D.C. Trip

For my spring break, my family and I decided to travel to Washington D.C. to see Stephen Colbert's portrait in the National Portrait Gallery, but I also wanted the opportunity to protest the Iraq War in front of Bush's temporary home--the White House. It was a long drive, but we finally made it to D.C. When we first got there, we passed this neighborhood, which, unlike where Bush lives, was not nice looking or safe looking. A relative in the car with us muttered something about it being a bad neighborhood. It infuriated me that Bush didn't do anything to improve neighborhoods like this, and instead was blowing billions on a pointless war. All the more reason to protest in front of his own house. Stephen Colbert's portrait was incredible. There was even an exhibit on hip hop, which I'm currently in to. We saw the Washington memorial, and the Lincoln memorial, which were both amazing as well. Washington D.C. looked and felt beautiful, but it still upset me that not all of Washington was like that, and that those neighborhoods that weren't where all the tourists and famous people were were being ignored by our own President. My brother wanted to leave but I hadn't protested yet. Words were meaningless--I wanted to actually do something. The White House is a beautiful building. It looks like a birthday cake, and flower pedals were scattered across the huge lawn. Snipers were on top of the building, and they looked very intimidating, but I still wanted to protest. I stood in front of the White House gates and held up my sign for passers-by to see. People looked, but with that "what the heck is she doing" look on their faces. I had my brother take a picture of me holding up my sign. I wanted evidence that I was there. Protesting felt exciting and wondered if people who looked at my sign would see that we need to get out of Iraq and also that we need some change.

Why is trivial News so important?

New York Governor Elliott Spitzer has resigned, because he participated in an illegal prostitution ring. However, instead of on Spitzer, the spotlight's been aimed at the prostitute he hired, because of her "singing career." She didn't even get arrested, though prostitution is illegal, and her Myspace page has become a popular site. Who cares? More than a million Iraq and U.S. soldiers are dead. There's a presidential race going on as we speak. One of the worst presidents in American history is about to leave office, but all anyone cares about is some prostitute who happens to be getting alot of attention at the moment. For a long time, the American people have been obsessed with trivial news, like what Britney Spears is doing in rehab, or Lindsay Lohan's alcoholism. Do people just like hearing about sex or drug-related issues? What is so entertaining about these issues that people will just forget about in two minutes? I like trivial news as much as the next person, so I don't mean to be hypocritical, but I don't really know why I even bother with that news in the first place. The American people have standards for what's trivial or fake, what's beautiful or ugly, or what's fat or thin. These standards can be judgemental, or clouded by ignorance of what's actually important. People get this idea in their mind about how something should be, and are only interested in that one opinion. Why do people want to hear fake news? What kinds of standards does the media have of what's important?



Author's note: No offense to those who like People Magazine. The headline "why I quit sex" is what point this post proves about trivial news.

Political Tensions

The democrats are still fighting for the nomination, while John McCain, the republican nominee, is saving his money for the battle between democrat and republican. Both Clinton and Obama are spending millions of dollars on their campaigns, which could be bad if John McCain not only has more money to spend, but will also be more prepared for the Democrat/Republican election, because the republicans declared their nominee first. Geraldine Ferraro, a Clinton adviser and supporter, has recently made a number of racist remarks about Obama, like "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position He happens to be very lucky to be who he is." By this, she's implying that people are only voting for Obama because he's black. She also refuses to apologize for these comments, which is only making Hillary look worse, because she is working for Clinton. Obama's pastor, has also been making comments, "accusing the country of bringing on the sept. 11 attacks by spreading terrorism." Obama, however has denounced these remarks, and has called them "completely unacceptable and inexcusable." Clinton, as well has denounced Ferraro's statements, but Ferraro still won't apologize for her statements. Who will become the democrat nominee? What effect does the media have on how people vote?


Sources for more info. on the subject, just click on the link:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/quote-for-th-17.html

A Crime in Winnetka?

Today, while I was doing some work in class, there was an announcement over the PA saying that there was a robbery at the gas station on green bay road. The school was on lockdown, which meant that all the doors in the school were locked, and no one could leave. I was surprised that there was even a robbery in boring old Winnetka, but I guess anything can happen. Kids were gossiping about what they thought the incident really was. Some were saying that there was a murder at the local Panera, while others thought that the robber had a dangerous weapon. Others were clueless as to what happened. Later, in musical theater the drama teacher cleared up any misconceptions we may have had about the crime. She then asked us to use that same sense of "false" fear in this scene we were doing for the play? The scene, however, was actually better. Rumors were still going around. Some said that the robber had a small gun, which he dropped at the scene of the crime, and that he fled to Kenilworth, a neighborhood close to Winnetka. The school was finally off lockdown, since the police had given the school the "all clear." The rest of the day wen downhill from there, but at least something worth blogging about happened.

Should students be rewarded by the school for good grades?

