This Is What's Up

TV Tokenism: Psych

2012-03-01T16:15:00.000-06:00

For my TV Tokenism assignment, I decided to do the show Psych, which is a comedy/drama that airs on USA Network and is in its 6th season.

Here is a cast photo of Psych. Source

This cast photo is very typical of dramas on major networks because the main central character (Shawn, shown sitting in front) who is fully developed and complex is white. Of course, he has a token minority partner, Gus, who sticks out in this picture not only because he is the single minority but also because of his bright shirt--almost as if to say, "Look we have a minority character in a big role". Gus is a major character, but he is less developed and does't receive nearly as much screen time as Shawn. He is also much more professional and typically much better dressed than Shawn, which contradicts racist stereotypes.

They're Just Like Magic

2012-02-28T23:59:00.001-06:00

In class this week, we have talked a lot about the idea of TV Tokenism, the inclusion of minorities in TV shows or movies which falsely depict real life. In other words, it's when TV shows or movies are starting put in minority actors, often in high authority roles, just to give people the idea that they're not racist because in the past, as OC writes, minorities were often shown in less respected roles that only increase stereotypes. Now, however, I fear that the ball has turned far in the opposite direction with unrealistic depictions of minorities so that filmmakers can avoid being labeled racist.

One small example of this is in shot of the show How I Met Your Mother, which airs on CBS, shown below.

This one shot from How I Met Your Mother is an example of a common TV show scene with minority characters shown in back to create the false illusion of diversity.

The characters in front are the main characters (this show is not normal because none of the major characters are minorities), but I want to talk about the idea of "token faces", so let's look at the people in the background. Out of the limited people in the background, I can make out for sure a black man and a hispanic woman. I know this is just one shot from one show, but this happens all the time. If you ever stop and look at the faces in the background of a movie or TV show, you'll notice minorities appear--like magic--in what seems to be a utopia of racial relations, which is far from reality.

So if this isn't realistic, why is it done?

It's simply a reaction to the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People's (NAACP) criticism of the system. In the early 2000's, the NAACP complained that black people were always portrayed as criminals and thieves, which advances the stereotypes against them. Since then, networks feared being labeled racist by viewers, so an easy way to trick viewers into thinking they are including minorities is by just putting them in the background, so that they are visible without playing an actual role.

Another way many TV shows and movies use tokenism to avoid being labeled racist is by creating the "authority minority" character. This character usually plays a big role with a respected title (such as "Dr." or "boss") and is often the best dressed man to reverse stereotypes, but isn't very central to the plot and doesn't receive much screen time.

For example, in the movies Bruce Almighty and Evan Almighty, black actor Morgan Freeman plays the role of God. Could there be a more prominent role than God? No, of course not. Interestingly though, neither of those two casts (Bruce Almighty or Evan Almighty) feature another minority. What Morgan Freeman allows the filmmakers to do in these movies is say, "Our cast is almost entirely white, but no, we're not racist because we have a black man playing God. How could you possibly call us racist?"-And this is essentially what the "authority minority" character does: eliminate racist ideals by putting minorities in respect roles, even though they are not central to the plot.

I understand that how television portrays people can have a major effect, but why we have to do this,why we filmmakers have to even think about race when selecting a cast still puzzles me. Americans are very sensitive on the issue of race. In this scenario, if you don't feature privileged minorities in your film, you're racist, and this is ridiculous. I'm not saying I think we should have all white casts, but simply that I believe race shouldn't matter (even though it clearly does) because this is all fake.

Have Americans become too sensitive on the issue of race? How should casts be chosen?

Forgotten Goals

2012-02-22T19:49:00.000-06:00

Can you think of a time you told yourself you were going to definitely do something but never actually did? My guess is almost everyone can because everybody does this.

For example, think of your New Years Resolution. It's just over a month into the year now, and statistics show that by this time 36% of these resolutions have already failed, and much more than half will be failed by the end of the year. Why is this number so alarmingly high? Are Americans really that bad at sticking to what they say?

The reason is simply because people have the false idea that change or action will be easy in the future even though it isn't in the present, and therefore they don't make it a priority.

It's easy to say, "I will go on a diet next week, so I can eat this cake," or "I did bad last semester but I wasn't really trying as hard as I could have, so I'll start trying, and I'll doing much better," or even "I'm working too hard. I will take a vacation soon." However, unless you actually make it a priority to make the effort to carry out these plans, you will never get them done because if you can't start a diet now, or start working harder now, or find the time to take a break, you won't be able to in two weeks.

In the book we're reading in class, White Noise by Don DeLillo, the narrator in his stream of thoughts says that his wife "plans ski trips that we never take" (15), and then he quickly moves on to some other thought. After reading that, I wanted him to go back and answer why they never actually go on trips, but then I realized I knew the answer: their everyday life like work and children got in the way.

People are always allowing their everyday busy life to push aside their goals they set and fail to realize what's happening. Therefore, they continuously set new goals thinking that in the future they will magically be better than they are now, so they will be able to do them.

What is the best way to make sure the goals you set don't get forgotten?

