Offensive or a "Dream in a Cloud"?

As I sifted through news clips on CNN today, I came across a video that describes the outrage among Americans caused by a building proposal for a condo complex in South Korea. The problem? The proposed building looks like the burning twin towers of 9/11.

The Dutch architecture firm claimed that they "never intended to design a project looking like an exploding building, why on earth would we?" 

Although the architects did apologize, I was most definitely disturbed by the proposal and the fact that the architects said: "looking like an exploding building". The twin towers are not just exploding buildings. They are the buildings that stole thousands of lives, and marked one the most dreadful days in United States history. I am not offended because the building looks like it's exploding; I am offended because the complex is a reminder of a horrific attack on our home soil.

One might argue that not only did the firm do this unintentionally (allegedly), but this is a building planned to be built in South Korea. How much say to do we really have?
I find this to be an outrage, even if it plans to go up halfway around the world. If someone planned to build a structure that looked like the Auschwitz sign commemorating the Holocaus, would it be the same idea? 

I'd really like hear your thoughts on this. Let this building rise or stop it before it starts? 

The Kiss of Life

Ever wonder why humans kiss? If you've ever stopped and watched 2 people kiss, you'll probably notice how odd the activity really is. How has this strange ritual evolved into one of the most expressive gestures in our society?
I genuinely wanted to find the answer so I went hunting on the internet, and found an article about the possible origins of kissing.

The author of this article, Joshua Foer, explains that there are two basic theories about the kiss. 1.) Kissing is a human universal; an innate trait. OR 2.) We invented it.

As odd as it is, I've come to the conclusion that humans created the act of kissing because kissing is not the same in every culture. If it was a human instinct, it would have the same meaning for all humans all over the world, and it most certainly does not. For example, the Chinese do not value kissing the way Americans do. In fact, Foer claims that in 1990, the Beijing-based Workers' Daily advised its readers that "the invasive Europeans brought the kissing custom to China, but it is regarded as a vulgar practice which is all too suggestive of cannibalism."


"Suggestive of cannibalism"?! This blew my mind out of the water, but only because I've been raised in the United States and the US values kissing and romance very highly. Just look at box office statistics. The epic romance film Titanic is the 2nd highest grossing movie in US history (IMDB)! (Don't hate- I've seen it 13 times)


We love romance in America! And a huge part of that has to do with the American Dream. At least for me, romance is part of the "American Dream Equation". Grow up, go to school, meet your soulmate, fall in love, have babies, and happily grow old together. It's the way life is supposed to work, right?
Any other ideas why we all (Yes, I know you do too) cherish a good kiss?

Where did Lazy Sundays Go?

Although I'd hate to say it, I've been getting into country music (I know! I thought I'd never see the day), and I've recently been listening to the song "Mayberry" by Rascal Flatts. This up-beat song is not only a fun song to sing in the shower, but the lyrics actually made me want to blog about America's lack of rest.

"Mayberry" is basically about how easy-going  life used to be, and even says in the first verse: "Sunday was a day of rest, now it's just one more day for progress"

This line brings me back to what my very Catholic mother taught me during religious ed; God made the world in 6 days, and rested on the 7th. That's how life works. Sunday is meant for rest and worship. That's the way it has always been. 

Not anymore. This song highlights a theme we've touched on many a time in my American Studies class: the fact that Americans are obsessed with working hard all the time. 

In fact, I've even noticed how little time I allow for rest and relaxation during my schedule. I go to school for 8 1/2 hours (Yes, early-bird Physics is as fun as it sounds), go to play rehearsal for 2 1/2 hours, do a couple hours of homework, find some time to eat and shower, and then try to get at least 6-7 hours of sleep. And when the week is over, the weekend is just as packed with rehearsals, softball practices, ACT tutors, and a new load of homework I just have no desire to do. 

What ever happened to the days where kids actually saw each other on sundays? Or the days where I could spend all day watching sports with my dad, and not have to worry about what was due the next day? The days of lazy sundays have not been so long gone. Ask your parents what high school life was like. My dad, a New Trier alum, was on varsity swimming, took all 4 level classes, and says he didn't have nearly as much homework, appointments or obligations as students do today.

Why has our society developed into an even faster, high-stress environment? How will the lives of our kids look in 20-30 years? 

Above the Belt

I went to see a feminist, slam poet, Andrea Gibson, tonight at Northwestern University because I'm a massive dork and I do this kind of stuff. Andrea writes a lot of powerful poems about war, bullying, sexuality, love, and spirituality, but her poems about gender really invoked a lot of questions in me.

