Meta Post: The Sequel

The blogging world has surprisingly always appeared very glamorous to me. Real people expressing their real opinions that they write on their own time.

So, this year when I learned that we were all going to make blogs-I was ecstatic. And I still love blogging. I'm so glad that I have had the chance to realize this thanks to AmStudz.

This year, I have grown immensely as a blogger. I cringe now as I reread my first post; Illegitimate sources-terrible intro- and overall messy organization.

Thankfully, I continued to improve throughout first semester. By the time I wrote my first meta post I had noticed the issues in my first semester blogging and I set two goals for myself:

1. Expand the variety of my topic sentences. (Most of my topic sentences from first semester started with a weekday and then informed when the topic of the post was first introduced to me. For example: Thursday, while I was watching the news I was informed that....etc.)

2. Relate my blog posts to what we are discussing in class more often.

To start off, there were way more than just two problems with my blogging at that time of the year, and while I think I succeeded in my first goal, I did not succeed in my second. But that does not mean my blog posts this semester have not improved in quality, they have. Tenfold.

White Flag-Jasper Johns
This painting does not pertain to my blog post.

My favorite blog post fourth quarter is entitled Dumbing Down Politics. 


The main reason why this is my favorite blog post is because as I wrote it, I changed my mind on the topic. At first, I was angered by the news that our congressmen speak at such a level, but by writing a blog post about it, I was forced to step back and look at both sides of the issue and do research on both sides. By doing this, I ultimately changed my mind, and I think that this is an important trait to have not only as a blogger, but as an American as well: The ability to disown your preconceived notions on an issue after educating yourself. I was not able to do this until taking this American Studies class.

Another thing I think is strong about this post are my embedded images. Specifically, the second image. I believe I was successfully able to prove a point simply within the caption which also added purpose to the image. Before this post, my captions were not as meaningful and many of the images were not explained.

Lastly, I did accomplish one of the goals from my first semester meta post, the topic sentence goal. I did not begin this post with a weekday reference but with a rather (in my opinion)  witty joke. This topic sentence also helps to entice readers into reading my post.

I am not a perfect blogger, I have made many mistakes, but I'm much better than when I started. And honestly, knowing that makes me extremely content.

Thank you American Studies. 

Dumbing Down Politics

If in the past 15 years you have found it easier to understand America's politician's speeches, I feel obliged to tell you, you have not been getting smarter, congress has just been getting dumber. According to a report by the Sunlight Foundation, a foundation, "that uses the power of the Internet to catalyze greater government openness and transparency, and provides new tools and resources for media and citizens, alike" (SunlightFoundation), members of congress currently speak at the vocabulary level of high school sophmores. 

Congress...is that you?

When I first heard this statistic, I was appaled. Our great country's prominent politicians speak like a bunch of 15 year old girls? That is not acceptable! Politicians should be highly educated, well spoken individuals, that's why we elect them to be responsible for our country! There is a certain amount of trust that goes along with being smart that politicians such as Barack Obama, graduate of Columbia, or George Bush, graduate of Yale (mind his grades) receive. 

Therefore, our congressmen should definitely not speak at the level of high school sophmores, right? 

Rep. Mick Mulvaney, (R-S.C) speaks at a lower grade
level (7.9) then any other US Congressmen,
yet he graduated with honors from Georgetown U. 

Wrong! As I contemplate it more and more, perhaps it is not such of a bad thing. Politics should be comprehendible for all Americans, no matter how large their vocabulary. 

Although, it is not clear if congressmen are dumbing down their vocabulary on purpose, as it may seem to be a bad thing, it may not be so bad at all. 

What do you think? 

Click HERE to learn more about this topic!

Blasting Bloomberg

"At our nation’s founding, African-Americans were held in bondage. Those without property could not vote. Catholics could not hold office. Women could not vote or hold office. And homosexuality was, in some places, a crime punishable by death.Throughout our history, each and every generation has expanded upon the freedoms won by their parents and grandparents. Each and every generation has removed some barrier to full participation in the American dream. That work is not over. Far from it… Last week’s referendum banning same-sex marriage (amendment one) shows just how much more work needs to be done to ensure freedom and equality for all people.”
                                                                                                              -Michael Bloomberg

When UNC Chapel Hill asked New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to deliver the commencement speech for the graduating class of 2012, they most likely did not anticipate him slamming North Carolina's newly instated Amendment One. North Carolina Amendment One (often refereed to simply Amendment One) bans all same-sex unions of any kind in the state of North Carolina. 