The Effects of Linsanity

2012-02-12T19:33:00.001-06:00

Just a week ago, Jeremy Lin was nobody. Now, he is the most talked about athlete in all of sports and America's man of the hour. Who really is this man and how did he come to be at the center of the sports world?

Jeremy Lin has burst out on the scene by leading
the underperforming Knicks to five straight wins.

For those of you who still don't know, Lin is an Asian-American professional basketball player who attended Harvard University, and after going undrafted and being cut by two teams, he has landed on the NBA's biggest stage with the New York Knicks where he was thrust into the starting job last week. Since then, he has taken the NBA by storm by winning five consecutive games for the disappointing Knicks team playing without their two "stars" (Carmelo Anthony and Amare Stoudemire) and setting the all-time NBA record for points in his first four starts. He truly is living the American Dream.

Lin's play, however, is not only translating into wins for his team, he is generating mass revenue and excitement for the league. He has gotten the nation's largest city to become ecstatic about basketball, and in turn, his jersey is in higher demand than anybody else and ticket prices have skyrocketed up 27% for the Knicks. How has one man had such a tremendous effect?

The answer in my opinion is simply because he's Asian. There is no doubt that people have preconceived notions of what an NBA basketball player is supposed to look like, and there is no doubt that a 6'3 Asian-American man who graduated Harvard with a 3.1 GPA and is devoutly Christian does not fit the standard profile. He is simply breaking every stereotype, and that is exactly what makes Lin's story so incredible and inspirational.

One fan turns his Carmelo Anthony jersey in a Lin one.

His story will have a tremendous effect on Asian-Americans as it gives them a true hero that is making a real impact in American culture. Yao Ming couldn't be this heroic figure to Asians for two reasons: he was from mainland China, and he was 7'5, which automatically qualifies him as a lock to be in the NBA. Lin, on the other hand, is much more relatable to, as he resembles many Asian-Americans who have never before had an iconic figure so similar to them.

He is as meaningful to the Asians in America as Jackie Robinson was to Blacks because he is being that "trailblazer" who sets the way for many to follow. I'm not predicting Lin to continue his dominance or be a legendary figure as Jackie Robinson was, but culturally, his impact will be very similar, as I believe he has generated hope and inspiration for Asian-American basketball players to continue.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if Lin's glory dies out and he returns to being a below average basketball player. His story has been blown up by the Internet and has reached everywhere, so his impact on the next generation has already been made.

The Construction of America

2012-02-05T15:46:00.004-06:00

In the closing lines of his most recent State of the Union Address, Barack Obama says, "This nation is great because we built it together."

Obama is emphasizing the teamwork that America has had that has allowed it to be great, but is he right? Did we really build this nation together? Or a better question: who really did "build" America?

Obama argued America is great we have always worked as a team. However, when looking at the period of Reconstruction after the Civil War, which we are currently studying, it is obvious decisions were not made together because there was much disagreement on every issue. Therefore, Lincoln (in the short time before he was assassinated) needed to take charge and tell the country how things were going to happen rather than telling them to get together and decide. One example of this is that he passed the Ten Percent Plan on his own, which said that to be readmitted in to the Union, a southern state must have only 10% of it's citizens take an oath, and he pocket vetoed the more radical Wade-Davis Bill, that would've made it more difficult to reunite the Union.

This is just one example of us not building the nation as a team, and there are many more. That's not to say that no decisions have been made together--because many have--but in the history of America, there has been and always will be disagreements. Therefore, we have been unable to work as a team to solve all of our problems, and that will most likely continue.

I'm not saying Obama was wrong about our nation being "great" (that's a whole new debate), but his reasons were wrong. In the history of America, decisions have been made by individuals, so I believe it is those certain individuals that have constructed our nation. A more accurate line, I believe, would have been, "This nation is great because the individuals who have built it were dedicated to helping the entire 'team'."

The Meaning Behind the Words

2012-01-26T21:18:00.001-06:00

In the opening lines of his State of the Union address a few days ago when talking about his accomplishments, Barrack Obama says, "For the first time in two decades, Osama Bin Laden is not a threat to this country."

There are many different ways he could've brought up the killing of Bin Laden and many different words he could've chosen to describe this action, yet he chose to simply say it this way. I say "simply" because the words he uses don't have very strong connotations, he is just passively announcing that Bin Laden will no longer be bothering us no more.

This is the beginning of a crucial speech in an election year, so obviously he wants to remind people of his accomplishments to prove his worthiness of being reelected. So why not say something like, "I killed Osama Bin Laden, the man responsible for millions of American deaths"?

Saying it that way would certainly would help to prove he's not soft and scared of war, as many republicans frame him, as it explicitly points out his ability to do what Bush failed to do.

However, in America, it is common to avoid words like "killed" that could have a very negative connotation. It is much safer to take Obama's approach and passively explain military operations with words that tell a more positive story. For example, that is why we use the term "collateral damage" when referring to innocent foreign civilians we killed when performing military operations. This word "collateral" in this term makes it seem as though it was just something that had to happen.