Andrea's androgynous appearance often strikes people because, for some, it is hard to tell if she is a boy or a girl. Andrea makes it clear in her poems that she doesn't care what gender people pin on her because although she has the physical "lady parts"she believes "boy" and "girl" are just labels that differentiate between body parts.

Is gender more than that? I've never thought of gender as anything other than genitalia, but it may be more mental than anything else. For example, I would still feel like a "girl" if someone were to take my brain and put it inside a male body. But would that suddenly make me a boy? Transgendered people feel trapped in the wrong body, but yet they are tagged as freaks everyday because no one stopped to wonder if gender went above the belt.

Andrea reads a poem entitled: "Swingset" (above), and describes how her pre-school students care less about her gender than most adults around her. She loves that these 5 year olds don't care what society says she is.
As Andrea reads her poem, she describes a women telling her daughter to stop staring at Andrea, due to her androgynous appearance, because it's "rude". After explaining this line, Andrea reads: "The only rude thing I see is your paranoid parental hands pushing aside the best education on 'self' that little girl's ever gonna get". Andrea suggests she is the truest definition of "self" when she claims to be the best example of "self" that the little girl with the powder-puffed mom is ever going to see. Because Andrea doesn't dress or act much like a boy or a girl, she doesn't feel she is either of those labels, and that's why she feels so rawly herSELF.

This idea of "self" intrigues me because Americans often get hung up on labels and clear cut answers. It often seems as though there are no roads in between. A person is either a boy or a girl (a conclusion most often determined in the delivery room) But would if they're not? Gender is a label humans made up. And maybe, just maybe, the way our minds think or the people we fall in love with determine our so called "gender", and not what kind of underwear we buy.

Sentimental, Worthless Discs of Suck

I spend a lot of time on Youtube. Not just because I like watching hilarious viral videos, but also because there is an entire vlogging Youtube community (video- blogging). One of my favorite Youtube channels, Vlogbrothers, contain videos that are made back and forth between two brothers: Hank and John Green. As I re-watched some of their videos this morning, I came across one of John's videos that explains the worthlessness of the U.S penny and nickel.

According to John, it costs the U.S mint 1.6 cents to make a penny and 6.1 cents to make a nickel. That means the U.S Mint lost $22 million on penny and nickel production in 2009! (CLICK for source)

(Watch full video below or snipped version here)

So why have the penny or the nickel at all? If it costs us millions of dollars a year to have a coin that is literally worthless, why bother?

Reason: We like them! The penny exists because of tradition.                                   

We've always had pennies, we grew up with them, and even though there is no valid argument in favor of the penny, we won't get rid of them because it would be weird to not have any wedged in between the couch cushions. 

What other things are Americans scared to get rid? Whether it be physical objects or sentimental traditions. Our fight against change could be hurting us the most. For example, if Congress refuses to pass anything, how will anything get better? Americans not only need to start cleaning out their closets, but also considering that change is sometimes good. 

Get out of the Bubble

It is not everyday that an 11th grader gets to take a field trip, but I am most definitely glad that my American Studies class did.

We spent the day exploring parts of Chicago that a lot us north-suburban kids don't often see. But more importantly, we saw Clybourne Park at the Steppenwolf Theatre; a play which depicts the immediate concern when a "colored" family chooses to move into a white community.  Clybourne Park not only explores America's race issues over the last 50 years, but also how arbitrary boundaries, both geographic and economic, are drawn to intentionally separate communities. 

After seeing this hilarious, but yet unnerving, play, it got me thinking how my own town, Winnetka, also strives to resist economic diversity.


Winnetka is like a bubble. With a median home price of $1.1 million and a median income of $202,000, it's hard to find residencies at an affordable price. The incredibly pricey properties, in combination with Cook County ridiculously high taxes, leaves Winnetka with a very "white-rich-kids" demographic. 
       Although the Village of Winnetka has an affordable housing plan proposal, many members of my community are worried about the "risks" we will face if affordable housing units are built. 
      The Chicago Tribune wrote an article about the uproar in March of 2011. According to the article, The Winnetka Home Owners Association (WHOA) mailed a 25-page publication to Winnetka residents and called the village Plan Commission's proposal un-American, predicting it will lower property values, attract criminals and force residents to subsidize those who rely on "hand-outs."


