Favorite Post

My favorite blog post this year was my blog entitled "Separating Classes." I really liked this post because I implemented two forms of media in the post to further my point and at the end of the post I talked about a bigger issue that the fake no outlet signs were raising.

In my post I used a photograph and a video that I took at the very spot of the fake no outlet sign which I believe made a better argument and also showed empathy for the reader. Going to the site gave my post context and let the reader see exactly what I was arguing. If I had found an image of a no outlet sign on the internet my point could still have been made but the argument wouldn't carry the same weight. Now readers don't have to just take my word that the no outlet sign is there they can actually see it.

The video that I posted also helped further my argument. In the blog I pointed out that Indian Hill road actually has an outlet. In my blog I said that a reason for the fake no outlet sign was because the residents of Indian Hill road want to "keep people who don't belong, lower social class, from driving through." Because I took a video I could point out "the golf course" and the "large houses" and the "biker" biking in the road as evidence that Indian Hill road is very affluent. This shows more empathy for the reader because, again, they don't have to take my word that Indian Hill road is a wealthy area. 


Finally I liked this particular post because I took a step back and questioned if it is "right for the village of Winnetka to put up a 'no outlet' sign on a road when there is an outlet?" This moved the issue from this particular road to questioning the ethics of the village of Winnetka and what this says about what the village endorses. This question was simple but it hopefully got the readers thinking more about social class issues and how governing bodies support some social class barriers. This question also raised another issue in a comment. Paddy also noted that the fake signs cause drivers to be "distracted" and it makes driving "unsafe." This is an issue that I hadn't considered and probably wouldn't have thought about if it hadn't been for Paddy's comment. 

Separating Classes

We have been discussing social classes in my class and that got me thinking about social class distinctions in my society. On example mentioned in class was how Indian Hill road has a sign that says no outlet but there really is an outlet. You can see the no outlet sign in the picture above.

I went and checked out Indian Hill road to really see if there was an outlet. What do you know? The "no outlet" sign is a lie.
.

Above is a video of me driving straight through Indian Hill road and out the other side. So this begs the question, why is there a "no outlet" sign on a road that clearly has an outlet? One answer I can think of is to keep people who don't belong, lower social class, from driving through. It is pretty easy to see from the video that this is an area of wealth. There's a golf course on the right side and large houses throughout are pretty clear signs.

Another answer to why the road has a fake "no outlet" sign is because the residents want privacy and quiet. Both of these things are achieved when people stop using the road for through traffic. Before you clicked on the video did you notice the biker in the road? She probably wouldn't be doing that if the road was really busy. Another perk of privacy I guess.

Taking a step back is it right for the village of Winnetka to put up a "no outlet" sign on a road when there is an outlet? Also, are there any other examples you can think of concerning social class markers on the North Shore?

The Public's Right to Know

I recently read a story The New York Times entitled, "Rare Double Agent Disrupted Bombing Plot, U.S. Says" that really struck a cord with me. The story is that intelligence agent from Saudi Arabia infiltrated the Yemen branch of Al Qaeda last month posing as a suicide bomber who was going to blow up a United-States bound airliner with Al Qaeda's latest bomb that was supposed to be undetectable.

I would have thought that the U.S. would have celebrated this achievement and used it to gain more popularity for the Obama campaign because it shows that he is tough on terrorism. Instead, U.S. intelligence officials were angry that the story got leaked because "they feared the leak would discourage foreign intelligence services from cooperating with the United States" and because leaking the story is "causing our partners to be leery about working with us." I certainly understand the argument that the intelligence officials don't want the methods that they use to become known and also that the U.S. needs to maintain a trusting relationship with other countries in order to better prevent terrorist attacks.

But isn't it also the public's right to know what is threatening their safety? Ignorance is only bliss until something goes wrong. I feel that while the facts about the double agent should not have been leaked to the public, the public should at least know that a new terrorist plot was foiled that involved a brand new harder to detect underwear bomb. How much harm could 300 million extra sets of eyes do? The news has the possibility to cause paranoia but I'd rather be on the safe side when it comes to issues like this.

Dependence

I never really considered how much I depended on technology until my cell phone broke. I didn't consider myself to be the type of person to keep their whole life on their phone but now I'm rethinking that. I guess you really don't know what you have until it's gone.