So, in the line mentioned above in his speech, Obama is really just bragging to prove he's capable of being president, but he says it indirectly by simply saying the positive outcome that came out of his actions, which was that we are not a safer nation.

Wikipedia Takes A Stand

2012-01-17T23:51:00.000-06:00

On Wednesday January 18th, Wikipedia will shut down its website to protest the SOPA and PIPA Acts that are currently going through congress. These acts, if you don't know much about them, would give the government more control over the Internet and limit online freedoms for the people.

We spent a lot of time earlier this year discussing when civil liberties, if ever, should be limited, and I, along with most everybody else, believe these acts are an unjust restriction on online freedoms. Despite all the opposition to these acts, they still have not gone away because there has not been enough attention devoted to stop them. There are not many ways to raise awareness against a bill effectively (OC once discussed ways this can be done), but I believe blacking out a tremendously popular site like Wikipedia for a day and instead informing readers about the acts and telling them how to voice their opinions to lawmakers is one of them.

Editors of Wikipedia, however, have questioned the decision to stage this protest. "My main concern is that it puts the organization in the role of advocacy, and that's a slippery slope," said editor Robert Lawton, who would prefer that the encyclopedia stay neutral. "Before we know it, we're blacked out because we want to save the whales."

This is a legitimate concern. One of Wikipedia's five fundamental principles is that it "is written from a neutral point of view" so it can simply be an easy way for people to access correct information. This blackout, however, is not meant to change their stance on neutrality at all. Executive Director of Wikipedia Sue Gardner said their overall purpose is still just to be "helpful".

In response to the concern of losing neutrality, Gardner said, "Although Wikipedia’s articles are neutral, its existence is not." She believes the site can maintain its credibility while staging this protest because they are only doing it because they "support everyone’s right to freedom of thought and freedom of expression" and "want the Internet to remain free and open, everywhere, for everyone."

Although Wikipedia is not used as a source that anybody is supposed to cite or quote, it is still used by nearly everybody as a cite to gather general factual information about a topic, and therefore has maintained a good reputation as a "reliable" source.

After staging this protest, do you think Wikipedia will lose credibility because it is now in a "role of advocacy"? Or will it maintain its reputation as a useful source for general information because its overall purpose has stayed the same?

The Meta-Post

2012-01-12T23:33:00.002-06:00

I've been blogging for just about 4 months now and I just now took the time to critically read through all my blogs to see the progressions that I've been making.

To be able to truly reflect and analyze my work, I decided to look up the word "blog" in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. It is defined as "an online personal journal with reflections, comments, and often hyperlinks provided by the writer."

So when critiquing my posts, I decided to make the main criteria personal opinionated reflection, how well it comments on (and not just reports) events, and the presence of strong links that connect it to a real issue. Based on this criteria, I'm going to attempt to construct a narrative arc, since we've talked about this a lot in class, of my blog throughout this semester.

What I noticed when reading through my blogs was that--although the arc wasn't a "perfect" and infinitely increasing line where every post is better than the one before--I can certainly see a general improvement in the three aforementioned categories through the first three months. However, after reading my last few posts, I was displeased because I was unable to find the same type of improvement. I still feel as though they are better than the early posts, but I think I actually regressed in terms of adding in personal reflecting and comments that would make it my own.

The reason for the improvement I made in the first few months is simple: I stopped viewing my blog as an assignment and started viewing it as simply a way I could express my opinion about topics I felt strongly about.

The reason for the regression in the last few posts was a bit harder to wrap my mind around. I thought at first it could be just kind of a fluke because it was only a few posts, and not every post was going to be better than the one before. Then, however, I realized that it can be almost certainly attributed to the fact that after I got ahead in blogs with posts I was very happy about, I got lazy, and it certainly showed.

Let's start at the beginning. I remember, during the first few weeks of my blog, feeling pressured to find something to blog about and then forcing myself to make a post even if I couldn't find the right topic. This is evident in two of my earlier posts (We Will Never Forget Your Money and It's All About the Money). I was linking my posts to an issue well, but before even reading a single word of the posts, I could tell that I couldn't possibly doing much reflection and was most definitely just ranting about stupid facts because of the immense paragraph size. This makes it nearly impossible to not only advance the argument but also to make it interesting enough so that the reader actually wants to finish reading it all (even I didn't want to read through my writing again again). The giant paragraph size is surely a direct cause of me feeling like I needed to blog even if I didn't know what to say, so I wanted to feel and make it look like I did my assignment without actually saying anything meaningful.

Then, however, I started to view my blog a bit differently. It was no longer something I had to do; it was something I wanted to do. I started to write about topics I felt passionately about, and all the sudden my arguments were a lot more clear and I felt as if I was actually "blogging". One great example of this is my favorite post, Penn State Cheats Joe Paterno. This was a topic that was very much talked about, and I was in the minority for this debate, so I was able to find an article to link it to that I completely disagreed with. Since I didn't agree with what most other people were saying, it was very easy for me to insert my opinion, which is what made this post an actual "blog" rather than just an article. This wasn't the only post I felt great about, from the end of October and all the way through November, I was publishing posts rapidly and felt very good about them all.

