Essence of Christmas

Before we left for break, Mr. O'Connor asked us to count the number of times objects were mentioned during the winter break. I followed this advice, not counting, but rather noticing things about the gifts we opened. This Christmas I did not ask for anything extravagant. My favorite gift was a pair of pants I had been wanting. But the best gift our family received was from my mom. She scoured the Internet trying to find a very specific type of antique beer glasses. We used to have two that were my grandmothers. Over the years, one had broken, and we were unable to find another like it. My mom's gift was four identical glasses she had ordered from an obscure resale website. This gift was not the latest and greatest. It was not hundreds of dollars. But it was still the best gift under the tree.

The one problem I have with Christmas consumerism, especially in the north shore, is the giving of money. This year I received a nice check from my parents. So did my sister, boyfriend, and several of my friends. Now I can understand receiving money from a distant relative who doesn't really know you that well, because they don't know what you like. But what really bugs me is getting money from your parents. On paper it seems like a great idea. Parents have plenty of it, and kids can never get enough. But what is it teaching kids? I know I may seem hypocritical seeing as I did not turn down the money I was given, but it seems too easy. Money is a cop-out gift. It takes away the giving spirit of Christmas. I would much rather have received a well thought out gift, instead of a check my mom wrote Christmas morning. But in the grand scheme of things, I do not agree with Mr. O'Connor's point of view. Christmas is not just a time of objects and money, but a time of family and loving.

Public Service Announcement

Watch this video. This video was a public service announcement in the UK, where most guns have already been banned. But, as already said in Bolos and O'Connor's blog, the second amendment of the Bill of Rights states that:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Although the commas are an interesting topic, I want to blog about the pressing issue of guns in the hands of the mentally ill. Currently there is an act in place to prevent the mentally ill from obtaining guns. It is the Gun Control Act of 1968. The specific part of this act is line 6.

"Under the GCA, firearms possession by certain categories individuals is prohibited:

6. Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution"

But this act is not being followed. This morning I read an article titled Hole In Gun Control Law Lets Mentally Ill Through. It talks about a woman, Lisa Duy, who was diagnosed with "paranoid schizophrenia and, only a year before...had been committed to a mental hospital by a judge after threatening to kill an F.B.I. agent." She had also been hearing voices in her head telling her to kill. Now the store that sold her the gun had done a background check before selling her a Smith & Wesson 9-millimeter semiautomatic pistol. The search showed no felonies and no history of mental illness.

RESULTS

"Less than two hours after leaving Doug's, on Jan. 14, 1999, Ms. Duy...walked into the studios of television station KSL...and began firing her new weapon. She shot more than four dozen times in all, killing a young mother and wounding the building manager."

WHY

"...laws in most states guard the privacy of the mentally ill, and to protect them from stigma these statutes generally bar law-enforcement agencies from access to mental health records.
As a result, gun background checks of people with psychiatric problems typically fail to turn up their mental health history, a loophole that has contributed to the wave of school and workplace shootings of the last decade. In the 100 cases reviewed by The Times, the vast majority of them from the last 10 years, half the killers were people with a history of serious mental health problems, and at least eight had been involuntarily committed."

MY THOUGHTS

The facts I have presented are clear. States are 'protecting' the mentally ill, and endangering the entire population. The mother of Lisa Duy said in the article, "I don't understand how Lisa could buy a gun." If the states keep their laws, they are overriding this government act. I think that if this issue was actually taken seriously by the government, they would step up and take further actions. This act of 1968 was a good idea. But it's not being taken seriously. I think we should make it a bill and put it through Congress. If the Congress looks at these facts, they can see how logical the Gun Control Act of 1698 is. Other provisions in it include that no one under 18 can buy a gun. States abide by this part of the act, why shouldn't they abide by the whole thing?

