Where is it Needed Most?

During the holiday season, there is a sense of joy and happiness that seems to flow around. People often reflect upon their actions in the past year that is coming to an end. With these thoughts, during the holiday season especially, people make an effort to help the less fortunate and give to charity. But how should one decide where to give? There are so many causes out there that it can often be difficult to sift through and find the "most important ones". I was reading an opinion piece in the Chicago Tribune whose author thinks that American's donations should be given to the many people in poverty in developing countries  rather than giving to institutions at home in the United States.

The first question that arose when I read this article was, What about the people in the United States who are in poverty? The author, Peter Singer, argues that we should give to people in extreme poverty. "Extreme poverty, as defined by the World Bank, means living on less than $1.25 a day"(Singer). This number is much more common in developing countries than in the United States, because it is a relatively rich country, so therefore less of the population is in this intense situation of need here. Although his reasoning seems to be logical, I feel like Americans who are donating money should first consider problems in their own country rather than those across the Atlantic. The author argues this again by saying that people should give where they would have the most impact; developing countries.

I do agree with Singer that money should be given to more direct causes rather than already wealthy institutions. The example he brings up is one that I think about as well. Singer is a professer at Princeton where a vast majority of the student body was exposed to an excellent education and he does not always see the importance of giving to an institution that is already thriving when he could give his money elsewhere to places that could give as many children possible at least some form of an education. From this example, Singer is saying that he would prefer to donate where the need is greatest. Do you think that there are some causes that are more deserving than others? How would you decide what causes are the most needy?

Is Autism to Blame?

By now, almost every person in the United States has heard about the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School that took the lives of 26. This tragedy has appeared to overwhelm the country with talks of increased gun control and better security measures in schools. Although gun control is a huge topic and one that is of utmost importance, I feel that another topic related to the shooting is not receiving enough focus. I was reading an article that mentioned the recent spike of hate towards children with Autism. You may be wondering how this can possibly be related to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Well,the shooter (Adam Lanza) was diagnosed with a form of Asperger's. This condition is on the Autism Spectrum but at the very low end so therefore is not very severe. People with Asperger's often exhibit social awkwardness but can still function rather normally. On the other hand, people with extreme Autism may have impairments in their communication. In Lanza's case, his form was not extreme but still played a major role in his life.

People were quick to assume that one of the reasons for Lanza's violent actions were related to his Autism but advocates of organizations like "Autism Speaks" are trying to get the message across that this is not the case. The President of Autism Speaks recently wrote a statement that reads,"Several media outlets are reporting that the shooter might have had an autism spectrum disorder. Some have also inaccurately reported that there is a linkage between autism and planned violence. We ask that blame not be placed on people with disabilities or disorders in the midst of these types of tragedies". True to her words, many doctors have agreed upon the fact that Autism is not related to this type of violence. So why then are Americans so quick to blame this disease? I think that a possibility is that with such a tragic event like this one, people do not want to sit with the feeling of an unknown cause and want to find a scapegoat.

In relation to this misleading assumption, there have recently been concerns that more children with Autism will be bullied. Students may  falsely identify the link between Autism and violence and would further exclude these kids from school life. This study found that 46 percent of middle school and high school students with Autism have reported being bullied. These students are already "easy" targets and now with this new association tacked on, it seems as though children with this disability will never be able to escape a cycle of exclusion. Advocates of Autism awareness organizations feel that teachers should better educate students about the condition. To what extent do you think this would help the situation? Do you think this raises an even bigger question about the American's desire to blame?

Tackling Childhood Obesity...On TV?

The three kids and trainers on The Biggest Loser

Many of us are familiar with the rising problem of childhood obesity in the United States. Organizations and political leaders are taking charge of this issue in a variety of ways. For example, First Lady Michelle Obama with the Let's Move Campaign and the NFL with their Play 60 initiative. Both of these campaigns, and many others, strive to put an end to childhood obesity by encouraging children to be active and eat healthy. American's spotlight on obesity does not end with these campaigns. 

In 2004, NBC debuted a show called The Biggest Loser. In the show, obese contestants compete to lose the highest percentage of their body weight (when compared to their initial). In other words, the show is supposed to act as a competition to become healthy. This reality show has been criticized as promoting unrealistic rates of weight loss. The contestants live in a ranch for the duration of the show and their primary focus is on losing weight and learning to eat healthier. In the real world, a person could not commit that long of a period of time (and energy) for weight loss. 