The obvious effect that my broken phone will have is on my social life. Pretty much all of the plans that I make with friends is through a phone call or a text message. But going deeper than that, a lot of the sports news that I find myself talking about comes in the form of an update on my phone. I update online sports leagues on my phone, and I update Facebook through my phone. If I just had a home phone and I didn't pick up when someone called, they would assume I wasn't home. If I don't answer a call or text on my cell phone, people assume I'm ignoring them and that might make them upset.

Speaking of making people upset, losing my phone will affect my work life. I work as a photographer for a consignment shop and don't have regular hours and what I do changes just about every week from the obvious things like taking pictures to the less obvious like uploading the pictures to an online auction site. The only way I know what to do and when to do it is through my boss texting me. As I'm writing this even, he could be asking me to resend him a few pictures from last week. The consignment shop is small and relies on quickly processing  the items to make the most money. When everything was working how it was supposed to I never thought twice about anything going wrong. Now I have to figure out a way to fix it.

The most surprising reason that I have to fix my phone problem is because of how it could affect my school life. I check my homework for some classes on my phone. Now I know this can be easily fixed be easily fixed by writing the homework down in class but it will still be an adjustment. Also, a lot of the group work that goes on in classes is coordinated through texting and calling. In biology we will start our pig dissection soon and all the work will be done in groups and the teacher suggested coordinating the work by texting my group members about what everyone should do.

After thinking about this I realized that my life was kept, at least mostly, on my phone. This is a common theme that I don't think most people realize. The writing prompt on a recent ACT test that I took asked "are human relationships strengthened or weakened by technology?" The ACT wouldn't ask a question that the test takers couldn't relate to so I guess it just goes to show how much society relies on technology to function.

Thinking About a Change

For the past week I have been pretty set on my "why" question that guides my junior theme being "why do Americans eat so much fast food even though they know the health risks associated with fast food?" I did and still feel that the question is very broad and has a lot of possible areas for me to look into with my research.

Yesterday, while reading The Omnivore's Dilemma, the issue of how cheap the fast food is struck me as another possible topic. Why is fast food as cheap as it is? The book brought up some very interesting issues including government subsidized corn, which is very prevalent in fast food and just about everything these days, and how the cheap corn is good for the consumer but bad for the corn farmers.

The book also explored how even the cows are being raised much faster then ever before. Rich Blair says: "In my grandfathers time, cows were four or five years old at slaughter... Now we get there at fourteen to sixteen months" (52). This remarkable speed can be attributed to the diet of corn, tallow, food supplements, and lots of drugs.

These advancements do have a nasty side. Cows were never meant to eat corn meaning that they are always sick. "Cattle rarely live on feedlot diets for more than 150 days" (59). This is because the cows system couldn't handle eating corn for any longer. The other part of feedlots that disturb me is that the cows have the ground up remains of other cows mixed into their food. This could lead to several diseases in the meat that we eat.

This is what led me to wonder why we as Americans turn a blind eye to some of the darker things happening in feedlots so we can get our food at a cheaper price?

Why Americans Eat Fast Food

My first attempt at a "why" question for my junior theme is, Why do Americans eat so much fast food even if they know the health risks associated with fast food? Just based on some background knowledge I have a few ideas but I hope to generate some new ones as I delve into research and also expand on the existing ideas that I have.

My first thought as to why Americans eat so much fast food is the simple fact that it is cheap, it tastes good, and it is available. According to this website, there are 14,000 McDonalds in the U.S. That comes out to 280 per state! Now I know that there are obviously more McDonalds in some states then others but it still is amazing how much a part of the fabric of our country McDonalds has become.

The second thought is that fast food is addicting. This WebMD page confirms this. Neal Barnard writes that "cheese, meat, chocolate, and sugar are addictive foods in the diets of millions of Americans." This could be one of the major reasons I give in my actual junior theme paper. Just like how Americans drink so much coffee because of the caffeine, Americans eat so much fast food because of the addictive qualities that are largely unknown by the general public.

The final reason that I have come up with as to why Americans eat so much fast food before I start my research is because of the fact that it is "fast." This is a little harder to quantify but my thinking is that there are more people working downtown then ever. Also a lot of those people get paid by the amount of work they get done, the amount they sell, etc. So it would behoove those workers to take shorter lunches. And this is where fast food restaurants come in. Workers can get a fast lunch and go back to business but the problem is then those workers get into a routine of eating fast food and that is the grounds for all the nasty health problems you hear about.

