The Last Meta Post

I would like Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Bolos to grade my "The Push for Transparency" post.

It's crazy to see how much has changed and progressed from my first posts to my last posts. At the beginning of the year, I was just getting used to the whole blogging thing, and now I feel like almost a professional.

I've noticed that this last quarter I've talked more about issues we've discussed in class, like lists, places, and cycles. Before, I would usually take an idea we discussed in class and find something in the news to relate it to, but this quarter I took ideas we talked about and expanded them further.

I also really enjoyed writing about posts related to my Junior Theme topic. I liked being able to connect something like the "Wait, Tupac's Alive?!" post that discussed hackers who posted a fake "Tupac's still Alive" article to the PBS website to WikiLeaks, which I wrote about a lot in my junior theme.

I think I have also learned how to make my posts more concise and get to my point quicker. At the beginning of the year, I had extremely long posts and I feel that by the end they have shortened appropriately. It was something I worked really hard on, and I had to figure out which information was surplus and took the reader away from what I was trying to say. I also, think I've improved in my empathy for the reader. I almost always give links and try to highlight the quotes in my posts in different colors to make it easier for the reader to see what words are mine and what words are somebody else's.

Overall, I loved the blogging experience. It's awesome to be able to write down how I view a certain situation or what I think about something. I also think it's great that we as classmates can comment on each other's blogs and get in healthy debates about different topics.

To Tell or Not to Tell?

*For some reason, this blog post never posted, I found it in my drafts. It's from May 5th.

There are many arguments whether or not our government needs to be more open or more secretive. The recent releases of classified documents by WikiLeaks has not helped the fight towards more transparency in government one bit. Many believe, especially those in the United State government, that the disclosures of American diplomatic logs to the public have hurt American diplomatic ties. Some say other disclosures have placed innocent lives at risk.

But have these releases really hurt America? Can these documents prevent us from having good relations with other countries?

To me, it seems that these documents have been classified for a completely different reason. I do believe that some of these documents have been classified in order to protect people because I do know they could in danger if their governments know what they have shared with the United States. However, I believe that many of these disclosures are to withhold information from the American people about the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to author Micah Sifry, who wrote The Age of Transparency, the government classified this information in order to "prevent the American public from understanding the full impact of of the invasion and occupation of Iraq."

By withholding information, the government tried to maintain support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some people had been comparing the situation in Afghanistan to that of Vietnam, feeling that the situation in Afghanistan had no end and that we were getting involved in something that shouldn't have been necessarily our business.

I believe that the government was more concerned about not embarrassing themselves and maintaining public opinion rather than if American diplomatic ties were severed with the WikiLeaks leaks. Even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said after the leak of the American diplomatic cables that "governments deal with the United States because it is in their interest. Not because they like us, not because they trust us and not because they believe we can keep secrets.”

I believe that the government's backlash against WikiLeaks is more about preserving the government's reputation and avoid embarrassment/scandal than about diplomatic relations or protecting people's lives.

The North Shore Cycle

Currently in AS, we are reading the play The Kentucky Cycle, which is a series of nine one-act plays that explore the American mythology of land and how three families fight over the rights to a certain plot of land. Each act has many similar aspects of the act before it, like killing for land, suggesting that it is a vicious "cycle."



Reading this play has made me think of the cycles in my life. One specific cycle I seem to notice is what I'd like to call "The North Shore Cycle" or the "Middle Class Cycle." Whatever you want it to be. This is a cycle of life, that I believe starts as soon as a kid reaches their teenage years. Or maybe it just becomes more noticeable then. You go to high school to do well to go to college. You go to college to do well and either go into graduate school, law school, med school, etc. or to just get a job. So basically you go to college to get a good job. You get a good job so that when you get married and have kids, you can support them. And then you watch the cycle repeat itself with the next generation.