At this time, I started to become a little lazy. I was ahead in my blogging, and I never really felt the need to publish much. In the just over five week period between October 23rd and December 1st, I published eight posts, and in the six weeks since then, I've put out a grand total of two. Not only has the frequency been down, but they have been lacking real personal reflection that would be required to make it a "blog". Instead, my last three posts, especially Occupy Movement Causes Disruptions, have simply been reports of events and unarguable facts.

I'm glad I took this time to critique my blogs because it made me realize what I was doing right and what I need to do to get that narrative arc of my posts to go upward again in terms of the level of reflection, comments, and links.

Should the NBA play on Christmas?

2011-12-24T17:29:00.001-06:00

The NBA season is set to get underway tomorrow on Christmas Day, and while I am extremely excited to watch basketball again, I wonder if it is right to force these players to play on Christmas instead of allowing them to celebrate the holiday with their families.

Everyone would like to be free to celebrate Christmas with their families, and the players are no exception. They too have much better things they'd rather do than play basketball to entertain everybody, and if no one else is working, why should they have to?

On the other hand, the NBA is a business, and the leagues make a lot of money off these Christmas Day games, so I can certainly see how it makes sense from a business standpoint to make these players play. Plus, these athletes are getting paid big time money. The league minimum is $400,000, and I'd certainly give up a few hours of my Christmas for $400,000 a year.

The NBA season will start on Christmas Day.

What do the players and coaches in the league think about being forced to work on Christmas? Well, for the most part, they're opposed.

"If you ask any player in the league, we'd rather be home with our families," Heat forward LeBron James said. "I think the people that even set the games up would rather be home with their family during this day. It's not just a regular holiday. It's definitely one of those days that you wish you could wake up in the morning with the kids and open up presents."

Former Lakers' Coach Phil Jackson agrees with him. "I don't think anybody should play on Christmas Day," he said. "It's like Christian holidays don't mean to them anything any more."

Heat Coach Erik Spoelstra sees it differently and views it as an honor to play on Christmas. "When your team is viewed as a contending team, you normally play on the holidays and we view that as a good thing."

With all things considered, I don't think it's right to play on Christmas. Is basketball essential to Christmas? No, of course not. Christmas is about spending time at home with family. Fans and players should have much better things to do than watch and play basketball. Stan Van Gundy, coach of the Magic, went far enough to say that he would "feel sorry" for any fan that had "nothing better to do than watch an NBA game" on Christmas, and I would too. There are better things than basketball on Christmas, so I think these games should no longer be scheduled to allow players and coaches to celebrate the holiday as they please.

What do you think? Should the NBA continue their tradition of Christmas Day games because it is an honor and it makes them a lot of money? Or should they stop scheduling games on Christmas in the future to allow players and coaches the right to spend time with their families?

Occupy Movement Causes Disruptions

2011-12-13T22:32:00.002-06:00

Last month, our class spent a lot of time focusing on civil liberties and determined when, if ever, they should ever be limited. In our essay, I wrote that the freedom of speech should not be oppressed unless it has violent intentions.

The Occupy Wall Street movement that has swept across the country has not been violent, so I believed it to be a completely just way to express dissent. Now, however, it has gone on too long and become disruptive, so I think their rights as protestors need to be limited.

Occupy Wall Street protestor holding a sign with their slogan,
"We are the 99%".

The Occupy movement, which began in September, protests against corporate greed, saying that the nation's wealthiest 1% hold an unfair sway over the remaining 99% of the population.

Protestors in Oakland on Monday night forced the city to shut down a port, which "cost the Port and City of Oakland vital resources."

This is not the only example of this protest causing disruptions that have hurt businesses. In fact, weeks ago the Huffington Post reported that the Occupy protests have cost the nation's cities at least $13 million, and that number has certainly increased since then.

Manager of the Oakland port Robert Bernardo said "They hurt the many businesses that pay taxes and help us create jobs." This is all very ironic because by protesting, they are hurting themselves by disrupting the businesses that create more jobs.

The Occupy movement should focus on "real solutions to the problems plaguing our economy," suggested Omar Benjamin, Port of Oakland Executive Director. These protests are no longer accomplishing anything and are simply causing a distraction and hurting our economy, so I think the government needs to control them by enforcing limitations on their right to protest.

Tatt-poo for Cheating

2011-12-01T20:17:00.001-06:00

Rossie Brovent, from Dayton, Ohio, wanted a scene from Narnia tattooed on her back. Instead, her ex-boyfriend Ryan Fitzgerald gave her a nice steaming pile of poo tattoo all across her back.

Apparently, he did this because he found out about her cheating on him, and instead of lashing out at her, he played it cool and convinced her to get a tattoo so he could get back at her. She, in return, has hit him with a $100,000 lawsuit.

The article above reports that Brovent tried to have Fitzgerald charged with assault, but she could not because she had signed a consent form agreeing the tattoo design was "at the artist's discretion".

Brovent claims she was "tricked" into agreeing to it after getting a little drunk, but still the phrase "at the artist's discretion" intrigues me.