I'm Tired of Using Technology

In class yesterday, we talked about technology and how its advances effect us. What I was not able to share in class was that technology is a huge center of controversy in my photo 3/4 class. Photo 3/4 is an advanced class, and most of my classmates are very familiar with all types of processes. For example: 35 mm, medium format, and now photoshop. With digital cameras becoming the craze, photoshop is becoming more and more prevalent. In my class, about one third of the people use photoshop regularly, and two or three of my peers use it exclusively. My teacher, used to the old fashioned ways of photography, keeps pushing us back into the darkroom. He assigns homework that can only be done with black and white film and a regular SLR camera.

Most serious photographers either consider photoshop a heavenly sent gift that revolutionizes photography as we knew it, or a poisonous monster that's destroying tradition. It cannot be denied that photoshop revolutionizes photography. It has hundreds of features that would take hours and a lot of dedication to complete in the darkroom. With a click of a mouse, you can change an entire picture. Look at the picture I included above. The first picture is the actual model. But in the photoshopped version, her ribs are erased, her arm filled out, her hair polished, her breasts augmented and her face filled out and complexion softened. This picture probably took an hour or two to transform. This is not only skews the perception the viewers of the ad will receive, but this sends the wrong message to girls. No person is externally perfect. People who made this ad know this, but by making her flawless with photoshop, they are skewing this perception. In the past when professional photographers shot models they would use lighting and angles that flattered the model. Today, there is no need to do this because you can just edit things out that you don't like.

Another fault of photoshop would be how it is making darkrooms obsolete. My photo teacher, who also happens to be the department chair, is feeling pressure from administrators. A darkroom is very expensive to maintain, and photoshop is not. My teacher refuses to fully embrace this new technology. He does accept it somewhat and we do have 8 macs, each fully equipped with photoshop, and four color and black and white printers. My teacher, along with 85% of schools in the nation, have made a commitment to keep their darkrooms for another 20 years. But after that, who knows?

Now for the good side of photoshop. It's efficiency cannot be beaten. Most changes I would normally make in the darkroom are very time consuming. Hand dipping every print in all the chemicals takes about five minutes every time you do it. With photoshop you can preview your changes and finalize them with the click of a mouse. A good quality print from the darkroom, on average, takes me two periods to complete. With photoshop, I can make about two decent prints in one period. The time saved is unbeatable. Also, generally speaking, you can make a better print. Every detail can be perfected with photoshop, well some aspects of the darkroom procedure are somewhat unpredictable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My personal opinion of photoshop is that it is a great advance in photographic technology. I use it regularly and I love the work I can produce with it. I can change so many variables to make my picture however I want it. But I think photoshop should not be used exclusively. The darkroom and photoshop should be used together to create a perfect print. A common way to do this is to make a print in the darkroom and scan it into the computer. I'm not saying you should always do this, but a combination of the two can create amazing results. There is no way I would be successful with photoshop if I did not first learn the basics in the darkroom. There are rudimentary skills you need to learn in the darkroom, and not just on a computer. So for the future, keep the darkrooms and photoshop.

Sicko

This weekend I rented the movie Sicko and watched it with my parents. I'm sure everyone has heard of it, but just in case, here is an overview. Michael Moore, a very controversial documentarist, researches America's healthcare system. He travels the globe in search of countries with better healthcare systems, and tries to persuade the viewers that universal healthcare is the best option for America. I know Michael Moore can be manipulative sometimes, but after watching this movie, I agree that America should switch to universal healthcare.

People are afraid to lose or leave their jobs because they would lose health insurance. "THE GREATEST source of insecurity for many Americans is the soaring cost of
healthcare. Leaving jobs can mean losing health insurance, and even when
insurance is offered, many workers turn it down because they can't afford their
growing share of the premiums." Boston Globe January 29, 2007

Also we are not helping sick people. Insurance companies benefit from not giving people medicine. From the movie, in England, doctors get paid more the healthier their patients are. This system is the opposite we have in America. "Insurance is not the same thing as healthcare - not by a long shot. Private insurers maximize profits mainly by limiting benefits or by not covering people with health problems. The United States is the only advanced country in the world with a healthcare system based on avoiding sick people." Boston Globe January 29, 2007