Granted some people are exceptions to this cycle. Some never get married or have kids. Some choose to do their own thing and break this cycle, but it is very rare. This cycle is what your parents expect of you. This cycle might be what you will expect of your children. Whether you become subject to it or not, either way it's definitely there in front of you.

Wait, Tupac's Alive?!

On Monday, PBS posted an article that rapper Tupac Shakur was still alive and living in New Zealand. However, it turned out to be a false article, placed on the website by hackers who were angered by coverage of WikiLeaks.

According to the New York Times, security experts call these attacks "reputational" on media companies who publish things that the hackers are not happy with. The companies are apparently vulnerable to these attacks because they "depend on online advertising and subscription revenue from Web sites that can be upended by the clicks of a hacker’s keyboard." The hacker can simply take away revenue from a Web site, even by just shutting it down for a few hours. Time equals money.

The attacks were "said to be motivated by a “Frontline” film about WikiLeaks that was broadcast and published online on May 24." The hackers, who are supporters of WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange, felt that the film had shed both the Web site and Assange in a negative light.

This hasn't been the first attack on a Web site who had been critical of something others didn't agree with. Last December, hackers shut down web sites owned by Gawker Media. Apparently, "Gawker had been critical of hacker groups like the one called Anonymous that had attacked security firms and Web sites of the Egyptian government."

So is this form of protest alright to do so? Is it okay for hackers to illegally hack a web site and shut down their revenue because of something they don't agree with?

I think there's a point when people are going to far and I believe that's what has occurred with these hackings. There's one thing of protesting something when a company commits an awful act or something of that sort. But there's another when they are just expressing their beliefs. The hackers are committing illegal acts, and although some may be funny, I just don't feel like that's the right way to go about it. Perhaps they can make their own web site and condemn what they disagree with, or they can create a protest rally. But I think the hacking has taken things a little too far.

Lists

On Friday in AS, we discussed lists. People make lists for many reasons. There's grocery lists, packing lists, shopping lists, bucket lists, goals, etc. Many people in the class said that they make lists all the time which was sort of a shock to me. I never make lists. Lists are too structurial for me and I like the freedom and spontaneity of not having one. I like to do things on my own terms. But that doesn't mean I don't have goals that I choose to set for myself, I just don't write them down. If I accomplish something, then I accomplish and I know I did it, I don't need it written on paper for me to feel proud about it.

However, there is one list I do keep. I have a bucket list. I choose to keep this list because it reminds to me to "live with no regrets" and I find it cool to see things I've done or remind myself of things I want to do. Perhaps this is a little contradictory of what I wrote earlier, but I feel like a bucket list is differnet. It keeps your memories in a way and gives you the freedom to accomplish what you want within your life. I think bucket lists are great because they allow you to focus on things larger than going to school or working or whatever.

Place

On Wednesday, we had American Studies Day, in which American Studies students attend different seminars throughout the day all dedicated to a common theme. This year's theme was place. Place can mean anything. Where you live, where you were born, where you belong within society. But everyone is still very affected by it.

One of the presentations on AS Day was by Maria Finitzo, who showed us a documentary called The Interrupters. Here is a link to the trailer if you would like to see it. The Interrupters is about an organization called CeaseFire is to intervene conflicts before they result in violence. The documentary takes place in Englewood, a lower income community area of Chicago. The filming of this documentary began as Chicago became one of the centers of violence in the United States.

During the presentation, we discussed how different the North Shore, where we live, is to Englewood, which is only on the other side of the city from us. Finitzo said that many of the kids in Englewood believe they are living for today. They don't worry about tomorrow, it's about surviving this moment. But if you look at the North Shore it's completely different. All we think about is tomorrow. Where are we going to college? What do we want to do with the rest our lives? Everything we do is for the future. We do well in school to go to college. We go to college to get a job. We get married and have kids. We have a job to support our families. It's a huge cycle.