I know what Fitzgerald did was terrible, because now this poor girl has to walk around with that on her back for the rest of her life, but I don't think she has any right to sue him due to the fact that she agreed to it being at his discretion.

In America, a signature is a very powerful thing, as it ratifies almost any legal document. In my opinion, the fact that she signed a consent form allowing him to choose the design, although she apparently had a specific one in mind already, means she has to deal with whatever he decided to choose. It's terrible for her, but she deserves it for being foolish enough to sign that.

What do you think? Should Rossie Brovent win the lawsuit? Are signatures too powerful in the United States?

Black Friday Madness

2011-11-25T11:50:00.001-06:00

The friday after Thanksgiving is known as Black Friday because it is the day that all the stores that were in the red, meaning losing money, make money and go into the black. On this day, stores across the nation open at midnight with great discounts and there are packs of people who wait to enter.

An hour before midnight last night, I went to Best Buy with my family to buy a new TV and was completely caught off guard by the amount of people there were. I wouldn't be so surprised if this were a major city, but I was in the middle of nowhere in Michigan. I didn't even know that many people even lived there. I thought it was crazy that my family wanted to go an hour early, but there was a line around the block and people who had been waiting all day to go in.

This is just an average midnight crowd on Black Friday.

Fortunately, where I was, people were nice and well-behaved for the most part, but this was not the case everywhere else. In Los Angeles, a woman pepper sprayed other customers to get a video game console.

I don't understand why anybody would ever harm others and risk getting in huge trouble for a $40 discount on a gaming system, but it still happens. She wasn't the only incident. The article above also mentions a shooting that took place in a Walmart parking lot last night in California.

The reason for this madness and chaos is simply because Americans care way too much about money and price. As a society, everyone strives to have as much money as possible even if that means hurting others.

In our nation, we are all greedy and are all competing with each other to get the best things, which leads to a lot of unnecessary violence over things like a discount.

Penn State Cheats Joe Paterno

2011-11-10T15:21:00.001-06:00

After 46 seasons as the head coach and 409 wins, more than any other coach in Division I college football history, Penn State fired Joe Paterno, 84, on Wednesday, just hours after he announced his plan to retire at the end of the season. He was fired because the football program failed to report numerous sexual assaults performed by defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky during his years with the program in the 80's and 90's.

In 2002, graduate assistant Mike McQueary informed Paterno that he had witnessed Sandusky sexually assault a 10 year old boy. Paterno then reported this information to athletic director Tim Curley, who now faces perjury charges for lying to the state grand jury, and university vice president Gary Schultz, who in response told him that everything would be taken care of, so he moved on and continued to coach.

Jemele Hill, who believe this was a justified end for Paterno said, "[He] should never have been allowed to coach another game." She, along with many others, think that Paterno should've acted more responsible and done more to make sure this case was properly reported to the police.

I, on the other hand, believe Paterno did what he was supposed to do. His job is to coach football, and it is the administration's responsibility, not his, to make sure that any violations are reported.

Could he have done more? Yes, obviously, he could've reported the case to the police himself, but that's much easier to say in hindsight. He did what he was supposed to do and moved on. Do you blame the quarterback when the running back fumbles? No of course not, and that's exactly what happened here: Joe Paterno handed this case off to the administration, and they fumbled it by keeping it a secret, so he should not be at fault.

Penn State is simply using him as a scapegoat, just like Cubs fans used Steve Bartman as a scapegoat for their loss in 2003, as I blogged about earlier. This is a common theme in America. When disaster strikes, there needs to be somebody to blame and take it out on. So even though Paterno didn't cause all this, it made sense for Penn State to blame him and fire him because he's old and doesn't have much time left and also because it makes it look like they have handled the situation by taking action.

McQueary, the assistant coach who informed Paterno of the incident and was even more knowledgable about it, however, is still with the program. The reason for this is because in controversial times like these, there only needs to be one scapegoat, and it made sense for that man to be Joe Paterno because of his age and legendary status, which is now ruined.

Joe Paterno's great legacy will now forever be tainted by this one incident. Personally, I think what Penn State did was wrong on many levels. Paterno deserves way more than to be tossed aside in the midst of a season after all he has done for the program. I understand why they'd want to make a change after all the difficulties they have faced, but Paterno gave them that opportunity by saying he planned on stepping down, so firing him, and by doing that blaming him for the controversy, was so unnecessary and unjustified.

What do you think? Is Joe Paterno at fault? Did the organization make the right move by firing him?

Owning Up

2011-11-08T21:10:00.000-06:00

Last week, our American Studies class went to see Clybourne Park, as I blogged about in my previous post "Sorry My Brother, Can't Let You In." Outside the theatre, there were voting polls that people could drop a slip of paper in to a glass box that everybody can see as shown below. One of these that I found interesting is the one below that says, "I have told an offensive joke." Roughly one third of people responded "no" to this, making the claim that they have never in their life said something offensive.

Now I don't know a thing about any of the people who voted in this poll, but I can guarantee that almost everyone who answered that they have never told an offensive joke is lying. Everybody has told offensive jokes. They might not mean any harm, but they will still say them. I certainly have and don't know anyone who could honestly say they haven't.