There has been a huge divide on the subject of Bloomberg's comments; Were they appropriate, were they not?  In fact, I took the liberty of finding a message board on this topic with comments from real Americans, here are some I'd like to highlight:

"Mayor Bloomberg....do us all a favor....keep your opinions in NY. The rest of the country could care less what you think....Your city is a mess..." -Tea Party United

"I don't care what side of the issue you're on, but Bloomie should stay in NY, and dictate his views to his sheeple. The rest of the country doesn't care what he thinks. Rule your little fiefdom as you wish. They like being ruled up there. Liberty is a foreign concept to them."

"I guess bloomberg & obama go the same spa!"

If you want to read moreof these ridiculous comments,which are much more offensive than anything that came out of Bloomberg's mouth at UNC  click here.

Were Mayor Bloomberg's comments appropriate? In my point of view, yes. Yes because there is never an inappropriate time to preach equality. Yes because Bloomberg has a right to preach his opinion no matter what college he is at. Yes because commencement speeches are traditionally supposed to refer to the future and inspire young minds, and Bloomberg's speech accomplished both. 

And above all of that, if they are college grads anyways, they were more likely to vote against amendment one as proved by these graphs from buzzfeed.com. The first graph displays the percent of people over 25 with a bachelors degree or higher by county. The darker green counties the are the counties with a higher volume of college grads. The second graph displays which counties voted for and against Amendment One. The green symbolizes the "yes" counties and the red symbolizes the "no" counties. 

Pretty shocking right? It seems that counties with a higher volume of college grads are the counties that voted against the equality of gays.

Nonetheless-everyone- leave Bloomie alone!

Drowning in Logos

A new iphone application entitled "Logos Quiz Game" has gained quite a bit of popularity recently. I wanted to try it out for myself, so I downloaded it to my iphone and started playing, and now I can't stop. I'm hooked! I beat the first five levels in a day! That's over 200 logos. 


Though, when I closed the application I realized that it was kind of weird that I was playing a quiz game identifying big companies' logos. Why am I able to recognize so many logos off the top of my head?  


It's not only me who is extremely skilled at identifying logos, it's our whole country. According to Jay Walker-Smith, President of Yankelovich (a market research firm), "We've gone from being exposed to about 500 ads a day back in the 1970's to as many as 5,000 a day today" (CBS). 


At first when I read this statistic, I was skeptical, 5,000 is a enormous amount of ads. But, then I started thinking about it and I realized, ads are everywhere: Your tv, your newspaper, on the radio, on billboards, on the internet, on facebook, in movies, in music videos, the sides of trains, the sides of buses, the side of buildings, the sides of boats, vending machines, iphone apps, tray tables on airplanes, examining tables in a doctor’s office, taxi video screens, subway turnstiles, sports stadiums, benches, even your coffee cup has an advertisement on it. 




So, are we drowning in logos? I think yes. If high school students had to take a test on identifying countries on a world map and a test on identifying logos, which one do you think they would score stronger on? 

To Measure an Education

Growing up in an upper-middle class neighborhood, I've been told repeatedly just how lucky I am to be receiving such a high quality education. Due to some ignorance, I never truly understood what I was being told--until I began writing my junior theme. I'm doing my junior theme on the cutting of arts education is America's schools.

Did you know that fewer than 50% of 18 year olds have received an arts education? That in itself is a pretty staggering number, but the shock only continues once you learn how much that percentage drops when applied to minorities; particularly minorities living in lower class neighborhoods. 26% of 18 year old African Americans and 28% of 18 year old hispanics have received an arts education in their lifetime.

A quarter of some minorities in our country have not received an arts education.

An arts education that allows students to grow intellectually, socially, and emotionally. An arts education that has been proven to raise test scores and reduce tardies and truancies.

Three in four children of these minorities have never received that.

And we as Americans wonder why minorities have an extremely high, high school drop out rate?

What if--what if 100 percent of minorities had the ability to receive an arts education, would their drop out rate decrease? I sure think so.

I finally understand how lucky I am, but with this understanding comes guilt. Every school I have attended throughout my life has offered art classes. If I'm going to a public school shouldn't everyone else enrolled in public schools be receiving the same kind of education I am? I think that for what lower classes' property taxes (that fund public schools) lack, the government should make up in. Aren't we supposed to be a "fair" country?

My statistics for this post can be found here and here.

Thanks for reading,

Chrisanthy

Rush's Hoodie

Rush changing into his hoodie on the floor

If you have turned on a television in the past week, you may have noticed the massive amount of media coverage that the Trayvon Martin (the Florida teen unjustly killed by George Zimmerman) case is receiving. As if the case has not been compelling enough, the subplots that have spun off of this case have turned out equally as fascinating. My favorite being Illinois State Representative's Bobby Rush bold attire choice at a recent chamber meeting. 

