to do for the season to start again, a large majority of people, myself included, will likely be forgiving of those who were involved in the lockout. By the time they are watching their favorite team again, the lockout will be a thing of the past and put out of the minds of the fans. Of course, there are more complicated and serious issues, such as the one described in this article. It describes the story of Conor McBride, who murdered his girlfriend, Ann Grosmaire. Ann's parents, although extremely devastated, were quite forgiving, which was a shock to me. The article states that, "The Grosmaires said they didn't forgive Conor for his sake but for their own." In this case, the Grosmaires were forgiving, but clearly will never forget what McBride did. The families ended up deciding to use a system called restorative justice, which "considers harm done and strives for agreement from all concerned — the victims, the offender and the community — on making amends." Is it right that just because the Grosmaires were forgiving toward McBride, that he gets to have less time in jail than he would have through a modern justice system? How far should forgiveness take a person? Where is the line drawn when forgiving and forgetting isn't the best option?