       The reference to "criminals" makes me question the subtext of this phrase. As soon as I read that phrase, race immediately popped into my head. Although my interpretation is based off of one connotation of "criminals", I can't help but think what this speaker implied. Just as one of the characters said in Clybourne Park, people don't come right out and say what they mean. If confronted, I'm sure whoever said this could easily argue their way out of being racist, but I would still think they just didn't want to admit it. Some may believe that people were more racist 50 years ago, but I think people are just as racist today. The only difference is that voicing it is much less accepted now. 
      I'm not saying that everyone opposed to affordable housing in Winnetka is a white, rich, racist, but I am saying that the race card is in play more often than we think. 
      I just find it both ironic and sad that we read and learn about the beauty of acceptance and diversity all the way up through high school, but yet leaders of our community decide it doesn't apply when our affluent neighborhood is at stake. It's not fair to pretend that issues like this only happen in books or plays. How else are we supposed to get beyond this bubble?


>>>Chicago Tribune Article:  Winnetka's affordable housing plan divides village

This Bud of Love

My American Studies class continues to dive deeper into Arthur Miller's The Crucible, and recently explored the concept of the "Conversion Experience". For those of you who don't know, Puritans believed in predestination, and that one's behavior indicated their predestined fate. In order for puritans to be considered one of God's "chosen" (future Heaven residents), they had to have, and re-tell the story of how they truly found and felt God with in them. The Church then proceeded to vote on whether their conversion experience was legit, and whether or not they were accepted as "one of the faith".

As we discussed this concept, our whole class gawked at the ridiculousness of this ritual. Many found it appalling that all Puritans firmly believed in "conversion experiences". How could someone just one day feel God? How could everyone around them buy their story? I found it just as ridiculous as everyone else until I realized we do the exact same thing with love.

Believe it or not, a HUGE part of American culture is centered around true love. Thousands of movies, TV shows, and books all re-tell unbelievable love stories that move the hearts of millions. We even have a holiday for it! For a lot of cultures, marriage is just something men and women do. It's something expected, and love isn't always a variable. But for Americans- love means everything. Just ask yourself: How many times have you seen The Notebook? (I counted six)

The point is, hundreds of years from now, people may not believe in love. We look back and say, "Those Puritans were CRAZY for believing in 'conversion experiences'. There is no way those actually happened". How is our idea of "love" any different? Love, just like God, is described as something that one just has to feel. It's indescribable, and for many, "you just know". Conversion experiences were in the hopes of everyone, and no one ever sat back and said, "Did you really just feel it one day or is that just a bunch of bull sh*t?" See any similarities yet?

Haters Be Hatin'

As our class dives into The Crucible, the concept of hate crimes and civil liberties have started stirring in my head. Aurther Miller's The Crucible is a play about the Salem witch trials of 1692. The town of Salem hanged 19 people after accusing them of "witch craft", something they clearly did not possess. These trials and hangings may be considered the earliest form of "hate crimes"in our country, and these trials occurred even before the founding of our country. 

I'm passionate about a lot of things, but hate crimes tend to really bother me. I've never understood the incentive for hate crimes. I'm aware that everyone has the right to free speech in America, but I don't understand how hurting or harassing someone solves anything. Hurting them doesn't change who they are, now does it?
I came across this article (link below), and it describes a recent retrial of a hate crime in California. In 2008, a 14-year old middle school student, Brandon Mclnerney, shot his openly gay classmate, Lawrence King, due to the fact that Mclerney had "white-supremacist leanings and had planned to shoot King over unwanted sexual advances". 


Although I had heard of similar hate crimes before, this one really shocked me. Although Mclnerney already had prejudice against King, he took his life just because King had a crush on him. What boggles my mind even more is the fact that it didn't occur to Mclnerney to say: "Hey, I'm sorry, but I like girls". Would that really have been so hard?


It makes me wonder if our country is headed down the wrong direction. This nation was founded on freedom and liberty, and crimes like this go against the groundwork that our very constitution is based off of. Mclnerney has every right to hate homosexuals if he so chooses, but he can't turn America, the land of liberty and justice, into a nation of prejudice and segregation. Last time I checked, neither of those things have worked out well in the past. America, it's time move forward. 