While Rush was on the house floor discussing the Trayvon Martin case to his fellow congressmen, he began taking off his suit jacket to reveal a hoodie, symbolic of the one Trayvon wore on the night of his death. Almost immediately after this action, Rush was kicked off the house floor for breaking the chamber dress code. (Click here to watch Rush getting kicked off the floor). 

The big argument here is that other congressmen break the dress code all the time, but they have never been penalized like Rush was. Many government officials in support Rush have also noticed the unfair enforcement of the dress code, such as house minority leader Nancy Pelosi who stated, “If you’re going to enforce it {the dress code}, enforce it, but don’t be selective about it.” 

So, why isn't the dress code being enforced for the whole house?  Also, if they're not making a statement like Rush was, why would a congressman show up to a house meeting underdressed? Congressmen fifty years ago never had the nerve to show up to a formal house meeting underdressed, so why is it normal now? 

In my opinion, not just the house, but we as a society are becoming increasingly casual dressers. But, when did this happen? Are our values changing with appearance decreasing in importance? 

And finally, do you think If Trayvon Martin was wearing a sport coat instead of a hoodie he would have still been murdered? 

Pro Doctor Killing?

Pro Life or Pro Choice? That seems to be the buzzing question nowadays. As if the arguments behind abortion weren't complicated enough, our pals down in Tennessee have decided to kick it up a notch. A new bill entitled The Life Defense Act of 2012 is currently making its way through the Tennessee House of Representatives. This bill would make it mandatory for the state to publish the names of every doctor who performs an abortion and detailed statistics about the women who have undergone the procedure. Tennessee wishes to pass this bill in hopes of frightening abortion doctors into discontinuing their practice. 

If you have not yet realized how dangerous this bill could potentially be, allow me to explain. 

Abortion doctor George Tiller was shot to death as he entered
his church in Wichita, Kansas in 2009.

In the past 35 years, abortion doctors have faced, 8 murders, 17 attempted murders, 42 bombs, 176 cases of arson, 99 cases of attempted arson, 191 cases of assault and battery, 420 death threats, 524 cases of stalking, and 4 kidnappings (NFA).

If this bill passes  these numbers will only increase. The state, regardless of their viewpoints, should not be able to utilize the threat of illegal violence onto doctors for doing something legal. I'm aware that some of you reading this blog may be morally opposed to abortions and support pro life, but shouldn't you also support the lives of the doctors that have now been put under threat by their state government? Why aren't the doctors' lives considered as important as the life of a fetus in the eyes of the politicians who wrote The Life Defense Act of 2012?

I don't care who you are, what your views are, or where you're from, I think we can all agree here that the government in no context should accommodate crimes and criminals.  

Girls on Youtube

In my last post, I introduced the idea of the internet being dangerous to young girls. If you have not read my last blog post entitled "Am I Ugly" (which can be read HERE) then you may be unaware of a growing trend of middle school and junior high aged girls posting videos on youtube asking the people of the internet whether they are pretty or not. 


Up until today I thought that these videos were the most dangerous types of videos girls of that age could post. But, I was proved wrong, oh so wrong. 


The girl in the video below, lets call her Leap Day Girl, may be a tad older than the girls that post the Am I Ugly videos, but Leap Year Girl exhibits the same maturity level. 
WARNING: This video contains cursing, if you are not comfortable with that, do not watch!

How in this girl's mind is it okay to post a video like this? The pure ignorance of it is enough to be disgusted by if you are not already appaled by the number of swears used per sentence. I think the funniest part of the video is the part where she states, "THIS IS WHAT SOCIETY'S COME TO", like leap year is some sort of stupid choice we've made as a society. She obviously has no idea that there has to be an extra day every four years to keep our calendar stabilized, and this is the ignorance she is receiving so much attention for. 

The first time I saw Leap Day Girl's video I immediately thought back to a comment I received in my last post from fellow AS classmate, Ozakh Ahmed, which said, "I think that girls our age should lead by example because we forget how much of an impact we hold on them {younger girls posting videos on the internet}." It made me ask myself, 'How do girls my age (16) and above portray correct internet and video mannerisms online?' 

The answer is, we don't. Take the very popular, very controversial video, originally titled "Asians in the Library" video for example (which can be seen to the below). 