For the next season starting in January, there will be a new aspect to the show. Besides the return of one of the most well known trainers on the show, Jillian Michaels, three teens from the ages of 13-17 will be featured. One article talks about the addition of the new members by saying, "With childhood obesity at an all-time high, jeopardizing the health of kids and future generations, The Biggest Loser is committed to fighting this epidemic by featuring children to serve as ambassadors for change who can inspire kids all over the country to get healthy"(NBC). The children will "serve as ambassadors" because instead of living in the ranch and doing weekly weigh-ins, they can continue their lives at home but will be able to lose weight and in the process will inspire others. Also, NBC is trying to reach a wider and more diverse audience with the teens. I think that this is a great idea but it makes me wonder if it is really the best for kids struggling with their weight to be put in the national spotlight. NBC has adressed these concerns by saying that these kids are already being bullied about their weight and this show would serve as a support system for them and their families. Do you think that it is alright to have children participate in this show? What other issues could arise from this?

Shortage of U.S. Pilots

The airport has become a much less enjoyable place to be in recent years because of higher security measures and also unavoidable weather delays. Another problem is soon to be affecting air travel in the United States that most people are unaware of. I was reading an article that was talking about the shortage of pilots in U.S. airlines. The article explained that one of the reasons is because the requirements for being a pilot are starting to become stricter. For example, Federal Mandates will be put into effect next year that require pilots to have at least 1,500 hours of flying experience which is six times more than previously needed. I think that this is in theory is a great idea that would ensure that pilots really know how to fly but that time is a huge investment! I remember how long it felt to get fifty hours in order to  be eligible for my drivers license so 1,500 hours would feel like a lifetime. Therefore, Aviation Schools will have to spend more money and wait a longer time to send out new pilots. This is an issue because according to the Wall Street Journal, "more than half of American pilots are over age 50"and many of them will be retiring soon. Furthermore, studies project that Airlines will need to hire nearly 50,000 pilots in the next ten years in order to keep up with the wave of pilots that will be retiring.

When first reading the article, I did not understand why there are not enough pilots. I remembered hearing about cuts in the pay of pilots earlier this year and realized that this could make the job less appealing to prospective pilots. Because of these pay cuts, some American pilots are moving overseas to fly planes for other foreign airlines that pay better. Also, the job is rather demanding because the pilot is away from home most of the time. Why else do you think that there is a shortage of pilots? How would this affect the availability of flights in the coming years? Do you think that the media is making this problem seem bigger than it really is?

The Disney Princesses and Diversity

Almost all of us are familiar with the Disney princesses and their tales. Cinderella the poor girl with an evil stepmother and stepsisters who gets her wish to go to the ball and meet her prince charming, Ariel the mermaid who just wants to abandon her life as a mermaid and live happily ever after with her prince...just to name a few. One of the things that I noticed when thinking about the princesses is how racially undiverse they are. The majority of them are white while Jasmine, Mulan, Pocahontas, and much more recently, Tiana are the ones that are of different ethnicities. I must clear up the fact that many of these princesses were not created by Americans (or in that case Disney as well) but were adapted from fairy tales by Grimms or Hans Christian Anderson, or others too. The last princesses that were added to the "Disney Clan" were the ones mentioned before, the non-white ones. The first one added was Jasmine in 1992 while the first princess, Snow White was shown in feature film in 1937. After the release of Snow White, four more were to follow before a different ethnicity was added. Why did it take so long to add princesses of different ethnicities? Right now, there is a pretty solid ratio of white to non white princesses but this makes me wonder if Disney would have thought something like this would happen back in 1932.

More recently though, I was reading an article that described Disney's plan to release a new princess named Sofia. She will be the first Latina princess and she will be featured in a movie called, "Sofia the First: Once Upon a Time", and have a spin off television show on the Disney Channel and Disney Junior. The major contreversy stems from the fact that critics do not think she is being portrayed as "Latina enough" to really embrace the ethnicity. One of their main concerns is that her mother's complexion is much darker than Sofia's. Unlike Sofia, the mother appears to look more Latina than her. How come the princess is not this color? It took Disney long enough to come out with princesses of different ethnicities but they eventually took the ethnicity to the extreme. They tried to incorporate cultural situations and educate young girls with Jasmine, Mulan, Pocahantas, and Tiana. How come they are not going all the way with embodying the culture of the Latinos?