So why did a fairly large population of people in this poll claim they have never told an offensive joke?

First off, these are open polls, so everybody can see which box people drop their vote in. Nobody wants to be labeled a racist, so in public places like this, some people lie to avoid any awkwardness or conflict. If this poll was done privately, I believe the results would've been very different because people are much more honest when nobody is watching, but in public they put on different masks to hide their poor qualities.

Also, I believe people voted no because everybody wants to believe that they are a part of the solution and not the problem. Everybody sees racism take place, but nobody wants to think they helped cause it. The people who say no to this have too much pride to admit that they have done wrong because they want to place blame on others and make themselves seem perfect when, in reality, it is very likely that they have said something offensive but just can't own up.

Everybody does some bad things. Everybody says some mean jokes. They can be very little and unimportant, but sill it shocks me that some people can't even own up to little mistakes that have no consequences.

Sorry My Brother, Can't Let You In

2011-11-03T23:38:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, our American Studies class went to see Clybourne Park, a play which demonstrates how communities change over time because of race and wealth movements.

In the first act, a white family in a white community is selling their house to African-Americans, which some of the neighbors have a problem with because they think it will screw up the culture of the town. Fifty years later, the community is dominantly African-American as people feared because a process called "white flight" took place after that one house was sold. This is when white people flee a neighborhood because of the increase in minorities that live there. In the second act, however, there is a white couple looking to buy the house, which would begin the gentrification of this town, which is when there is a movement of wealth into a poor neighborhood.

On the radio, I heard "This City" by Patrick Stump (ft. Lupe Fiasco). Lupe's verse in this song reminded me exactly of the play. Both artists of this song are from the Chicago area, so I assume this is about Chicago, but even if it's just about any city in general, it applies very well to what has happened with Chicago communities and relates directly to Clybourne Park.

cropped with SnipSnip

Lupe says, "Parts of my city, certain colors can't step", which shows that Chicago right now is like neapolitan ice cream, a term that was frequently brought up in Clybourne, because it is a bunch of culturally different communities living so close to each other but never interacting due to racial barriers.

Much like the people Clybourne Park in the first act didn't want African-American people to live in their neighborhood and ruin their culture, Lupe makes the same point that people are being kept out of neighborhoods "because the property value might go down to something that's economically unacceptable", and nothing is more important to Americans than property value. It's sad but true; things like property value have become so crucial to every American, and that is why some communities don't have the same privileges as others.

Interestingly and not coincidentally, Illinois is one of the few states that distributes tax money to schools based on the income of the people in the district. This has led to many issues, and high schools in wealthy districts, like New Trier, benefit greatly from a higher income and can provide better services to their students, even though the Winnetka campus could still use a little bit of work.

Should money be distributed equally between school districts?

Personally, I think that all public schools should get the same funding per student. Otherwise, it justifies people's fears of poor minorities ruining the value of their community because they actually are (in a very slight way but that is enough to cause widespread panic in people).

Equal distribution might not completely fix the racial boundaries that exist in the Chicago area, but it might help to form more of a homogenous blend of races rather than have neighborhoods set aside for one particular type of people as depicted in Clyborne and by Lupe Fiasco.

Dogs and Halloween

2011-10-31T16:58:00.001-05:00

Halloween is here and kids across the United States going door to door and trick-or-treating. This tradition has gone on for a long time, but recently more and more dogs are becoming involved in the Halloween tradition. Yes, that's right, it's becoming very popular for families to dress their dogs up in a costume and even throw parties for them.

This is not just Halloween; anything to do with dogs is booming. Dog fashion, which is a relatively new idea, is now becoming a huge business industry, and there a many designer dog products available now.

The reason for this? "We love our dogs like our kids", says Kathleen Duffey, owner of a dog daycare store. Events such as Dog Day at ballparks prove her point. Dogs are becoming a crucial part in American's homes, and people are now treating their dogs just as they treat their children.

The idea of dog companionship isn't new at all, as pet dogs can be dated back to at least the ancient Romans and probably farther, but treating and spoiling them like humans by buying them luxurious human products certainly is.

Is bringing dogs to Halloween and dressing them up taking the tradition to far?

Remember, Halloween started as a celebration of the end of the light part of the year, summer, and the beginning of darkness and winter, a time associated with death. Now, however, it is all about fun and candy, and, personally, I love this new Halloween tradition. Americans may have strayed a bit off of the original focus, but they've made it their own.

With that said, I think it is taking it to far to try to incorporate dogs into the holiday experience. Kathleen Duffey says dogs are like children so they should be treated. I'm no dog hater, but I completely disagree with this. Dogs are a very important part of every family and deserve plenty of attention, but I think they should be treated as dogs because, after all, they are dogs and not human beings. Therefore, it is unnecessary to dress them up and throw dog parties for them. I see how this can be fun, but I find it extremely pointless and not worth it to buy fancy human things for dogs.

More Than A Game

2011-10-25T22:22:00.000-05:00

Today, the NBA officially announced the cancelation of two more weeks of the regular season. If this lockout continues, players and owners will not be the only ones affected. It will have serious ripple effects that will be felt by many workers and businesses.