Daylight Savings

Waking up this morning was especially painful since I got one less hour of sleep then I usually get. This of course is due to daylight savings and that made me think why do we have daylight savings?

In doing a little research on the subject I came across this website that says Daylight Savings was an idea that Benjamin Franklin first came up with in 1784 to save money because oil lamps didn't have to be burned for as long a time.

In America we continue the tradition of daylight savings for similar economic reasons. And what surprised me the most was that the majority of Americans liked daylight savings even though they had to wake up an hour earlier then they would otherwise. The reason for this is that with daylight saving Americans are able to do more in the evenings. So I guess daylight savings not only helps save us a little energy but it also keeps us more active.

Embryonic Stem Cells

I have been talking recently in my biology class about the morality of embryonic stem cell research. This has really opened my eyes to both sides of the argument.

A big anti-embryonic stem cell argument is that stem cells should be thought of in the same way as regular people and that no on has any right to destroy them. This 60 Minutes segments highlights this argument from 4:08 until the end of the video.



In my opinion, the biggest fault in the interviewees argument, the interviewee is a bioethicist named Robert George, is that there are already embryos that are destroyed everyday in fertility clinics. Why then does Robert George have a problem with embryonic stem cell research but not the fact that the embryos are being tossed in the trash?

This is a spring board for the most convincing pro embryonic stem cell research argument that I have heard. The same 60 Minutes segment from 2:15-3:04 highlights Art Caplan who is another bioethicist who is pro embryonic stem cell research. Art Caplan also brings up the fact that on top of embryos being destroyed on a regular basis at fertility clinics, there are people in wheelchairs, people trying to cure cancer, and people trying to understand genetic diseases. These factors coupled with the fact that there are thousands of embryos that will never be used for anything can only point to research.

After hearing these two arguments I have to conclude that the anti-stem cell research argument is hypocritical. I really do not see how an argument against embryonic stem cell research can be made. But this is obviously a very complicated issue that has many factors that I haven't taken into account. Are there any other anti-embryonic stem cell research arguments that can counter the fact that embryos are going to be thrown out anyway?

TV Tokenism

Burn Notice

 

I agree with the thesis. The main character Michael is a white male who receives the majority of the screen time. Vaughn appeared first in season 4 and receives very little screen time. He dressed very nicely and is in a position of power over Michael. Vaughn is not very complex and doesn't have a back story like the other characters. Also Vaughn is usually the one standing in Michael's way making Michael's life more complicated.

Sweeping problems under the rug

After reading Sarah's blog that discussed the issue of avoiding problems involving race, it made me think about what other problems. Actually I had a very similar discussion with my dad about some of the financial problems that were being avoided but were eventually going to become a major issue.

The most interesting issue my dad brought up was the fact that very few Americans actually have a retirement account that can support a retirement. After looking a little deeper into the issue, I found this article that shed a little more light on the problem. One of the most surprising things the article said was that "half of Americans have $2,000 or less in their [retirement] account."

This begs the question, what will the 50% of people with less then $2,000 in their retirement accounts do when it comes time to retire? The article also did say that the average amount in a retirement account is $50,000 but still, how long is $50,000 going to last if your only other source of income is social security?

Now of course, the reason most people don't have enough money in their retirement account to retire is because they can't afford to put money away. This dilemma caused me to look deeper at the core problem and after looking around, I think I found the answer.

The reason so many Americans don't have enough saved to retire goes back to the 1960's and America's slow transition from a manufacturing to a service economy. This blog has a great graphic that shows this change based on the largest employers from 1960 compared to 2010. The biggest employer in 1960 was General Motors and the biggest employer in 2010 was Wal-Mart.

Another important factor is that in 1960 one third of Americans belonged to a union (http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/laborunions.html) while today only 11.8% of Americans belong to unions (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm). These unionized workers received higher wages allowing them to better save for retirement. Now the same working class is working at big retailers which don't give as good a salary or benefits which doesn't allow them to put any money away for retirement.

So what is the solution? Is there even a solution? This is a very complicated issue with many factors. With the increasing automation of manufacturing service might be the only source of employment in the future which will only exacerbate the problem. This is a big problem but no one has stepped up and tried to solve it.

Modern Reconstruction

We have been talking in class recently about better ways to manage the era of reconstruction after the civil war. This made me think what would be the best way to reconstruct the time we live in now? With so many issues being battled with on a daily basis, where would you even start?