Insurance companies are currently abusing their power to a point of insanity. People are denied proven life saving procedures because the company does not want to pay."We hear from the mother of an 18-month-old baby who, denied emergency room access, died of a seizure. We see the widow of a man who, denied coverage for a medical procedure, died of kidney cancer. The parents of a deaf child are told that insurance will only pay for a cochlear implant in one ear, since a double implant is deemed 'experimental.'" Christian Science Monitor June 29, 2007

The government is able to handle universal healthcare. They already handle Medicare, which for the most part works very smoothly. "Medicare is not perfect, but its problems are readily fixed. It is far more efficient than private insurance, with overhead of less than 4 percent, and since it is administered by a single public agency, controlling costs would be possible. Unlike private insurers, it cannot select whom to cover or deny care to those who need it most." Boston Globe January 29, 2007

If we look at ourselves logically, and we look at our conscience, we can see that something has to be done. We are a huge world power, yet our healthcare ranks just above Slovenia's! We need to step up and stop letting huge corporations decide who gets to live and gets to die. 18,000 Americans a year die because they have no health insurance. These barbaric numbers can be changed if we just follow in the footsteps of other countries like France, Norway, England, Canada and even Cuba.

Proud of You

When I was almost finished with my perilous times paper, and I was talking a break to eat, something came to my mind. I knew my boyfriend would say he was proud of me when I finished. Normally this thought would have just passed through my head, but it stuck. It stuck because my boyfriend is two years older than me. And when I think of someone saying I'm proud of you, I think of an elder saying it to a youngster. For example, a parent congratulating a kid on a good grade. Or a big brother or sister being proud of a younger sibling's accomplishments. But then I realized it was reasonable for two equals to say they are proud of each other. I say I am proud of my friends or younger people I know all the time. I do say I am proud of my mom sometimes, but it is usually sarcastic, like after she told me she did a load of darks. If I were to say I were proud of Mr. Bolos or Mr. O'Connor, I think they would find it insulting, if not at the very least odd. There are of course the exceptions, like if someone quit smoking or lost 100 pounds, but those are rare. If someone younger than me told me they were proud of me, I would say thank-you politely, but not take it seriously. I think that's because I do not value their opinion as much as an elder's.

According to dictionary.com, the word 'proud' carries no age dennotation:

...having, proceeding from, or showing a high opinion of one's own dignity, importance, or superiority.

This word goes back to the connotation vs. dennotation discussion we had earlier in the year. When I talked to my boyfriend after I finished my paper, and as I predicted he did say he was proud of me, we talked about my theory. He said he considered me an equal even though he is older. He believes that if a younger person says he is proud of you, it shows respect and that the younger person looks up to him. But would you take a younger persons congratulations seriously? Would you feel insulted?

Blessed?

Blessed. What does this one word mean? Earlier in the year we talked about denotation versus connotation. According to dictionary.com,

Bless–verb

1.to consecrate or sanctify by a religious rite; make or pronounce holy
2.to request of God the bestowal of divine favor on
3.to bestow good of any kind upon
4.to extol as holy; glorify

5.to protect or guard from evil (usually used interjectionally6.to condemn or curse

6.to make the sign of the cross over or upon

Of these definitions, the first one is the best fitting. But in class today Mr. O'Connor claimed the connotation of this word meant that people who are not blessed must be cursed. I agree that the word bless carries some devine connotations, and because of this I would not consider myself blessed because of my economic stance. My parents worked hard for their money, and in no way did God choose them to be rich. It was once said that "If you want to know what God thinks of money, look at the people he gives it to."

Now I do not agree with Mr O'Connor completely, although I do agree that we are not blessed because of our money. But most of us are blessed for other reasons. I consider myself blessed becuase I have caring parents. I also feel blessed that I am able to live with many freedoms that others in the world are not allowed, such as free speech or dress. Being a woman in America makes me feel blessed because of the opportunites given to me. Although I don't believe God gave my parents money so I could have these opportunites, I do believe it is a miracle everything came together the way it did so I may life like I do.

