Meta Post: My Favorite Blog Post

            My favorite blog post of the semester was Good Enough? This post showed my growth as a writer, as well as my ability to tie my writing to a text without it actually revolving around that text, which was something I struggled with all year. When writing a paper or blog, I would find an article, a book, a video, etc. that I found interesting and become very attached to it. However, instead of analyzing the most relevant parts of that source to my topic, I would try to steer my topic towards the source, making my argument much too general. For instance, in my junior theme, I relied much to heavily on sources from Michael Pollan, making my paper “as broad as a newpaper editorial” (Mr. Bolos). What Mr. Bolos was trying to tell me was that I was tying my argument too much to someone else’s, therefore pulling me away from my own thesis, and making my paper far too broad.

            In Good Enough? I improved in effectively using evidence to strengthen my argument. Instead of centering my argument around a specific source, I actually structured my argument around a question (sort of like junior theme) and found a source that would answer that question. This was much more effective because my argument was based off my own inquiries instead of a source that I simply found interesting. In this specific blog post, I wanted to figure out why so many kids at New Trier were unhappy with their ACT scores. I then read an article by The Chicago Tribune, which contained many different statistics about ACT scores and demographics, specifically analyzing scores from New Trier High School. However, instead of analyzing the entire article, I used two statistics to strengthen my argument. I stated that “the average ACT score at New Trier is a 27.5,” and “the state average is a 20.6.” In making these two brief statements, I added powerful evidence to my argument without doing an exhaustive analysis of the entire article.

            In order to give my argument a new dimension, I decided to use the ACT website as another source. I knew that the information I wanted was there, so all I needed to do was get that one piece of evidence and analyze it. By searching through the website with a specific question in mind, I was able to find exactly what I was looking for. I needed to know what percentile a student getting a 28 on their ACT would rank in, and by looking at one chart, I was able to state, “they would place in the 91^st percentile.” This gave an interesting twist to my argument by saying that the average student at New Trier actually ranks in the top nine percent of students in the nation.

            In summary, this blog post would not have been effective had I analyzed the entirety of the two sources I used. By using small snapshots of evidence, I was able to effectively argue my point, as well as find an answer to the question I posed. This post is an obvious choice for my favorite post because it was a great example of the growth I have shown over this year as a writer.

Minorities All the Same

            Upon completing my latest blog, I became curious about some of the other societal issues that John Quinones explores on the show What Would You Do? on ABC. I decided to watch several clips of different scenarios on youtube.com. One clip in particular seemed to relate to my previous blog. It was about shopping as an African American. It basically showed a racist storeowner investigating a black female in the store and in certain instances, having her searched by the security guard. Here’s the clip:

 

            I found the results that they got from this experiment to be quite interesting. The strongest reactions, according to Quinones, came from people of color. However, while there were a few reactions from white shoppers, most of them remained bystanders. In comparison with the experiment with the Muslim woman in the bakery, many more people not of her same race stood up for her than did for the black woman. In fact, only one person of a minority race was shown to side with the Muslim woman at the bakery, while the rest of them seemed to be white. However, most of the people defending the black woman were also black. Is this a coincidence, or is this a pattern?

            Why did more white people stand up for the Muslim woman than for the black woman? Do non-minority Americans feel more compelled to defend certain minorities over others? If so, why?

Discrimination vs. Patriotism

            Yesterday, I was standing in line at a Starbucks when I noticed a peculiar situation occurring. The man in front of me, who happened to be wearing a turban, seemed to cause a disturbance to some of the employees. I heard a lot of whispering back and forth behind the counter, and eventually, the man at the cash register asked for the man’s ID. Finally, after thoroughly checking it, he took the man’s order. I was slightly distressed by what had just happened, so I decided to ask the cashier why he asked the man in the turban for his ID. His response was quite shocking. He said, “I just wanted to take all the necessary precautions in case he turned out to be one of them.” I then rhetorically asked him what “one of them meant” and he replied, “you know, a terrorist.” I knew what he meant, but I didn’t want to know what he meant. Unfortunately, this kind of discriminatory behavior seems to happen more than we think it does.

I was able to recall an episode of What Would You Do? on the show 20/20 on ABC in which the director, John Quinones investigated what would happen when a Muslim woman wearing a traditional scarf was denied service by a racist cashier. Take a look…

As you can see, discrimination remains a very common behavior, even today. But what really shocked me about this clip was the fact that there was such a wide range of reactions at the same small town bakery. While some people commended the man’s behavior, others spoke out against it. It seemed as if both parties believed that what they were doing was “American.” Some of them thought that acting in a discriminatory way towards the Muslim woman was “American” because in their minds she could be a potential terrorist and they thought that by denying her service, the cashier was defending his country. However, others thought that defending the woman was the “American” thing to do because the United States was based on equal rights, and therefore, the woman should be given the same service as the rest of them.

Why do some Americans see discrimination towards Muslims to be patriotic while others don’t? What is patriotism and what makes people define certain things as patriotic and other things as not?

Good Enough?