The young woman from this video is aged somewhere between 18 and 22, goes to a highly ranked college (UCLA), and is just about as ignorant as Leap Day Girl. She displays herself as the epitome a horrible role model for younger girls, such as Leap Day Girl, through her disgustingly racist jokes and comments. So is this UCLA student part of the reason why younger girls think its okay to post offensive videos online? If anything she's not helping the issue. I know that there are plenty of older girls that post sophisticated, politically correct videos on youtube, but they do not receive half the attention that the shockingly distasteful videos posted by girls their same age get. But shouldn't this negative attention ward off younger girls from posting equally distasteful videos online? No, because they are too young to know any better. 

I'm aware that I have presented a lot of information to think about with these last two blog posts, but there are two final questions that I wish to leave you readers with: 1. Why do we see so many girls and young women posting ignorant, offensive, and shocking videos on the internet? 2. Are there any boys and young men that have done this before, and if yes, have received as much attention for it? 

Am I Ugly?

New social media trends are constantly popping up nowadays, but are they appropriate for all ages? I recently saw a video about a new social media trend for junior high aged girls. The trend is these girls posting videos of themselves on youtube asking the public if they are pretty.

Now, I was once a junior high aged girl, so I am familiar with the struggles of self confidence at that age, but in no way do I approve of this trend. In fact I think it is very dangerous. Turns out strangers love to bully these insecure girls so the comment section of their video can turn quite nasty. So it seems that these videos have the opposite effect of what the girls posting them seek out of them. All of these already self conscious girls are just becoming more self conscious as strangers trash them in front of the whole world. Also, I'm sure that internet predators love praying on these easy-targets insecure pre teens. This video epidemic is just a disaster and needs to be  stopped.

But how can we stop it? I think it should start in the schools, kids need to begin learning at a younger age about internet safety. Kids begin learning and using technology younger and younger these days. But that doesn't mean that they are necessarily mature enough or cautious enough for it. It also scares me that such a trend has developed since I was their age, which was only a few years ago.

I also think schools need to teach their pupils to be comfortable in their own skin and not to take what bullies say to heart. I think that something like the New Trier Names Program was really effective with this lesson, but I also think that maybe freshman year is a little too late considering that many of the girls who post these Am I Ugly videos aren't even 14 yet.

Then the question comes up about the parenting of these girls. Parental controls are a good place to start.  Also, parents, like schools, should teach their children to be confident enough to not have to go to the internet to seek compliments.

There are 4 million views on this "Am I Ugly?" video above, 42,018 dislikes, and thousands of hateful comments.

This is not okay.

These girls obviously need help that they are not getting, so let's change that.

If you want to learn more about this trend click here.

TV Tokenism- Ugly Betty

Although I agree that TV Tokenism is real, I disagree with one of its points. I disagree with the point that states there is not a successful show with a minority as its protagonist.

The comedy- drama called Ugly Betty aired from 2006-2010 on ABC and had a very successful 4 season run. It focused on main character Betty Suarez (who is hispanic and has the most screen time by a long shot) landing a job in the fashion industry where she is sorely out of place. The show centered around the idea that being different is good. It also showcased not one, but many minorities (hispanics, gay hispanic teen, gay white male, transvestite, etc). I think that the show's content being centered around fashion had loads of appeal for its target audience, young women, who also struggle with self image like Betty. I'd even go as for to say that show's subject matter overpowered peoples disinterest in minorities. Plus, Betty Suarez completely goes against all rules of a TV tokenism minority character. First of all, she's the MAIN CHARACTER, she is the secretary for a white male, and she is not well dressed.

One may argue that the character of Wilhelmina on the show does comply with TC tokenism considering that she's higher up the chain than Betty so she has power over the protagonist (but is not the boss), she is well dressed. But, on the other hand she is very cruel and is the show's main villain which does not fit the TV tokenism mold for minorities. Therefore, I conclude that her acute fashion sense and the power she harnesses are merely coincidences. 

Martin Loofah King

Seeing as we are in the midst of our civil liberties unit, I found one photo I stumbled upon today on the internet particularly interesting.  The photo was of a loofah, with Martin Luther Kings face on it.

I find this product very contradictory. It claims to be a commemoration of the great MLK, but I find nothing complimentary about Martin Luther King's face rubbing away your dead skin cells. The worst part of this product? The other, non-exfoliating side of the glove which reads: "I Have a Clean". Clever spin on words or just cheesy? Definitely cheesy. 

Something that I did find quite surprising about this product though, was the fact that it was made by a man from the UK. His name is Sheridan "Shed" Simove and he makes other sort of goof products besides this one. Products such as "The Gaydar" and the "Control a Woman Remote". Most of Shed's products are degrading and inappropriate, but I don't think he necessarily was trying to hurt anyone with this product. I think he was just in it for the cheap laughs and quick bucks. It still is sort of insulting and probably should have never been put on the market. Perhaps since Shed grew up in the UK and not the US (where nowadays, starting at kindergarden the greatness of MLK gets pounded into our minds), he was unaware of how insulting this product could potentially be seen as, especially by Americans.  