What are we afraid of?

Today in class, we discussed the nation's extensive resources spent on our nation's defense. According to Wikipedia, America spends more money on defense than the next 14 biggest spenders combined. That statistic clearly speaks for itself, but how much is too much? When will our spending come back down? But most importantly, what are we afraid of?

FACTS:

I think America has gotten into the routine of being the biggest, best, and most powerful; and we will spend how ever much money it takes to stay that way. Most of the money we spend is wasteful. In 2007, the Department of Defense's budget was 132,800,000,000. That includes the army, navy, air force, marine corps and coast guard. This money, however, does not cover nuclear weapons research, maintenance and production, veteran affairs or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

OTHER COUNTRIES:

America's budget is over eight times China's official military budget. This is ludicrous because China has 1,321,851,888 people to America's 301,139,947 people as of July 2007. We are defending a fraction of the people for a lot more money. Another interesting fact is that America's close allies make up the other highest spending countries.

WHY?

Logically if we are spending more money than other countries, we will probably have more advanced technology and armies. But why are we spending astronomical amounts more than our competitor? We could cut back and still be "in the lead." I think this idea of spending money to get our way reflects poorly among the American public. In this country, people don't set limits. I see this in everyday life with bigger and bigger houses being built in my town. Nobody needs two kitchens, eleven bathrooms, and a three acre backyard. Is the ego of our country getting in the way of common sense? America might also want to be in the lead in defense for respect. But I see the money spent as ignorance and foolishness, not powerful and commanding. I again ask what are we afraid of?

Sources: Wikipedia-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

CIA Factbook-https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html

War of Choice?

Today in class we discussed the current situations in Iraq and Afghanistan and how they came to be. Were we forced to go to war, or did we choose to go to war?

In regards to Iraq, I believe we choose to go to war. Our justifications were that Sadddam needed to be taken out of power and they had weapons of mass destruction. Saddam had been a terrible dictator for decades. He was well know for his ruthlessness and killing thousands of his own citizens. In 1991, he even invaded Kuwait, and we stopped him. But we didn't take him out of power then. Why now? Personally I believe George Bush chose to invade Iraq because of personal interests. People have speculated that he had a grudge against Saddam for an assassination attempt on his father. Weapons of mass destruction was a total disaster. Plain and simple, there are none.

The conflict in Afghanistan was also a war of choice. I am anti-war, and I believe although we were attacked, we should not strike back. Ghandi once said that "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind." This mentality of striking back whenever we are struck is going to destroy the world. We cannot keep fighting everyone and trying to be the world police. Instead of invading Iraq, I believe we should have made drastic changes on how we live here in America. Tightening our security all around would help keep terrorists out of our country, preventing them from another attack.

But since we have invaded both Irag and Afghanistan, we now must deal with the consequences. The facts are:

As of today, there are 3837 American deaths in Iraq. (1) In 2006, the war has wiped out about 655,000 Iraqis or more than 500 people a day since the U.S.-led invasion. (2) It is estimated that the war has cost Americans 462 billion dollars. (3) Iraq has become a haven for terrorists and Al-queda has strenghtened not weakened. (4) Not to mention that this war has destablized the middle east, and people hate America more than ever.

These consequences are inevitable. If we enter a war without thinking through everything, many negative things arise. Most of the things on the list are not irreverisble, and if they are, it could be very difficult to change them back. The lives lost can never be replaced. The global American image could take time to increase. Rebuilding a government from scratch is also not so easy. If we never went to war, everything would be easier. There are so many consequences for a war, that why would we ever choose to go to war?

Sources:

1. Iraq Coalition Casuality Count, October 24 2007

2. CNN.com, October 11 2006

3. NationalPriorities.com

4. Washington Post, September 24 2006

Bong Hits 4 Jesus

Today in class we discussed a controversial sign Joseph Frederick, a high school senior made and displayed while attending a school function. It read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." Clearly this poster would raise issues at a school field trip, but the question is what if any punishment should be issued. When this incident happened in 2002, he received 10 days suspension for promoting drug-use on school grounds. Now even though I am a student, I am siding with the principal. If I was running a school and a student pulled out that sign, I would be outraged. Of course I would have ordered him to put it away.