I think that it could be linked to the current American views towards Latinos. Many Americans are uneducated about different types of people and are quick to make assumptions and judgements. The other racially diverse princesses were not introduced when there was a direct discrimination towards that ethnicity. Sofia, on the other hand, is trying to be a  representative for the growing number of latinos in the country. All in all, I feel that Disney is trying to do good by introducing a Latina princess but I am disappointed in how poorly they are portraying the different ethnicity. What do you think this shows about American attitudes toward equality and inclusion?

Math and Science?

Earlier this week, I was watching the third presidential debate when I heard President Obama talk about the importance of math and science teachers. He said," What I now want to do is to hire more teachers, especially in math and science, because we know that we've fallen behind when it comes to math and science. And those teachers can make a difference."(the full transcript of the third debate can be viewed here). This same topic had been brought to my attention in earlier debates when President Obama talked about this same issue. I think that it is interesting that he would pinpoint this issue of education to focus on.

I am aware that the United States is well behind other countries in terms of math and science education so that is why Obama is striving for improvement in this particular area. If the United States is lacking in cutting edge math and science, then the nation will not be able to compete with other countries  This idea was also brought up in an article about Obama's stress on this issue. I think it is saying something about the goals of our country by mentioning math and science, not other subjects like english, history, arts, or foreign language. Obviously, the president does not disregard the importance of these other subjects but there is a message he wants to portray by just emphasizing two of them. This makes me wonder if other countries are the most concerned about math and science as well or if it is just the United States. What do you think?

The Need for Speed

A few months ago, I heard about a Texas highway that raised its speed limit to 85 mph and was truly astounded. Drivers around here go that speed sometimes on the highway but it is not the official speed limit. How could this be safe? On the same topic of speed, I found an article that was talking about a test run of a train that goes 111mph conducted in Illinois. This high speed train would take commuters from Chicago to St. Louis in an hour less that previous 79 mph trains. The train was tested on a 15 mile track section that is specifically designed for fast moving trains. This is not the fastest train in the United States; the fastest being the Amtrak Acela Express in the Northeast that boasts a whopping 150mph.

Courtesy of the Chicago Sun-Times

Even though the Acela Express is the fastest train in the United States, it seems extremely slow when compared to some of the other high speed trains in the world. For instance, the second fastest train in the world belongs to Germany. The Transrapid TR-09 train goes a mind blowing 279 mph, that puts the Acela Express to shame. The number one fastest (conventional wheel) train is the CRH380A in China that can reach speeds of up to 300mph. Many other countries including Japan, France, Italy, and South Korea all have trains that run at faster speeds that 150mph. How come the United States in so behind in this technology when compared to other countries?

One of the theories that I have come up with is that maybe the United States Department of Transportation does not yet trust the safety of these high speed trains. They could be very concerned about the safety of the citizens (not saying that these other countries aren't) that the department would not want to risk anything. Also, maybe this is something that is not at the top of the list and they do not think that improving this certain technology would be beneficial for the entire country. The article on the train in Illinois said that "the project would create more that 6,000 construction jobs"(Sfondeles). If this estimate proves to be true, then I don't see why the government would be hesitant start this initiative of faster trains all across America where there is a need. What do you think?

Junk Food in NY Hospitals?

Earlier this week, Mr. Bolos put up a blog post where many students and I discussed the problem of obesity in American society. Many of us linked this epidemic to the lack of healthy food options, and accessibility to citizens. One student brought up a point that was about what kind of role the government should have in the regulation of unhealthy food choices. As many of us know, sometimes it is much easier, convenient  and appealing to buy a hamburger for two dollars than spend much more on an organic salad. I believe that the government should put a tax on unhealthy foods so that people will not always go the easy route by choosing the unhealthy option.