Personally I think we should start with the education system which would hopefully allow us to prepare for tomorrow and have a more well rounded society. An education would allow those people living in poor areas a chance to escape their current lives and give them an all around better shot at success. When I was reading an article on how education is funded that can be found here, I found that even though the U.S. puts the most money into the education system out of any country, "nations that spend far less achieve higher levels of student performance." So the answer isn't to just throw money into the education system.

Finland is rated the top nation in terms of education. This article, on the World Education Forum, describes the Finnish education system and why it is so successful. The biggest problem I feel our education system is facing is the massive gap between the well funded education in affluent areas and the underfunded education in poor areas.  This comes from the schools being funded by property taxes. It seems to me that the simple answer would be to fund all schools the same amount. In Finland education is provided to everyone "regardless of their economic situation." In the U.S., most quality education is provided to the lucky few that can afford to pay for it. This could either be by enrolling in a private school or moving to an affluent neighborhood.

In Finland, According to the World Education Forum, even the post-compulsory education, which is like college in the U.S., is free for everyone. This comes from the Finnish government wanting to achieve "as high level of education as possible for the whole population." If we look at the current situation in the U.S., does the U.S. government want the same thing? The costs of colleges are continually rising leaving many families of kids who are qualified for college unable to attend on the sole basis that they can't afford it.

Now I realize that it would be near impossible to scrap the current education system. But why not tweak it a little? Maybe try to fund schools more evenly. Give the under privileged children a fighting chance. Maybe the U.S. could buck the trend of only focusing on the present and invest in the future which is all of the children in school right now.

Meta-Post

Looking back over my blog posts, I noticed that as the year progressed, I did a better job incorporating outside sources to show more empathy for the reader. This is clear in my first post when I start the post saying that "I have heard people complaining," but then never actually say where I heard these "people" complaining. I didn't find an outside source that grounded my argument in current events and real peoples complaints. This made it hard for readers to connect to the issue. In another one of my earlier posts, I put up a youtube video to show the readers the Verizon ad I was discussing, but nowhere in the post did I specifically talk about any contents of the ad. The closest I came to quoting the ad was when I said that that "the most heavily discussed was the Verizon ad." This put a burden on the readers of the post to actually watch the video and then connect what they just saw to what I was arguing. 

As I continued to blog, I did a better job of incorporating outside sources and giving the reader an easier time. In this post, I summarize the article that I am referencing by saying "as it states in this article," but also give a link to the article so that the reader can not only see what I got out of the article but also form their own opinions should he choose. The article was also a summary of the part of the Geneva Convention which I was referencing. This makes my argument stronger because the summary means that the reader doesn't have to interpret any language and give them a better chance at coming to the same conclusion that I did. 

Along with not doing enough incorporating of outside sources, I over-incorporated an outside source which was just as hard on the reader, and me!, when reading that post. In that over-incorporated post, I spent the majority of the time summarizing the article where I got my historical context instead of just taking what I needed from it. This summary included a lot of details that are unimportant to my argument like saying that Lincoln park had "German farmers and shop keepers in the North." This is just a detail that blurs the argument I was trying to make. Even I found it hard to follow my train of thought in that post.

Toward the end of the semester, I really think I hit my stride using outside sources in my posts. In my post about the LYTRO camera, I did a good job referencing a variety of sources and including enough to make my point but not enough to bog down my post. I first cited the LYTRO website which had a review of the camera and how great it was, but I wanted to argue how it wasn't as good as the press it was receiving said so I found a blog post by professional photographer Chase Jarvis and quoted his blog and the problems with the camera. I quoted Chase writing that this technology could create great pictures "unless... your pictures have no focus." I then gave a two sentence analysis of what I thought that quote meant and continued on with my argument. This was quick and gave the reader a reason why my argument had merit. 

The reason I chose to write about this particular aspect of my writing is that I feel it is very important in all of the writing that I do. If I write a paper that doesn't have any evidence to back up my claim, it will be dismissed because I don't show the reader why I have a valid point. Also too much of an outside source takes the reader away from the point I am trying to make. The great part about blogging is that I can practice this technique on a weekly basis in a stress free environment. Also, I have the ability to read my classmates blogs and learn more about outside sources and what works the best. Next semester I hope to continue improving on incorporating outside sources in order to better argue that which I am passionate about.