>>>>Article:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/05/justice/california-gay-student-murder/index.html?iref=allsearch

Touchdown for Team America

I don't get football. I know it is (for some reason) a quintessential American sport, but I watched the Bears game with my family the other night, and as I sat there, listening to the announcers ramble on about stats and players, I couldn't help but think: "What is so great about this...? They do a lot of yelling, throw a ball, and hope the guy who catches it runs like the devil across some white lines"

Don't hate me. I understand that not everyone loves football for the same reasons, but I don't hold it near and dear to my heart. And before you think it- Yes. I am in fact a female. And maybe for some reason beyond me- that makes a difference, but it doesn't automatically justify why I dislike it so don't even go there.  (Not trying to sound hostile, but just wanted to make sure I didn't get any 'cause-you're-a-woman comments)

Where I get lost is whether or not people love the sport because it's interesting or because it's part of our culture. Football IS America. That may sound childish typed out, but if I had to define "American Culture" using three words, "football" would most definitely be in there.

So now that we've agreed on the fact that football defines a considerable chunk of American culture, it's time to figure out why.
When I think of football, the first thing I think of is "tough". Is that a reflection on how Americans want to be viewed? Americans invented football, developed the reputation, and claimed it as our "thing". Did we develop the football phenomenon solely for the purpose of representing our country?

Our nation was founded on freedom. Freedom to do what we want and say what because we are a strong, and powerful nation. Has football captured that? Is it a way of showing other countries the strength of America? 

Daddy, Did I Win?

We spent a lot of time in class today discussing why Americans feel the need to be the best at everything possible. This sounds absurd because no one person, or one country could ever be the best at everything imaginable. However, Americans still find a way to make it seem attainable, therefore our best clearly is never good enough.

New Trier High School in particular really likes to spread this poisonous mentality among their students. Only, the prize we're all trying to win is college. We take ridiculously hard classes, get off-the-charts test scores, and, of course, get those A's every competitive university looks for. Not to mention being captain of the soccer team, co-head of Aids Coalition Club, and the editor of the school news paper... all the essentials right?

The question I want to know is WHY? 


For example, I work hard like any dedicated student at New Trier, and "college talks" are virtually daily in my household. I've always wanted to go into Broadcast Journalism when I get older, and I've been told by tons of people that Syracuse University is one of the best places I could attend for that particular field of study. My dad's reaction this option? "You could get into a much better school than Syracuse"

Outside of the New Trier Post-High school counseling office is a sign that reads:
"College is a match to made, not a prize to be won"


Say this to my dad and he'll reply with a lighthearted: "Honey, that's bullsh*t."

Even though New Trier may swear by this saying, everyone around here knows that my dad is right. He claims that "downgrading shuts so many doors". I may love Syracuse, and the program, but if I get accepted to Brown University how could I possibly say no?

Does the sign New Trier hangs carry the most important message? or is it just a way to make sure every kid goes to a college? After all, we got to keep our 99.5% college-bound students stat up.

Or is my dad the one we should listen to? It may be the American way of thinking, but who ever said it was totally wrong? After all, it is Brown...

Grizzly Intentions

After viewing Grizzly Man in class, discussions sparked both in class, and on www.anamericanstudies.com. For those of you who aren't familiar, Grizzly Man is a documentary (created by Werner Herzog) about the life of Timothy Treadwell, a man who spent 13 summers filming and living among Alaskan grizzly bears. Timothy and his girlfriend were eventually killed by a grizzly at the very end of his 13th summer.

Timothy Treadwell (right) 

One of the questions raised about this film was "Did Treadwell get what he deserved?".

I strongly believe that one's faults are mostly in their intentions, rather than their actions. After viewing this film, Treadwell seemed to have the best intentions for these animals, despite the issues people saw with the execution of his actions. (i.e invading a wild habitat and introducing animals to human exposure) I then realized- do I really know the intentions Treadwell had?
I only had a mere glimpse into this mans life, and the side of Tim that I saw was the side that he wanted the to world to see. Not only is it possible that Tim acted very differently when his camera was rolling, but it is also possible that Herzog portrayed Tim the way that he wanted to as a film maker. Herzog had thousands of hours of footage to use, but he specifically simmered it down to 100 minutes.

Tim said a million and one times: "I love these animals more than anything in the world". I have no doubt that Tim felt a deep connection to these animals, but as seen in the movie, Tim could rant about the government one second, and then suddenly switch back to being a "kind warrior" the next. He may have loved the bears more than life itself, but perhaps his intentions were not to love and save these animals, but to become famous for saying so. It is naive to automatically assume that Tim Treadwell was a selfless man just because he proclaimed himself as such.