The main reason I have no sympathy for Frederick is because of the stupidity of the situation. He was going to the Olympic Torch Parade. This is an international tradition that America is honored to have. An idiotic prank like that reflects badly on America's youth. I also think his motives for making the banner are childish. He wanted to get on TV. He wanted to upset the principal because of a previous conflict. Bringing a poster like that would obviously get media attention. If I knew him, I would be embarrassed for him and his actions. If he was protesting something, I might take sides with him. But there was no legitimate reason why he displayed that poster other than selfishness. I don't mean to demean civil rights, but I think he turned a prank into a waste of time for the supreme court and everyone who put energy into the issue.

Source:http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/25/free.speech/index.html

World Ratios

If we could shrink the earth's population to a village of precisely 100 people, with all the existing human ratios remaining the same, it would look something like the following:

There would be:
57 Asians
21 Europeans
14 from the Western Hemisphere, both north and south
8 Africans
52 would be female
48 would be male
70 would be non-white
30 would be white
70 would be non-Christian
30 would be Christian
87 would be heterosexual
11 would be homosexual
6 people would possess 59% of the entire world's wealth
and all 6 would be from the United States.
80 would live in substandard housing
70 would be unable to read
50 would suffer from malnutrition
1 would be near death; 1 would be near birth
1 ( yes, only 1 ) would have a collage education
1 would own a computer

When one considers our world from such a compressed perspective, the need for acceptance, understanding and education becomes glaringly apparent. The following is also something to ponder . . .

~If you have never experienced the danger of battle, the loneliness of imprisonment, the agony of torture, or the pangs of starvation . . . you are ahead of 500 million people in the world.

~If you can attend a church meeting without fear of harassment, arrest, torture, or death . . .you are more blessed than three billion people in the world.

~If you have food in the refrigerator, clothes on your back, a roof overhead and a place to sleep . . . you are richer than 75 % of this world.

~If you have money in the bank, in your wallet, and spare change in a dish someplace. . . you are among the top 8 % of the world's wealthy.

*********************************************************

While all these statistics are shocking, the one I find the most shocking would be the last one. Spare change is relatively little money. How many times has anyone at New Trier seen a quarter on the ground and walked past it? I know I have many times. But we all see those commercials to feed children for pennies a day. Helping other people is something most of us could do a little more of because we are so blessed. My freshman year history teacher told us we had won the 'birth lottery.' I think when people my age leave college and realize how hard life is, they will appreciate the way of life our parents established for us.

Another statistic I appreciate is the fact that only one person has a college education. Now that junior year is in full swing, people are concerned more about college. Next year I know it will be even more intense with applications, recommendations, interviews, college visits and such. Since we go to New Trier and live in the United States, it is expected that we go to college. It is so much apart of our culture that thinking only 1% of the world attends college is astonishing to me.

Racism in the Media

Yesterday in class we talked about the issue of racism. It started with the NFL Monday night football commercials that were clearly targeted at Latinos. But really racism and "integration" in the media goes beyond commercials. In movies and television shows, it is ever present. But sometimes I feel that integeration is forced. It seems that people in the media want a diversivied cast so they put one or two minorities in the show. But sometimes the integration just looks forced. But on the other hand I wonder if they are just trying to portray accuracy in the shows. I went to Jamaica recently, and all the billboards there had blacks in the ads. Obviously Jamaicans are dark-skinned, but I would be surpised if a billboard there had a white person in it. Some examples I've experienced:

• Nickelodean - When I was younger, I religiously watched shows like the Rugrats, All That, Blues Clues and Doug. There were really no shows that included people of different races besides the Rugrats which offered one black family that were somewhat distant neighbors, and visited maybe every five episodes or so. You might argue that Doug was not so bad because characters were blue and yellow and green.