While the money tug of war between billionaires and millionaires continues, Mary Saenz is just worried about staying afloat financially. She works as a security guard with the San Antonio Spurs and depends on the extra money she receives from that job to support her and her family. Without the season, it's going to be really hard for her and her family to adjust to a smaller income, and she's not alone. There are hundreds of other workers similar to her that are out of jobs and will go through hard financial times because of this lockout.

Businesses and restaurants near stadiums will be similarly affected. Around a basketball arena, there are a number of shops and food joints that depend on fans to stop by as they go to a game. Without a season, these businesses will lose many of their customers and, therefore, much of their income. Mel's Diner in Sacramento is one of many businesses that is contemplating shutting down to try to cut their losses if the lockout continues.

It sickens me that billionaire owners could be so greedy and stubborn. They seem to be content with canceling an entire basketball season despite the terrible ripple effects it will have on so many less fortunate people. They are not just canceling basketball, they are robbing stadium workers and businesses of their income, and the most ironic part is that they too are losers in this lockout, as they can't make money if there are no games.

Why would they do this then if it doesn't even benefit themselves financially? Future orientation. Americans all seem to have this notion that sacrificing in the short term for a better future is always worth it. Therefore, we are always making decisions based off of what will be better in the long run, and the NBA owners think that canceling games will cause the players to cave, and they will get what they want.

On the other hand, their actions are very greedy. The fact that they are taking hundreds of people who desperately need money out of their jobs shows that Americans are also very individualistic and think only about themselves. This is because Americans seem to have this idea that they are competing with everybody else for money rather than cooperating. Therefore, it's every man for themselves, and decisions, like the owners decision to cancel the basketball games and take many people out of their jobs, are always made selfishly.

Stop & Frisk: Is It Right?

2011-10-23T21:17:00.003-05:00

The Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights states that people's rights against unreasonable searches and seizures will be protected. However, the stop-and-frisk law states that police have the right to stop and search anyone in public areas on account of suspicion.

This practice raises serious concerns over racial profiling and privacy laws. Of the people stopped, around 90% of the people stopped are totally innocent, and over 50% are African-American.

“It’s used in communities where we have lots of guns and lots of murder victims," the mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, says In defense of the stop-and-frisk laws. "And we’ve brought crime down 35 percent in the last 10 years."

I agree that the stop-and-frisk laws can be helpful, but they are severely overused. I think that only in extreme situations, where there is obvious cause for suspicion, should the police be allowed to stop and search people.

The reason the number of people stopped-and-frisked each year has risen since 2004? Money. That's right, cops get rewarded bonuses for arrests made from a stop-and-frisk, and every American is incentivized by money, yes even the cops.

If police were to practice this procedure far less often, I'd be okay with it, but this is certainly not the case. Therefore, I believe the government should take away the bonuses for arrests the cops get in order to control the number of innocent people who are unfairly pulled over.

America prides itself on freedom and being a land of opportunity for everyone, and how can minorities feel free a part of the American nation if they are searched for just walking around?

So, while reducing the number of stop-and-frisks may cause a slight rise in the crime rate, it needs to be done because the real crime is the police infringing upon the freedom of the innocent people.

Steve Bartman: The Cubs Scapegoat

2011-10-13T19:53:00.000-05:00

Sunday, on ESPN I saw a documentary about Steve Bartman. In case you are unfamiliar with the storyline, Steve Bartman was the infamous Cubs fan who reached over the railing for a foul ball and prevented Moises Alou from making a catch that would put the Cubs four outs away from a World Series appearance, something they haven't won in over 100 years.

Steve Bartman reaches over railing and knocks ball away
as Moises Alou tries to make the catch.

However, Alou didn't make the catch, and whether or not he would have if Bartman didn't interfere is all speculation. What followed was error after error, and the Marlins scored eight runs in the inning and went on to win the series.

Fans and even players singled out Bartman as the sole reason they had lost. Never mind the fact that Cubs shortstop Alex Gonzalez botched a routine double-play ball later that would've ended the inning, Bartman was to blame.

Cubs fans came down on him hard. In the following days, six police cars patrolled his house to keep him safe because of the numerous threats he and his family received. Because of the dangers of living in the Chicago area, Bartman had no choice but to move.

Looking at the event rationally, not only was it not Bartman's fault at all that the Cubs lost, but also any other fan in the same situation would have done the same thing. He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, so he was declared responsible for the Cubs loss.

I think that it's awful to be so hard on one particular fan to a point that he is no longer safe for him to live in that city. It's ridiculous how emotionally people get involved with professional sports. If anyone, blame a player, who has a bigger effect on the outcome game.

I'm a huge sports fan myself, but I believe it is never acceptable for people to use violence because of sports. A month before Steve Bartman's incident, a Dodgers fan was shot and killed in the parking lot of the stadium because of a dispute with a Giants fan. I can't think of a more pointless reason to spend a lifetime in jail than this. Sports are meant for recreation, and as a Chicagoan, it is embarrassing that people in my city were so extreme. Even if he was the reason they lost (which I believe is completely false), Steve Bartman did not deserve to have his life significantly altered.