I think this really shows the importance of place. I may receive more opportunities than a kid from Englewood just because I am from the North Shore. I don't have to worry about getting shot everyday. I don't have to worry about not being able to go to college or earning enough money to support my family. I look to the future because I can. And it's incredibly sad that not everybody has that opportunity.

The Push for Transparency

My Junior Theme was about why there has been an increase in the number of classified government documents. However, many of the sources I read were talking about a "push for transparency." Transparency is generally when the government acts openly, communicates, and is held accountable for its actions. In other words, instead of keeping so many secrets and sometimes lying to the public, they choose to open information and create better communication with the people.

For my project I read a great book by Micah L. Sifry titled WikiLeaks and the Age of Transparency. In the book, Sifry quotes President Obama in a 2009 speech: "I think the more freely information flows, the stronger the society becomes, because citizens of countries around the world can hold their own governments accountable" (138). This quote strikes me as odd. While I do believe Obama has done many positive things in the direction towards transparency, like creating a National Declassification Center, in the wake of the recent WikiLeaks scandal, it makes you wonder how much he really is doing to make sure information is flowing freely.

There were many things revealed by WikiLeaks about the United States: some good, some bad, and some even embarrassing. And while many were concerned that the disclosures could harm innocent lives, it has been proven that they were more embarrassing than hazardous. So why all the secrecy? Why not get to that transparent government everyone's been talking about?

I think its difficult for a citizen who does not have access or is in the same shoes as Obama to assess what needs to be secret and what can be shown to the public. Most of don't know how certain information could affect the nation if released, but as technology continues to advance, keeping things secret may be harder than ever. The push for transparency will continue and once we can obtain an open government, we can reap its benefits. Then society can become healthier and stronger, working together with the government to generate new ideas and solve issues.

Meta Post Part Three

I would like Mr. Bolos and Mr. O'Connor to assess my "The Power of Television" post. I really enjoyed writing this post because I thought it was extremely interesting. I used something we had discussed in class, television, and went even further with it. It look me a long time to write this post, and I researched it to make sure I was being accurate and sounding completely ignorant. I hope you guys like it!

What a Smallville

So last night I was watching an episode of the show Smallville titled Sacrifice from the show's 9th season. In the episode, Checkmate, a secret government agency, has been hacking and downloading information from the Watchtower in order to find its location. Watchtower is the name of the tower that Chloe Sullivan uses to coordinate superhero missions for Clark Kent and the other members of the soon to be Justice League.

Anyways, in the episode, the agent who runs Checkmate, Amanda Waller, says, "if you don't stand with us, you stand against us. It's time for you to pick a side" to the "red blur" who is Clark Kent as Superman.

Clark Kent from the show Smallville.

As soon as I heard this, I immediately thought of play The Crucible that we had read as a class earlier this year. In the play, Judge Danforth tells John Proctor, "that a person is either with this court or he must be counted against it."

In both these examples, they give people an ultimatum of either being on their side or being "against" them. Is dissent allows considered loyalty? I think that in many times it can be, although I'm not sure if that's fair to say. Just because someone doesn't agree with a certain policy or idea, does not mean they are necessarily a threat to national security or anything like that. But rather they are a threat to power because they choose to confront what they believe is wrong.

The Curious Case of Bradley Manning

I have decided that for my junior theme I will be focusing on government secrecy. Part of this obviously includes classified documents and the United States' "war" with WikiLeaks. Bradley Manning, an Army intelligence analyst, was "was arrested...and accused of downloading several hundred thousand diplomatic cables and classified reports...providing them to WikiLeaks" according to the New York Times.

Recently this month, there have been additional charges filed against Manning including "aiding the enemy," and he has been in solitary confinement. There has been a lot of support for Manning with many critiques about how he is being treated in jail.

Top State Department spokesman Philip Crowley stated that Manning's treatment was "ridiculous, counterproductive and stupid." In response to these comments, Obama reassured the public in a news conference that the jail conditions of Manning were "appropriate and meeting our basic standards."

But is it fair for Manning to be incarcerated? Should he be considered an enemy to the state?