I came across an article that was talking about how Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City plans to control what is being sold in the vending machines in hospitals around the city. To me, it makes complete sense that a hospital, of all places, should not serve unhealthy food. Mayor Bloomberg said, "If there's any place that should not allow smoking or try to make you eat healthy, you'd think it'd be the hospitals." His rationale certainly makes sense because the places he wants to do this in (hospitals) really do represent the epitome of health. On the other hand, I feel as though maybe this would not be such a great idea because many people who are in the waiting rooms of hospitals are worried about their loved ones. For example, if you are anxiously sitting in a waiting room worried about your loved one and bored out of your mind,what is to say that doing some "emotional eating" to cheer up is that bad? In addition, some people could feel too controlled by the government if something like this were to take place. In the article, a retired hairdresser who was sitting in the outpatient waiting area was interviewed on the issue. He remarked, "We're being told what to eat and drink. We're not living in a free country anymore." As Americans, freedom was one of the founding ideas of our country; how many immigrants thought of the new land. It is a value that is in the First Amendment of the Constitution  It is something we all feel is so basic to humankind. Do you think that Bloomberg's actions would be limiting our freedoms?

Keep Your Coins, I Want Change

Courtesy of Emily Isaacson taken at
 Gage Park High School

In my Design class last week, we looked at various street artists and how they used their artwork to spread messages about change. We discussed how artwork does not always have to be displayed in a gallery but can be used effectively to communicate something. We were looking through images done by artist Banksy when I noticed an image that looked quite familiar to me. This past summer, I participated in a week long social justice program in which myself and a group of around fifteen other teens went to different parts of Chicago and learned about issues around us and how to be social justice activists. One day, we went to Gage Park High School on the South West Side and visited with a group of teens that call themselves VOYCE ( Voices of Youth in Chicago Education). They are part of a larger organization that is comprised of CPS student activists who want to make changes in the policies of their schools. The image on the right was painted as part of a mural on the wall of the VOYCE meeting space by students at GPHS. This image was also the one that I saw in Design class last week.

In American Studies, a major theme that I noticed has regularly poped up in discussions for the past couple of weeks has been social class. During the first weeks of AIS, we talked a lot about our own communities and how they may or may not differ from other places in the country. When we went on our field trip to Hyde Park a few weeks ago, we got to experience and explore different parts of Chicago that contrasted to the areas that many of my classmates and I live in. It was a great way to continue our learning outside of the classroom in a constructive and innovative manner.

When I first saw the image on the right, I was truly captivated by the message that it seemed to give off.  To me, this quote is saying something very real about the lives of many U.S. citizens. Although  many Americans are homeless right now, around 636,017 in 2011 according to the National Alliance to End Homelessness's website, I do not think that this message is intended to reflect only the words of the homeless. The witty play on words (coins and change) along with the image of a homeless man are meant to initially make the viewer think of the homeless demographic. As I read more deeply into the actual language, I realized that the homeless man was just a medium through which the artist used to portray a larger statement. The homeless man is saying that if he were given money, that would not help his situation. What he really wants, is change. Change in the economic system so he can get a job, the social class system, or many other interpretations. This can also be taken outside the realm of homelessness by rewording the quote, for example you could say, "I want to take action, not just list ideas". Either way, these two quotes still send out the same message that is very prominent for Americans right now especially because of the current state of the economy. 

Globalization of McDonalds: India

Image Courtesy of brandeating.com

Almost every American child can recognize the iconic golden arches that belong to McDonald's. This American fast food chain has over 12,000 restaurants in the United States but also serves customers in nearly 120 countries. I was reading an article in Newsweek Magazine that said that McDonalds announced that it would be opening two all vegetarian restaurants in India. This makes total sense at a marketing standpoint because a majority of the population in India are either Hindu or Muslim. In the Hindu religion, the cow is considered sacred and they do not eat meat and Muslims follow 'Halal' and cannot eat pork. There are only 271 restaurants currently located in India that serve some vegetarian options but cannot fully accommodate the limitations of the culture. Instead of common items such as the 'Big Mac' or 'McDouble' that would appear on a menu in the United States, these McDonalds will be serving the 'McAloo Tikki burger' and 'McSpicy Paneer' instead. I think that these restaurants will be more successful because the items available will better cater to the population. When I went to Israel a few years ago, my family and I went to a McDonalds that served kosher burgers. Since there are many Jews in Israel that keep kosher, the McDonalds served kosher burgers to fit the dietary restrictions of their clientele. Similarly, the McDonalds in Israel have changed their menu to better serve the people that will buy their product. Through the examples of India and Israel, I begin to wonder what kind of image an American company has coming into a different country. Would the population of that country prefer to have the 'American' options on their menu rather than ones that fit to their culture? To me, I would clearly think that if an American company is coming in, it should serve 'American' food. But as I mentioned earlier, through a business viewpoint, the company would not make a great profit if it did not adapt its menu to the culture. On the other hand, I feel as though sometimes, profit is not all that matters but that keeping a certain standard throughout all restaurants is the most important. This view, however, is rather idealistic and could never benefit the economy. What do you think?