Interestingly enough,  Shed no longer sells the Martin Loofah King on his website alongside his other products. But if you are really dying to get your hands on one, the loofah can still be bought on amazon here. 

Tobacco Tussles

In June, the FDA issued a mandate that requires tobacco companies to put large graphic photos on 50% of their cigarette packs that show and portray that smoking kills smokers and their babies. The FDA published a statement about this mandate on their website stating, "The introduction of these warnings is expected to have a significant public health impact by decreasing the number of smokers, resulting in lives saved, increased life expectancy and lower medical costs". Based on this statement and on the tobacco companies' negative reaction to the mandate, the conclusion can be made that the images have the possibility to seriously hinder sales for the companies. 


This February, 5 American tobacco manufactures decided to fight back and take a stand for their first amendment right. Therefore, they are suing the FDA.  Reputable news sources, such as CNN,  believe that these tobacco manufactures put up a good case. Even U.S. District Judge Richard Leon thinks they have a chance. 


But is the FDA really violating these drug companies' freedom of speech?


 Personally, I don't buy it. To me, these images just seem like a visual of the side effects to smoking tobacco. Every other drug company has to include side effects on their labels even if it hurts their business, so why should tobacco companies be exempt? Also, I'm aware that 50% of packaging is a large portion, but I truly think that the government has good intentions. 


My thoughts are that as long as the government is keeping less health harmful drugs illegal, such as marijuana, that tobacco should not be legal as well. I think tobacco companies are lucky that they even get to sell their deadly products to consumers.  




You can learn more about this heated debate here here!


-Chrisanthy S

What Kind of Man

With election day nearing closer, I find myself watching more and more obscene political ads. Romney may have won the Florida primary tonight, but I see Gingrich picking up momentum everyday. But, when I saw one of his Newt's newest anti-Romney ads, entitled: What Kind of Man, it made me think of a question that has been frequently brought up in my house recently. The question is what kind of man runs the country? Who seems to be more of a president? The general consensus in my house is that Romney seems to be more of a president than Gingrich,  I agree with this consensus, which is why I found Gingrich's "What Kind of Man" video sort of ironic.

I began delving deeper in why I thought Romney seems more of a president than Gingrich to me. I realized there are many factors supporting my decision.

Personally, I see Barack Obama as the quintessential male president, aside from his skin tone (which I find inconsequential but can be seen as otherwise). Therefore I have stacked up Romney and Gingrich against eachother and Obama in a chart I produced below. Click the chart to enlarge, I apologize for the of blurriness. (Warning: While many of the things I have written in this chart are based in fact, some are based on my own observations).

Now, I'm aware that these characteristics are not the sole characteristics of what makes up a presidential male, but I think that they are easily 5 of the most important. While making the chart it appeared to me that Romney proved to be a more "typical" president than Gingrich when both are compared to Obama, which might be just why I see him as more of a president than Gingrich. I also think these similarities could be a factor that will help Romney through the primaries and the polls.

And just for the record: I do not support Romney nor Gingrich. I simply found this question interesting.

What ingredients do you find necessary in a president?

As always,
Chrisanthy S.

META POST!!

Reading my blog as a whole, from a critical standpoint, I have begun to notice many things that I have not  noticed before. Certain aspects my blog posts have not changed, which in some cases hurt me, but in some cases I think these similarities help make my blog stronger. 


For example, since the beginning, all of my blogposts have had a picture, a link, or/and a video embedded into them and I will continue embedding these elements into my blog for the remainder of the year because I truly believe they make a blogpost much more interesting for the reader. Another similarity between my blog is the amount of time I put into the titles. I try to brainstorm witty and inciting titles such as "Extreme Couponing: Extremely Crazy" and "The Fun Theory". I think titles are one of the most important parts of a blog because many readers decide whether or not to read a blog based on solely their attraction to the title. 

Yet, I think that some of the similarities in my blogposts are not beneficial and weaken my blog overall. One thing that really struck me while reading my blog was how similar all of my opening sentences were. What I do is I start my opening sentence with a recent day of the week where the topic of the blogpost was introduced to me. And I do this in order to set the scene. But I do it all too often, in fact I've done it 7 times this semester. I counted. The earliest example I can find of myself doing this is from Sept. 21 in my blogpost entitled: "Music and Our Fellow Man". I open my blogpost by saying, "Yesterday, while scrolling down my tumblr dashboard, I saw an interesting post about a new website". And unfortunately the most recent example of myself doing is only from last month, on December 11th, in my blogpost entitled: "The 51st State: Chicago". I said, "Today, a shocking idea was introduced to me".  I think these two opening sentences are much too similar and now that I've had a chance to step back and look at all of this opening sentences, I feel like I've turned into a broken record. Therefore, that will be something that I will make sure to work on when blogging next semester. 