I don't know if I'm very convinced that he should be jailed. Although I understand he released classified information to the public regarding the American government, should these have been even classified in the first place?

According to CQ Researcher Online, about 90% of classified information does not need to be classified. Furthermore, even Defense Secretary Gates, said that "the leaks were likely to cause the nation minimal long-term damage." So why does Manning need to take the fall for it?

I think it's because the WikiLeaks documents definitely did embarrass the United States government. It has showed that the government has lied to the people. According to CQ Researcher Online, "months after the leaks were published, nearly 100 government intelligence analysts reported to Congress that the disclosures had done little actual damage to US national interests."

The government is making an example out of Manning and WikiLeaks. They do not want their secrets being shared with the world. There are images to uphold and people to please. After all ignorance is bliss, right? But knowledge, knowledge may just set you free.

The Power of Television

In AS, we have been discussing TV tokenism and the power television has on the way people view different races. Recently, I came across a very interesting article from the New York Times that discussed an experiment conducted by French Researchers linking television and torture.

The article states that, "French documentary producers managed to trick dozens of people — who were told that they were taking part in a pilot for a new game show that, in fact, never existed — into administering what seemed like painful electric shocks to a fellow contestant."

The fellow contestant happened to be an actor, who was not actually shocked like the participants thought, but rather was acting like he was in serious pain.

What's even more "shocking" was that "only 16 of 69 people asked by the host to push levers that delivered a 'dangerous shock' of 460 volts refused."

That's approximately 23% of the participants who refused to deliver the shock to their fellow contestant.

The producer of the documentary who filmed this experiment, Christophe Nick, said in a statement to the Associated Press that "this experience shows that in certain circumstances, a power — the TV in this case — is able to make you [do] something you don’t want to do.”

Nick suggests that people tend to obey authority or the power, the TV in this experiment, over what they believe is morally right or wrong. Furthermore, they believed that the producers of the game show would not ask them to commit something morally wrong as what they appeared to be doing.

So if a TV show can cause people to electrocute others, what else is it capable of? How powerful is television really?

I believe that it has tremendous power to do good and to cause harm. As it says in the article, that "when people are in front of television cameras, somewhere in their minds they may always suspect that what appears to be reality may in fact be some sort of a hoax." People confuse what's right and what's wrong because they would rather receive their 15 minutes of fame. Just look at any reality TV show, like 16 and Pregnant on MTV. It has been reported that some of the girls on the show have gotten pregnant just to be on the show. It's sad what being on TV can do to some people.

The Fight for Gay Marriage

Every famous historical movement began somewhere right? The Civil Rights Movement, expressionism, the Women's Movement. They all had many factors that contributed to their rise in popularity. Today, we have the Gay Rights Movement, which includes fighting for the right of same-sex marriages.

Here's an article about the current state of offers regarding same-sex marriages and the government. At this time, 30 states have banned same-sex marriages. The country seems completely divided on the issue as the article states, "Polls, however, indicate Americans closely divided on legalizing gay marriage, with 47 percent of participants saying they favor gay marriages and about 50 percent saying they oppose it."


But what started this battle for gay rights? Could the Civil Rights Movement itself be a huge contributor? What makes same-sex marriage a huge issue right now?

I believe that if it had not been for the Civil Rights Movement paving the way for the acceptance of people of different races, we could have never gone to the next step. The Civil Rights Movement taught us that we are all human beings and we are all equal. The Gay Rights Movement is the next step in reaching equality.

I think the reason same-sex marriage has become such a controversial and discussed issue is because now more than ever are people willing to fight for the right to a civil union.

No Blacks Nominated for Oscars

Next Sunday as the Academy gathers to celebrate the cinema industry's top performers and contributors, one group of minorities seem to be missing. In all 24 categories, not one African American had been nominated for this year's Oscars.