Due to the fact that I don't know what Treadwell really felt, it is hard to say whether he "got what he deserved". Even though I don't agree with the way Tim "saved" these animals, it doesn't mean his unconventional life deserved to be ended. His dream was atypical, but who am I to say that it was wrong? Although I don't know how Tim truly felt, it would be ridiculous to say that a man who only wanted to give, deserved to be taken.

Ttyl? Xoxo...

While reading Mr. O'Conner's blogpost about the Kindle, I started thinking about other forms of technology that perhaps, unknowingly shape our society. My inspiration was not hard to find after looking 3 inches to my right and spotting my cell phone.

The cell phone is undoubtedly cemented into today's society- especially America's. I hate to admit it, but my cell phone will be within a 10 ft. radius of me 99% of the time. I see how this behavior is pathetic, but what cell phones have now allowed us to do is what really scares me. 

Believe it or not, telephones were not always around (gasp!). Yes, people either had to speak face to face or send a letter, and God only knows how long that took. Once the telephone was invented, people could communicate across town with out ever leaving their home, but the ability to see that person's face was taken away.

Cell phones took it one step further when the age of texting started to irrupt. Texting allowed people to send quick messages without having to place a call, but it then took away the ability to hear the other person's tone of voice. This is where I see the problem.

A large percent of my generation now feels that the ability to see or hear someone does not seem relevant. You're still talking to them right? Is there a difference?- The answer is yes. I don't want to sound dramatic, but text messaging is desensitizing humans. People today (mostly young people), now hold regular conversations via text messaging. I am most definitely guilty of this, but I've started to recognize the side effects it has on me. 

Allow me to elaborate.
The Homecoming dance is quickly approaching at my high school, and a lot of people turn to texting when searching for a date. After telling my parents this fact, they promptly reminded me: "In my day, you couldn't ask a girl to homecoming by sending a heartless text message! You had to ask her to her face, and take it like a man!". As much as I hate to admit it, they are right. I personally know people that not only have gotten asked to homecoming, but also gotten dumped via text. The dump-er didn't want to hear her crying or see her in pain, so he texted her. I also have a friend that refuses to call the boy she likes over the phone because she feels, and I quote: "That would be so awkward...."See my point yet? People are scared to talk to one another. And by "talk", I mean actually talk. 

I wish I could call everyone that sees this blog post so you could all hear the voice that I write this in, but... wouldn't that be awkward? 

The Success Meter

I often wonder who measures success. I wonder if America has a 'one size fits all' success scale, and is the top of that scale the "American Dream"?

Take rap for example. I'm a fan of rap music. I listen to a lot of music, but I'll admit to the fact that I enjoy quality rap. (Believe it or not, this is relevant)
Rap constantly intrigues me. Mostly because my community doesn't exactly produce much of it.... Quite frankly, a lot of rap music buds from parts of America that culturally function very differently than mine does. Coming from a sheltered, affluent, North Shore suburb doesn't leave a lot of room for cultural exposure.

Moreover, a lot of mainstream rappers are expected to have a lot of fancy things, and in this case- bigger is always better. Even though I enjoy some of their songs, their "success" is not the type I dream of attaining. Does that make them unsuccessful or am I just using a different scale?

I'm sure there are millions of Americans that think Big Sean or Lil' Wayne are living the American dream, but if I disagree does that make me crazy for not wanting "success"? Perhaps I was just never told that their type of success existed. Growing up, the recipe for success that was passed down to me always managed to contain the words "college", "job", and "married".

Let's look at it from my view shall we?
George Watsky is another artist I listen to, and he also happens to be one of my idols. He is a young man in his early 20's, and after competing in slam-def poetry competitions for much of his youth, he finally added beats under his poems and started to create amazing raps. But George Watsky's raps are not like Big Sean's. His songs are carefully crafted, and are real pieces of poetry, rather than an upbeat tune I'd put on a "Car Jams" mixtape. The funniest part is, George Watsky is hardly well known. He is one of the most talented individuals I've ever come across, but yet he lives a very modest life and does what he loves. To me, George Watsky is more successful than all the mainstream rappers combined, but that is just in my eyes. One set of eyes in a nation of 300 million. Watsky may be living my definition of the American dream, but clearly not for all of America.

... I do believe I just answered my own question.

*Just for kicks and giggles? Presenting: George Watsky*
WARNING: This video contains references not appropriate for persons under the age of 13