While there are many similarities between my blogposts, there are also many differences, and changes that I have made over the course of this year. A big difference between my early blogs and my latter blogs is using quotes in my blogposts. I think that this was a necessary change because there is no question that for a stronger blogpost, I need more than to just simply provide a link, I need to ground my claims in textual evidence. 

Another difference that I have noticed is the topic of my blogposts. At first the topics were quite random, and  were not really full of mass appeal or relatability. But, lately, I have been posting about current events and my take on them. I even wrote a blog post about the peoples' awareness of current events entitled: "An Ignorant Genoration". I'm not quite sure if this change has been valuable or not yet. It's just something that I have noticed. Though, on the subject of blog topics, I think I need to write more blogs about themes and ideas we discuss in class because right now I feel like my blog is more like a general blog rather than a New Trier AmStuds. blog.


I think I have grown into a much stronger blogger throughout this semester so far, but I still have a LONG way to go. 


Thanks for reading,
Chrisanthy S. 

The Bloomberg Breakfast Boycott

It's that time again. Time for New York's Mayor Bloomberg's annual interfaith breakfast, which invites country leaders, with all different faiths, from all over the world, to share breakfast with Bloomberg in NYC. Though, there will be one major difference at this years breakfast, that being the absence of 14 major muslim leaders who will not be attending. Said leaders are boycotting the breakfast in order to display their opposition to the "unfair" surveillance, or spying, of muslims that the NYPD has been conducting recently. The targeted areas of surveillance on Muslims include: mosques, Muslim businesses, and predominately Muslim neighborhoods. I find it insulting that Bloomberg condones this obvious violation of Muslim American rights, and still expected these leaders to come to his breakfast. In a letter addressed to Bloomberg the 14 Muslim leaders (plus many other businesses leaders, organization leaders, and professors) voice their opposition to Bloomberg by writing, "Mayor Bloomberg, the extent of these civil rights violations is astonishing, yet instead of calling for accountability and the rule of law, you have thus far defended the NYPD’s misconduct".  The full letter can be read HERE. I fully support the Muslim leaders who have chosen not to attend. The city of New York is basically racially stereotyping all Muslims living in New York and they're breaching these Muslim's civil rights. 

Protest to the Breakfast and to the
Surveillance of Muslims

So Mr. Bloomberg, when the other Muslim leaders who did accept your invitation arrive at the interfaith breakfast, will they be given their own special surveillance like their fellow muslims residing in NYC? 

The answer is no, because that would be ridiculous, sort of ridiculous as racially stereotyping every Muslim in the big apple. 

I think this opposition just goes to show how America's new surveillance laws, such as the Patriot Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, are ultimately affecting the world and its opinion of us. These laws enable racial profiling and this is not the first time America has racially profiled a group. I really hope that America has not ruined all Muslims' opinion of our country, but then again, I fear that it's too late for that. Racism against Muslims has been on the rise in America ever since the tragic events of September 11th, and if anything, this surveillance that the NYPD is conducting just promotes the racism. 


For the New Years I am creating a resolution for America. We as a country need to remember what this country stands for and realize what we will not stand for. 


Hope you all have a happy New Years Eve, 
Chrisanthy S.

The 51st State: Chicago

Today, a shocking idea was introduced to me. It's the idea of splitting Illinois's Cook County, primarily the city of Chicago, away from the rest of Illinois and making it its own state. The origin of the idea began in Southern and Central Illinois where they feel that Cook County and Chicago are munching up the state's tax dollars and imposing their political views on the rest of Illinois. They feel this way because they uphold much more conservative views than Cook County, and they attribute the liberal decisions made for the state with Cook County elected officials. Cook County is the second most populous county in the country and according to the article, the rest of Illinois feels like they're getting lost in the crowd.


At first I questioned the legitimacy of this idea. Because to me, the likeliness of Chicago becoming a state, about parallels the likeliness of republican candidate Jimmy McMillan becoming president in 2012. But, as I read more of an article published by the Huffington Post (click here to read), I learned that central Illinois state reps Bill Mitchell and Adam Brown actually proposed such an idea recently at a press conference. Bill Mitchell saying, "The old adage is true: Just outside Chicago there's a place called Illinois." Bill Mitchell has infact even introduced a bill to the Illinois General Assembly to separate the state from Cook County. To be passed, this bill would potentially be voted on by state citizens, and then congress would have to approve it, and finally the president would have to approve it as well. 