Among those excluded from the list of nominees include Halle Berry(who had previously won an Oscar for Best Actress), who received a Golden Globe nomination for her performance in "Frankie and Alice," Kimberly Elise's performance in "Tyler Perry's For Colored Girls," and John Legend, whose song "Shine" appeared in the documentary "Waiting For Superman."

Halle Berry in "Frankie and Alice."

This contrasts severely with last year's Oscars where African Americans received nine nominations. But Frankie and Alice didn't even receive a national release. So should bad movies and their actors receive nominations just because they is no diversity in the names of nomination?

To me, that seems like another form of racial tokenism to just include a minority in order to have diversity in the names of those nominated. I did not see any of the movies listed above so I cannot comment if Halle Berry or Kimberly Elise's performances were Oscar-worthy or not. But if they truly did a good job and deserve that Oscar, than they should definitely had been nominated. But if these actresses had been included just because of their race, they would be tokens.

Racial Tokenism in Television

Last week in class, the topic of racial tokenism came up as we discussed race in the American classic Huckleberry Finn. For those who don't know, racial tokenism is including a person who is a miniority in order to create an appearance of racial equality. Many times, racial tokenism occurs in television.

In many cases, miniority actors appear on hit television shows, but typically as the supporting actor. They appear much less than the main character(s) and are less complicated. Some times they are even given positions of power, such as being a judge or a boss. But rarely are they ever the main character.

Here are a few examples:

NCIS ("TV's Number One Drama")

Leon Vance, played by Rocky Carroll, is the only minority in the cast and is given a position of authority on the show as a director. However, if you look at the cast picture, he is clearly positioned behind three white characters.

Another example would be Grey's Anatomy, who's show has a few minority characters.

Miranda Bailey and Richard Webber, are both minority characters and hold authority roles in this television show. Webber is the Chief of Surgery while Bailey was Chief Resident. In the picture above, both characters are on opposite sides of each other (evening the picture out) and are placed on the outsides. Seven characters, most white, one who is Asian, separate the two. Furthermore, both characters are sitting.

While watching an episode of Grey's Anatomy, I took note of the screen time of the character Miranda Bailey and noticed that out of the 42 minutes of the show, she had only been on for 3 minutes and 36 seconds.

Why is does this kind of tokenism occur in television?

I believe that it still has to do with society. We might believe we're making progress, we do have a half-black president after all! But not until very recently with the NBC show the Undercovers, has a black character been the center of prime time television show. Undercovers was canceled on November 4, 2010.

Many television shows place minority characters not only in the cast, but also as extras in order to appear racially diverse. However, many of these characters do not receive an appropriate portrayl or enough screen time. Perhaps, in years to come this will change as society becomes more accepting and we will see more racially diverse MAIN characters instead of the typical white male (and now even more female) lead.

Sex Sells and Distracts

In class this week, we watched a clip of an interview from CNN between a woman anchor and a male senator. We observed that, since the male senator was not physically present in the CNN studio, the screen only showed the upper half of his body. However, the woman anchor was standing at a certain angle facing the senator's screen, with her whole body in view. We agreed as a class that the woman was attractive and that perhaps her positioning and the camera angle was planned purposely.

I recently stumbled on an article by Miller-McCune which addresses this exact issue. "Sexy news anchors." In the article, the author states that, "To capture male viewers, news networks have hired attractive female anchors. While it may boost ratings, studies show male viewers get distracted and remember less from the newscast."

The article continues with "Two Indiana University scholars report that, for male viewers, 'emphasis on the sexual attractiveness of female news anchors distracts from memory formation for news content.'"

"They found that 'men’s cognitive mechanisms favored visual over verbal processing.'" So basically the men are more focused on the anchor's appearance than what she was actually saying.

What's the point of having a news cast if half of the viewers don't even completely comprehend what's going on? I understand if networks are competing with one another for ratings, but I feel as if this takes away from the whole purpose of "the news." Perhaps, this is why Americans are so poorly informed of the world around them.