To Cheat or Not to Cheat

As we kick off the new school year at New Trier, students are refreshed on the rules regarding Academic Integrity from the Student Handbook. One of the most important sections that students are aware of is about cheating.  Most every student knows that cheating is morally wrong but how come there are still some students who engage in this unethical epidemic?

I was reading an article on the New York Times website that talked about the growing number of students that are cheating, even in top notch high schools and universities across the country.One recent example includes Stuyvesant High School in Manhattan where more than 80 students were accused of sharing information via text messaging about state Regents Exams. With all of the technology at our disposal, cheating can become more widespread much quicker and fly "under the radar". Also in this day and age, it is even easier for cheating to happen because of the wide variety of resources that are available to students. For example, the Internet has opened endless doors for information but has also created the opportunity for vast amounts of plagiarism. Students can just copy and paste straight from the source into their work and call it their own. On one of the first days of class, Mr. O'Connor stressed to us the importance of citing our sources and not plagiarizing. The article also mentioned how unlike at New Trier, many students are unaware of the Academic Integrity polices at their schools and that parents do not do a great job of reinforcing these rules.

Students feel more pressure now than ever to succeed in what they do and will go through any means to reach their goals, even if this includes taking shortcuts. Donald L. McCabe, a researcher on cheating observed that students in the past who were struggling were usually the ones most likely to cheat but now, he is seeing that more high achieving students are cheating. In high school, students may feel pressure from their parents to get good grades, or even feel inadequate next to their peers. These can be reasons that drive students to cheat, McCabe describes.

Particularly in the US, there is a large emphasis on success and doing one's best. The future of the United States rests on the shoulders of young adults and some may collapse under this intense pressure. Cheating may slide by in high school and college but the act will have detrimental affects on the country if some continue down this path.

The Paralympic Games

Courtesy of www.paralympic.org

This past summer, countless Americans "oohed" and "ahhed" at the spectacular athletic feats that they watched during the London 2012 Olympic Games. They saw their favorite athletes triumph and bring gold medals home. Each evening, the games were broadcasted on NBC and this year, the London Olympics became the most watched television event ever recorded in the US with more than 219.4 million viewers. This can not be said about the Paralympic Games. Unfortunately, NBC has decided not to do broadcasts of the games but instead "will screen a total of four 60-minute highlight packages on one of its most obscure cable TV channels" according to one source. This article also describes that some other nations like the UK and Australia are offering live streaming of the games. As I have observed as an American, sometimes our culture is not very welcoming towards people with disabilities. Of course in a perfect world, everyone would be accepting of one another. This makes me wonder if somehow these "cultural ways" are related to the lack of awareness about the Paralympics. What is it about the ideals of the United States, as compared to other nations, disuades openness to differences? I was unaware that the Paralympic Games were even going on right now (August 29- September 9) until a friend told me about them at school the other day. How come NBC has decided not to broadcast the games in the US? Youtube has announced that they will be streaming the Paralympics in both the United States and Canada. This way, there will be at least some access for Americans but surely not as many people will be watching. Furthermore, many disability organizations are very displeased with the lack of coverage because they feel that more light needs to be shed on disability awareness. The IPC is the committee that is responsible for organizing the Summer and Winter Paralympic Games. On their page on the Paralympic website they state that,"The Paralympic Movement builds a bridge which links sport with social awareness thus contributing to the development of a more equitable society with respect and equal opportunities for all individuals." How can this be achieved if many Americans are not given the opportunity to experience the truly inspiring determination and success of Paralympic athletes?