IL State Rep Bill Mitchell

Now, I suppose I can see why these Southern and Central Illinois citizens are getting frustrated, but I honestly think they just need to suck it up. We live in a democratic country, while our system is usually just and fair, it does not mean that everyone gets what they want. I think that if they really feel that strongly about their political views being enforced, than perhaps they should move to a more conservative state. 


Chicago is the staple of Illinois, and according to the article, Cook County "...is the state's economic engine and key tax generator, providing substantial contributions to the state's other 101 counties for everything from schools to roads, colleges and universities, and prisons". Which means that downstate Illinois may possibly not even be able to financially support themselves if they became a state. I don't think that they could legitimately function without Cook County. A state cannot simply divide and become their own state because they feel overpowered.  Plus, then all state maps, text books, and even the flag would need to be changed. 50 states is a nice even number, and 51 is not. Has Southern and Central Illinois really thought this through? Just because they aren't getting their way does that really entitle them to become their own state? 


Overall, I think this concept is absurd and is never going to be implemented. And frankly I feel embarrassed for Bill Mitchell and Adam Brown for bringing it up at a press conference with a straight face and for introducing it as a bill and I plan on writing a strongly worded letter to Billy kindly explaining how stupid this idea is. 


What do you think?

America's Most Used Drug

Allow me to begin this blogpost by saying, I'm an insomniac. I average about 4-5 hours of sleep a night. Because of my unique sleep schedule, I feel as if I have formed a very close, personal relationship with joe. My cup of joe. Every morning.

Unsurprisingly, I often get criticized for my coffee drinking habit, as it is a nationally accepted notion that coffee is horrible for you because of the caffeine, which is infact America's most used drug. I am often told that the caffeine in coffee stunts your growth. But what most people don't know is that, that "fact" is actually a wives tale. It stems from a study conducted on the elderly where the subjects ages 65-77 drank eighteen ounces of caffeine daily and had greater bone loss over a period of three years when compared to 65-77 year old's who did not ingest caffeine daily. A more recent study compared the bone gain and bone density of 81 teenagers, some with very high caffeine intake and some with very low caffeine intake, over a period of six years. The study found that the teens with the highest daily caffeine intake at the end of the study had no difference of bone gain or bone density than the teens with the lowest caffeine intake. And no growth stunting. 

Though, not having the fear of stunted growth isn't the only reason why coffee is okay to drink, coffee actually has many health benefits too. According to this article entitled "7 Health Benefits of Coffee" from the Huffington Post, experts tend to agree that for the effects of coffee on the body, "....the good largely outweighs the bad for most people...". 

The article's listed seven health benefits are:
-Coffee can help you proofread better

-Coffee can lower the risk of depression in women

-Coffee can potentially save your brain from Alzheimer's
-Coffee could lower a man's prostate risk
-Coffee could ward off skin cancer
-Coffee can protect you from type 2 diabetes 
-Coffee can decrease the risk of developing Parkinsons


These health benefits prove that the consumption of coffee can actually be beneficial to a person opposed to the popular belief that it is harmful. I am glad that coffee is finally getting the justice it deserves because it is amazing, in my opinion. But, like anything, coffee is best in moderation, so drink wisely. At the end of the day, America's most used drug is thankfully not as dangerous as it's cut out to be. 

Lee's Live Expletive

Lee Corso

Yesterday morning, during ESPN's College Gameday show, while joking around, reporter Lee Corso used a curse word. He used the f-word. 


You know, the one that ends in K. 


And of course, half an hour later, into the first quarter of the Michigan-Nebraska game, ESPN aired an apology from Corso saying, "Earlier today on College Gameday, while picking the SMU-Houston game, I got a bit excited and used an expletive that I shouldn't have used". 


Swear words have always been taboo in American society, but sometimes I think the public puts too much meaning on them. It's just a word. And I bet most, if not all, viewers that day had probably heard the f-word before. 


In fact, it seems that everytime a cuss word gets uttered on live TV, there is a huge uproar. Viewers complain and a video of the event turns viral on Youtube. But why do people care so much? I understand how parents do not want their children to be exposed to that kind of profanity, but if the parents actually ever took their children to a college football game, I can promise them, their children will hear the f-word many more times than once. Hopefully as parents, your instilling good enough judgement into your kids for them to know which words are and aren't acceptable. One cuss word they hear on ESPN College Gameday is not going to taint them as human beings. 