The news have become more about who has the hotter anchor than who delivers the best news coverage. Maybe these women are extremely qualified and deserve the job, but I think its the network's fault for how they objectify them. Furthermore, I think it says more about how looks are extremely important in our society. God forbid we have an ugly news anchor.

Meta Post Part Two

I would like Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Bolos to assess at my "The Truth Behind Subliminal Advertising" post.

Overall, I believe that this quarter I have really begun to realize how much of a process blogging can be. You're not always going to write an amazing post and you're not always going to have something to write about. But I believe that finding a median and not being afraid to share your thoughts are really what good bloggers and writers do.

Not always having something to write about has been an issue for me. There are times where I can't come up with anything, and then there are times where I have ten different ideas bouncing around in my head. But that's just the trials and tribulations of being a writer and to improve you have to work on coming up with something great when you think you have nothing at all. I do think I should blog a little more consistently though.

Another thing I can improve is to make my blogs a little more concise. Even with essays, I tend make everything very long. I need to just get to the point or else I can lose the reader's attention. This is something I'll definitely work on for next semester.

I do have to say though that I am proud of how my blog posts have come along this entire semester. I think one of my strong points is that I am able to provide enough historical background or a link that aids the reader in comprehending the topic I'm discussing. For example, in my "In the Interest of National Security" post I quote a New York Times article that describes the controversy of Julian Assange's releasing of 250,000 American diplomat cables. I quoted that,

"The White House said the release of what it called 'stolen cables' to several publications was a 'reckless and dangerous action' and warned that some cables, if released in full, could disrupt American operations abroad and put the work and even lives of confidential sources of American diplomats at risk."

This shows the reader the severity of the situation. My "Fear Sells" post is also another good example when I describe the Broadview Security ads. I wrote,
" the author talks of how Broadview Security airs ads 'that feature a series of scenarios that play on women's darkest fears.' Like some guy a woman met at a party breaking into her house only a couple of hours later. Obviously the commercial is used to show how effective Broadview Security is, but it also strikes a sense of panic in the women viewers. Many of the other Broadview ads follow the same pattern. A woman is alone and defenseless when a someone tries to break into her home, only to be stopped by the Broadview alarm."

I hope these enhance my post for my reader and make everything a little easier to understand.

Another thing I've been working on is coming up with good blog titles that capture my topic and are good to bring traffic to blog (from Google or wherever). Some titles include, "The Truth Behind Subliminal Adveristing, A Modern Day Witch-hunt, and Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." I think as a blogger you need to be able to create catchy titles that also can attract attention to your blog and that's exactly what I've tried to do.

Behind the Mind of a Murderer

It's fair to say that almost everybody has heard of the recent shooting in Arizona. If not, here's an article that explains the basis of what happened.We've even discussed it in class when talking about the difference between absolute truth and regular truth. We related it to the incident by saying that the six victims of the shooting who died are an absolute truth. We know they're not living anymore. However, while this issue continues to remain in the media with everybody weighing in on who is responsible for it, we will never know the whole truth of why he committed this act.

Recently, I read an article by the New York Times that talks about the controversy between Pima community college that had recently kicked Jared L. Loughner out for being "troubled" after a series of "bizarre outbursts and violent Internet fantasies."
The article states that,
"In September, Pima suspended Mr. Loughner and told him not to return without a psychologist’s letter certifying that he posed no danger. But it took no steps to mandate that he have a psychiatric evaluation, which in Arizona is easier than in many states. "

He was never cleared by a professional of being mentally stable after he was expelled from the college. But was it it the college's responsibility to provide care for him if they knew he was mentally unstable? Could the shooting have been prevented?

The article goes on to quote an official the school:
“It is part of our practice to provide students with information of where they can go,” said Charlotte Fugett, an official at the college. “It’s their responsibility to find a practitioner.”