"OK, class, here are your tests. Remember, if you get a perfect score, you win $50.00!"Does this seem fair? In a lot of schools, if you do well on a standardized test, or get straight A's, you win a cash prize or some other reward. The teachers as well get rewarded cash bonuses for which classes get the most A's. This is a corrupt thing to do, because children are being bribed to get good grades instead of actually trying for them, and learning from mistakes. Children who don't do that well in school, or have learning disabilities don't have much chance of being rewarded. I'm in special ed math, so I, for example would never have a chance to earn a reward for grades. School is supposed to be about teaching people that everyone is equal, but are students really equal if the kid with the most prizes is smartest, and the kid with the least is the class idiot? If kids do well on tests and in school because they're being paid, then they're not really learning anything. They're doing well only for the money. Teachers shouldn't be bribed into being good teachers. They should be able to teach kids so that they can become successful as adults, not because they're given bonuses. Money isn't everything, but if people are being bribed to do well, then that's the lesson they're being taught. Rewards for good grades and for the class with the best grades are unfair, and set unfair standards as to who is the smartest and who is the stupidest.You're not going to really learn anything if you are only doing it because of the reward. You're only learning how to be corrupt. Do you think schools should reward the kids who do well on standardized tests and in school? Would doing so be reasonable, or corrupt?

Primary Results

Clinton has scored huge delegates in Texas and Ohio, while Obama wins Vermont. What happened to Obama's big streak? Newsweek has asked the question: "Will Clinton drop out if she loses badly on Tuesday?" The answer, of course is no, because though Obama still has a big lead, the candidates are still neck and neck in the race for the white house. The next big Primaries are Pennsylvania, Mississippi, and Wyoming. People think that Clinton will win Wyoming, but Obama will win in Mississippi. As for Pennsylvania, no one really knows for sure, but there are many delegates at steak there, so both candidates will focus more on winning the Pennsylvania primary. Since the Governor of Pennsylvania has just endorsed Clinton, people think that Clinton might win, however Obama won't give Pennsylvania up and will try to beat Clinton as best he can. The Republicans, meanwhile already have their nominee. John McCain has won Vermont, Texas, and Ohio, and Mike Huckabee has dropped out of the race. McCain has won the Republican nomination while the Democrats still don't know who will win. Who do you think will be the Democrat Nominee? Who will become our next president, a Democrat or a Republican?

Chicago Vs. Winnetka

Personally, I hate the suburbs, but what do you think of them compared to the city? Well, while the suburbs are safe to live in, when i lived in the city, I couldn't even play out on the front yard as a child. In the suburbs, it's not as dangerous, and is more kid-friendly. The city also is more crowded and filled with people than a small town, and can also be easier to get lost in. While the suburbs may be more safe and less busy, big cities are more diverse. In some suburbs, like mine, most of the residents are white, which I really can't stand because I think that places should be more diverse than they are. Also, in cities there are more options for entertainment, than the suburbs, as well as more places to visit, or just to go. The one thing that makes me furious is the fact that in the suburbs, the schools might be better than the ones in the cities. My school in the suburbs doesn't do a thing to improve other schools, which I think they should. In Winnetka, we hold this big fundraiser for our own school, while other schools are way worse off and nothing is being done. I'm not saying all suburbs are rich, and all cities are unsafe, I'm just trying to talk about my own experiences In both the city, and the suburbs. Should suburbs like Winnetka do things to help problems in Chicago?Which is better to live in: The city, or the suburbs?

'08 Presidential Race

In the race for the white house, it's basically down to about 3 candidates. I don't want another Republican to win, because that would mean no problems would be solved, and we'd still be at war. I still want a new president badly. One who doesn't read children books while terrorists are attacking and then does nothing except cause problems. McCain supports this president's ideas, and waterboarding, which is surprising, since he was tortured for five years when he was in Vietnam. Personally, I want Obama to win this, because though he lacks experience, he has good ideas for this country, is smart, and can change this country. I'm not trying to convince you to vote Obama, because Clinton is equally smart, and you can vote for McCain if you like. What's equally interesting is why it's so hard to make fun of Obama for people. He has his share of flaws, like the other candidates, and it's not racist to make fun of him or his policies, which I think alot of people are afraid of. As for Clinton, well people are acting as though it's over when it's far from being over. She still has a chance, and people are just acting as though Obama is this perfect person, while she has as good ideas as he does. However, she is using some dirty politics, which I think is a shame, because she's smarter than that, and her tactics are backfiring on her as well, since Obama is replying to these negative campaigns unbelievably well. As the race goes on, the candidates and voters both know that only one person will be president, and though it might be the right or wrong decision, will the new president be heroic, or just another Bush?

Should cellphone companies be allowed to wiretap?

The President wants to let cellphone companies get away with illegally wiretapping people's cellphones, to "protect" us from Terrorists. He argues that we will be stopping another 9/11 from happening, and that spying on people will save lives and create a better sense of security. Others say that no one will know it's even happening, and that there wouldn't be enough evidence to convict the companies doing it. I believe that as Americans, we should have the right to privacy, because it seems unfair that companies should have the right to invade your privacy. As for "stopping another 9/11", wiretapping may help spot terrorists, however I don't really think that spying on people creates a strong sense of security. Should we really trust our president on security, after all, he read the book My Pet Goat instead of the 9/11 warnings, and blamed the whole attack on Iraq, when they weren't involved at all? Post-9/11 fear has been making stupid people seem smart, as well as stupid ideas of "protection." Do we really need our phones listened to, and will it really protect people in America? There are good sides to this; it might protect people from some kinds of danger, but not terrorists. Wiretapping phones might seem like a good idea, but it is in fact illegal. It's not just against the law, it's an invasion of privacy. We should not just give companies access to personal information; companies could abuse their power and take advantage of their wiretapping abilities, to the point where it's not even about protecting America anymore. Should we keep our rights, or give them up to a failure president?