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