But how can you leave the responsibility for someone to actually go to a psychiatrist, if they are potentially mentally unstable? Personally, I think the school should have done something. If someone has shown behavior that could be considered dangerous, the school should have the obligation to do something about it. They can't just release him and except him to go and help himself. Especially, when he deeply believes in everything he's doing. It's not just about protecting the school, its about protecting the community. Maybe if they had tried to help, this tragedy could have been prevented.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

As American citizens, we are demand the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the people right in our Declaration of Independence. Everybody deserves the right to live, right?

In class this week, we discussed Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development and related to them to the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, which we are currently reading in class.

Here are Kohlberg's 6 stages:
While discussing Kohlberg, we were given a situation and had to decide for ourselves if we believed it could be justified as moral. The situation was:

In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. the drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $400 for the radium and charged $4,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money and tried every legal means, but he could only get together about $2,000, which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from if." So, having tried every legal means, Heinz gets desperate and considers breaking into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.

Should Heinz steal the drug?

Many people answered yes. He was trying to save his wife's life. Life trumps the act of stealing the drug. But what if it wasn't his wife who was dying? Would Heinz still be obligated to steal the drug in order to save another human's life? Everybody does deserve the right to live, right?


I believe that many of us would answer that we would save anybody's life because honestly we would like to believe that when faced with that situation we would. However, I do not think that's truly the case. Our world is based on Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest. If we judge someone as inadequate whether they're a bad person or they don't hold up to our standards, I think we'd be less likely to want to save their lives. However, if it was someone close to us, I believe we have a higher initiative to help them. Would you consider saving someone's life who had done bad things in their life? But what if it was a complete stranger? Or a murderer? Do they deserve the right to live? What then constitutes the value of a life?

Hall of Shame

During class this week, we discussed New Trier's new "Hall of Fame," where they honor alumni who have carried out the school's motto to "to commit minds to inquiry, hearts to compassion and lives to the service of humanity." Some of the alumni who will be honored include actor Rainn Wilson from the Office, ex-Playboy executive Christie Hefner, and former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Here is an article about the hall of fame, if you'd like to learn more.

Donald Rumsfeld

Rainn Wilson
Christie Hefner

During a press release, Superintendent Linda Yonke gave her support for all those who were chosen, claiming they fully embodied what New Trier stood for:"These extraordinary alumni truly are a testament to the quality and character of New Trier's graduates. It was difficult to narrow the field of nominees, but ultimately, these first inductees were chosen for lives and careers spent upholding the New Trier values of inquiry, compassion, and service."

Yonke says that these alumni are a "testament to the quality and character of New Trier's graduates." But it makes you wonder if that's why they were really chosen. Look at Donald Rumsfeld. He is in no way a favorite in the country because of his involvement in the Iraqi invasion.

Another New Trier alum Chad Topaz ('92) wrote a letter to New Trier in which he stated that "Despite the glossy list of philanthropic activities in Rumsfeld's award citation, his career has done anything but serve community and humanity, and he has demonstrated a compassionless heart. His activities as an architect of torture of detainees in the United States' unjust Iraq war are anti-humanitarian, are despised around the globe, and have contributed to the degradation of our country's international standing."

So should an "architect of torture" be awarded? When I look at the name of inductees, I see a Nobel Prize winning physicist, a cancer researcher, a Holocaust survivor. But I wonder in the inclusion of Rumsfeld was just because he was a prominent figure in this decade, not because he truly committed his mind to inquiry, heart to compassion and life to the service of humanity. Is celebrity valued more than good work done by ordinary people?

Sadly, I believe it does in this society and at New Trier. The school wants to be associated with a power and status of a man like Rumsfeld. We taught him, didn't we? Once a Trev, always a Trev, right?

But I think there's some people who aren't necesarily U.S. Secretaries of Defense or star in the Office, but need to recognized for what they've accomplished in their lives as well. As a society, we focus too much on the "star" or the glitz and the glamor. Because there's ordinary people who are working hard every day to make this world a better place and we constantly overlook them.