• Disney Channel - The Disney channel really does do a better job than Nick at 'integrating' more races into their shows. The Famous Jett Jackson, Kenan and Kel, and the Proud Family all have mostly black characters. Still Asian or Latino characters were few and far between.



• Desperate Housewives - Desperate Housewives probably made a smart move by making one of the housewives Latino. She is still the shallowest of the bunch, but there is some representation. For a short bit, there was a black family. But one of the sons was a murderer, and he was eventually killed and the family moved.



• Grey's Anatomy - Grey's Anatomy has done a very good job at representing all walks of life. The Chief of Medicine is an African-American man, and same with the intern's boss, Bailey. Also, one of the best interns and Meredith's best friend is an asian woman. For a prime time TV show, they do a good job.

• An Ikea Commercial - An Ikea commercial I watched in the past year or so portrayed different types of families in their homes. Obviously they were not real families, but they did a great job at including all walks of life. One 'family' in particular that I remember was two men and a young daughter. My dad was astonished by the forwardness of this ad, but I applaud Ikea for accepting all people and not being afraid to air the commercial.

Without Memories There Is No Future

Today in class we listened to a podcast about memories. We listened to the in and outs of how they are formed, but more importantly we learned about a drug that 'erases' memories. The hosts explained how the drug was first tested on rats using a technique similar to Pavlov's dog. Then the researchers realized they were able to erase a memory after it was made. Having this power is very controversial, and I wished we had more time to talk about it in class today.
The power to erase or alter memories used to be something straight out of a science fiction movie. But now that technology and medicine are advancing at alarming rates, it's a reality. I agree with Stephanie when she said this drug should never be used. Personally I believe that it should never even be made because of the possibility of abuse. Also I want to bring up the point about how all we are is a string of memories. What is seperating me from a random girl on the street? Nothing really except our experiences and the memories we keep from them. Some people want to bring up how these memories are not completely gone, just lessened a little bit. But the fact of the matter is that our history is not only our memories, but how we respond and react to them. Taking away the emotion of the memory is almost as bad as taking away the memory itself. I definately do not approve of this drug even in extreme cases.

Nine Eleven

Everyone can agree the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centers were tragic. One thing that is harder to agree on is where to place the blame, if there even is any to place. Most people don't want to admit America could be at fault. People look at the middle east and some look at God. Jerry Falwell blames a little bit of the American people, and a little bit of God. "...God will not be mocked...I really believe that the Pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way-all of them who have tried to secularize America-I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'" Well I'm sure that he really believes this statement, it is a little outlandish. Blaming women who have abortions for the attacks is a little far-fetched.

Connotation vs. Dennotation

Every now and then, I like to check CNN.com to keep myself updated on wordly news. Usually I find myself just browsing the health section for interesting news. But today when I opened the home page, one headline caught my attention. It was entitled Bush On Iraq: 'We're Kicking Ass. Being President of the United States, I thought this was an odd thing for him to say openly in an interview, hence my reading of the article. It claimed that Bush reportedly said that comment to Australia Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile. While most people agree Bush is human, this is somewhat out of form for him. Then this got me thinking about the connotation and dennotation of words we talked about in class on Tuesday. The dennotation of the comment is obviously that the war in Iraq is under control. However he has stated this many times, but never in this manner. The connotation is that Bush could possibly want to show more control of the situation, so instead of acting polite he swears to sound "mature". This may be an odd way of showing control, but acutally swearing to get attention is pretty common. For example, I know I do it when I'm fighting with my parents or in situations where I want attention. Clearly Bush was out of line by saying that to a world leader, but I'm sure it was an isolated incident.

Secret Message

People in the world today are not always direct with each other. When a person says one thing, they might convey a different message. People don't want to sound full of themselves, so they may say something that gets the secret message across without actually saying it.
*****
Obvious: I'm a vegan
Secret: I'm better than you because I can commit to something