All Kids Can Succeed

2011-10-03T18:52:00.000-05:00

“I'm not really that different. I don't really care about this autistic situation, really. It's just the way I am. The advice I'd give to autistic people is just keep working, just keep dreaming. You'll get your chance, and you'll do it.” Those were the words of Jason McElwain, an autistic kid whose inspiring story has touched many.

Now that we are in October, it is Autism Awareness Month, and since I have a brother with autism, I felt compelled to write about this topic. I'd like to start by saying that I am very impressed with how much awareness has improved over the last 20 years, but I still believe more can be done.

In the past, autism was a very unknown disorder, and support for the cause was lacking. Jason McElwain's story, along with many others has helped get rid of the notion that autistic kids are worthless, and there is much more support and many more opportunities out there now for kids with autism. So what about adults?

A special needs teacher who I've interviewed said, "On their 22nd birthday, the school bus stops coming, and then they really just run out of options."

Once an autistic child turns 22, he or she can no longer attend school, and the options for them become very limited. Not much thought is ever put into this at all. What happens to these kids when they grow up?

Well, most are put away in some developmental disabilities home where they slowly rot away. Everybody is now thinking about the autistic kids, which is great, but there simply needs to be more opportunities for adults out there with the disorder. Not every autistic person can pop threes like Jason McElwain, but I'm positive that if given the chance, they too can succeed somewhere.

It's All About the Money

2011-09-26T19:16:00.000-05:00

Recently, there has been a lot of speculation on whether or not college athletes should get paid for playing. While researching about this I came across this article which states that the players do indeed deserve to be paid. I, for one, extremely disagree with this notion. I understand that its part of the entertainment business, and therefore colleges make millions of dollars off of these players, but I think paying players would create controversy. Do all players get paid the same? Do athletes of every sport get paid? Obviously, there have been a lot of NCAA violations recently (for example Miami and Ohio State), and paying the players would only add to this unneeded controversy as it is a slippery slope. What I mean by that is if college athletes start getting paid, they will become greedy and want much more, and obviously, based on recent events in professional sports, that can only lead to bad things such as shutting down the league.

In my opinion, college athletes are rewarded enough with a free college education, which is a traditional American value. Now, however, the country is becoming more and more about money. No longer can people be satisfied with anything else. College football is supposed to be about playing for the love of the game, but now, like everything else, people are trying to make it about money, as if a free ride through college isn't enough to reward these athletes.

We Will Never Forget Your Money

2011-09-12T23:17:00.001-05:00

Yesterdaymarked 10th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000people. Obviously, people all across America were emotionally affected bythis tragic event and commemorated it in many ways. State Farm chose this day to air this commercial on nationaltelevision:

Firstoff, let me say that this commercial was a great way to honor the firefighterswho fought to save others during this tragic event, as it is nearly impossibleto not get a little bit emotional while watching it.

However,while I completely support any attempt to show respect, this commercial feltfake to me. Don’t get me wrong,the 58 seconds of it were touching and brilliant, but in thelast second, the words “State Farm” appear. This gives me the impression that they made this commercialprimarily for the purpose of making money and that they don’t really care aboutcommemorating the event as much as they appear to. If they did really want to honor the event, there were manybetter ways to spend the enormous amount of money that it cost to air thiscommercial across the nation on NFL season opening day.

On amoral level, I find it very wrong that State Farm is exploiting people’semotional attachments to this event by sending the false messages that theyonly care about honoring 9/11 when they just want to make money. I’m not saying that State Farm is somecruel, emotionless corporation that has no sympathy for the victims (becausethey are people too and had to be at least somewhat emotionally affected), butthey are taking advantage of a horrible situation for their gain.

Just Showing Up

2011-09-08T23:39:00.000-05:00

September 11 of this year will mark the 10th year anniversary of the terrorist attacks that killed 2,752 people at the World Trade Center. In memory of this tragic event, a ceremony will be held at Ground Zero on the day of the anniversary. Ironically, according to The Daily News, the firefighters who first responded to the scene are not being invited. A city official told the newspaper that the amount of space available at the main ceremony forced the city to schedule a separate ceremony for these heroes on a later date.

"To have a separate service on another day has no significance, no meaning," David Jacobs, one of the firefighters at the scene, said. "For many of us, we gave a lot at that site."

Along with Jacobs, I believe it is a huge insult to reschedule their ceremony for a later date. These firefighters, after all, were the true heroes of 9/11. Thousands of them showed up within minutes and immediately put their own lives at risk to save others, and 343 of these brave men died during their rescue missions in the wake of the attack.

I understand that New York City has an obligation to include in the ceremony the families of all the victims of the attack, but I still see no reason that they should completely leave out all of the firefighters who fought during the attack with one mission, to save as many American lives as possible. In past ceremonies, first responders have been honored, so it is shocking that they are suddenly no longer invited to this historic anniversary. Well then again, maybe they can just show up, like they showed up ten years ago when the country needed them the most.