All in all, I just do not understand why live reporters especially always have to use perfect language. Can you imagine how hard it is to be perfect and make no mistakes while hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions, are watching. 


Now, I'm not condoning the use of cuss words on TV, and I'm not saying that it's okay for reporters to use them all the time. But once in a while, that's fine. I'm sure you wouldn't want so many strangers criticizing you when you make one mistake. So to everyone that's criticizing the **** out of Corso, please cool down. 


Yours Truly,
Chrisanthy S


A full article on Corso's f-bomb can be found HERE.

An Ignorant Generation

Last night, my friends and I treated ourselves to a dinner at Flat Top Grill. Overall, we had a great time. It was great food, great atmosphere, and great company. Though, one part of the night really ticked me off. It was while we were waiting to be seated. There was a lull in conversation, so I brought up the Penn State scandal. To my astonishment, none of my friends knew what the Penn State scandal was. Perhaps the biggest scandal of college football, and not one out of the five of them had ever even heard of it. 


This caused me to start wondering about how many other American teens are unaware of current events. My research led me to a study done by Harvard regarding how many American teenagers pay attention to the news. The study states that some "28% of Americans between the ages of 12 and 17 said they pay almost no attention to daily news, and 32% said they pay only casual attention to one news source a day". 

This statistic genuinely alarmed me. In my point of view, one needs to be educated in current events in order to be a functioning member of society, even if one is only a teenager. So, I began to question why such a low number of teenagers read the news. The only teenagers I knew for a fact didn't read the news  were these five friends from Flat Top. After talking to them, I realized that the news is just not a priority for them. Their lives are too much wrapped up in homework, after school activities, college searching, work, friends, family, facebook, and sleep to pay attention to the news. 


But really, I don't think the news is that difficult to keep up with. If a teenager just takes 20-30 minutes out of everyday to focus on current events, they will most likely have a good basic knowledge of current world happenings. 


The study also states that: "Among people age 18-30, 48% said they pay attention to daily news, and only 23% of older Americans said they largely ignore news." So luckily, eventually in life, the news does become a priority for most. Teenagers will mature into functioning members of society after all. 


Nonetheless, on Monday, I will begin schooling my friends on current events during our fifth period lunch whether they like it or not. 


If you want to learn more about the Harvard study click HERE.

Guilty Humor

This past Wednesday, my level nineteen American Studies class embarked on a marvelous fieldtrip into the depths of downtown Chicago. This journey included a visit to the Smart Museum of Art, the Osaka Japanese garden, and a viewing of the Chicago-based play, Clybourne Park.

The plays plot begins in 1959 with a white couple moving out of their home in the predominately white Clybourne Park neighborhood of Chicago and a black family subsequently moving in. The idea of having black neighbors bothered and upset many of the white couple's white neighbors. The play then flash forwards to present day, now-predominately black Clybourne Park neighborhood at a meeting of neighbors pertaining building codes. The topic of race gets brought up at the meeting and it does not end pretty causing division between the neighbors.

The play gravitated on the topic of racism in Chicago and how it's changed (or perhaps not changed at all) from fifty years back to present day.

Division Between Neighbors in Clybourne Park

To symbolize racism fifty years ago, certain white characters bluntly expressed their concerns of a black family moving into their neighborhood.
To display racism in present day, there was a number of racist jokes that got thrown around. Jaw dropping, incredibly offensive, sometimes disturbing racist jokes. Racist jokes that I do not feel comfortable quoting on my school blog. But all in all, these jokes were quite funny.

I've always been taught that racist jokes are not to be laughed at. Not only because they are hurtful to the ethnicity of the joke, but also because you never know who is watching you laugh at something that offends them. In the incredibly liberal area where I live, you DO NOT want to be known as a racist and talk travels quick. But the thing that amazed me the most about the racist jokes in Clybourne Park was that everybody laughed at them. Well maybe not every single person in the audience, but it sure seemed like it.  But why are racist jokes okay to laugh at when watching a play and not okay to laugh at in real life?

I've developed a few theories to try to explain this phenomenon:

1. It was dark in the theater and everyone was fixated on the play, not you. So no one would ever know whether or not you laughed at these jokes.
2. You heard the majority of the audience, black and white and everything in-between, laughing at the jokes, so it was okay, because everyone was doing it.
3. The play is a form of entertainment and they had plenty of jokes not pertaining to race, so you knew it was also a comedy and the jokes were intended to be laughed at.

I know these theories can be seen as ridiculous, but they are my best speculations at this point. If anyone else has any other theories I would very much like to hear them, because this was quite an experience for me and any insight would be appreciated.