A few days ago in American studies class, we were discussing different indicators of class, including income, occupation, and education. We were shown a chart that made me think twice about my own education. I always thought that if I settled for a bachelor's degree in college, I might as well just not go. I'm sure a lot of students at New Trier think this. But in reality, according to this chart, the majority of people in the United States do not have a bachelor's degree, meaning that having one would put someone in a high social class.

 After this discussion, ACT scores were sent out, and I knew that many students at New Trier would feel like failures because of their scores. In this skewed universe, I have come to learn that getting a 29 apparently means that you are going nowhere in life and will end up living on the streets. After a weeks of listening to people whine about their scores, I decided to look into it a little and see whether these people with 29s were really as dumb as they thought they were. According to the Chicago Tribune, the average ACT score at New Trier is a 27.5, which I will round to a 28 for convenience sake. Meanwhile, the state average is a 20.6, or a 21 which is around the National average as well. I then looked at some percentile rankings on the ACT website and these were really telling. If the average student at New Trier (who apparently is an idiot)gets a 28, they would place in the 91st percentile. That means that only 9 percent of students in the nation scored higher than them.

Unfortunately, in an environment like New Trier, students are forced into thinking they are mediocre, even though they are actually scoring higher than most other students in the nation. I would just like to point out to any of the "average" students at New Trier that although you think you're not that smart because you got a 28, you are not going to end up living on the streets like a hobo.

 This leads me to question: Why do average people in upper class societies see themselves as average failures and what is so bad about mediocrity?

Social Class Determined by Food

            On Friday in American Studies, we were discussing the different criteria used to define social class in America. One of those criteria happened to be the types of foods someone eats. This reminded me of my junior theme. In fact, it connects directly to one of my main points. The United States government subsidizes corn in order to supply the food market with cheap, corn-based products. That way, consumers will be happy because they get relatively good tasting food for an extremely low price.

            To get a better idea of the food industry, check out this video…

            As you can see, food is a definite factor in terms of one’s social status. As the woman stated at 0:50, you could get two hamburgers for the same price as a vegetable. Clearly, anyone of a lower social class would not buy the healthier foods because they are more expensive, whereas the higher-class people would because they most likely can afford to buy them.

            What do you think are the main differences between social classes in the United States in terms of the foods they eat?

Supersize Me

            Today I was reading The Omnivore’s Dilemma, by Michael Pollan for my junior theme, when I read something very interesting. Since the introduction of high fructose corn syrup, sales of many processed food companies – especially fast food companies – have gone up. Why? Because they have supersized many of their products. For instance, 7-Eleven has introduced the famous double gulp. But what enabled them to do this?

            When high fructose corn syrup was introduced, companies jumped on the opportunity to use it in their products because it is just as sweet as regular sugar, equally affective as regular sugar, but is only a fraction of the cost. They then realized that they would have to pay much less to make the products they sold. However, instead of sell their products at the same size for a lower price, they decided to supersize their products, costing them about the same as before, and selling them to consumers for a slightly higher, yet still profitable price. This new supersized product, as we well know, appealed to consumers more than companies even realized. So now, we see companies supersizing everywhere. Take a look at this video for a better idea:

http://www.tubechop.com/watch/323871

            As you see, fast food companies from across the board have supersized their products, and made an incredible profit from it. This, however, has contributed to the declining health of our nation, as the rate of type II diabetes as well as heart disease, obesity, and many other illnesses increases. While our nation’s fast food companies reek the benefits of this ingenious sales tactic, our waistlines pay the price. And at the cost of what? Corn? How could something as silly as corn make such a large impact on our nation’s health?

            Is it responsible of fast food companies to supersize their menu when they know it’s hurting the health of our nation? At what point should companies worry more about the welfare of consumers than their own profit?

Subsidies: Beneficial or Detrimental?

Since 1979, the topic of corn subsidies has been a controversial one. According to the following chart, the United States government has given more money to corn subsidies than to any other program in the US since 1995. By 2009, US corn subsidies had totaled to a staggering $73,775,277,671, beating out any other program by at least double. Based on one article that I read, "America's corn farmers have been benefitting from annual federal subsidies of around $6 billion in recent years, all in the name of ethanol used as an additive for the nation's vehicles." To put it simply, our nation's corn farmers are paid annual subsidies to produce mass amounts of corn crop, and are guaranteed to make a profit, even if they produce too much corn, or the market price of the corn is too low to make a profit on its own.

But what is a subsidy?

 A subsidy is "a benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction." (Investopedia.com) Subsidies were first introduced to corn farmers following the ending World War II had ended. During the war, farmers in the US produced mass amounts of food for the entire Allied force. However, once the war ended, there was a surplus of food, causing prices of many crops, including corn, to go down. This hurt the farmers tremendously, so Congress and the President decided to subsidize several crops, including corn, which was subsidized the heaviest. Because of all the farm subsidies, farmers were forced to raise only a single crop, corn for instance. With only one crop to worry about, farmers mass produced, causing corn prices to decline even more, which the prompted the government to subsidize even more, thus creating an endless cycle, which has caused a lot of controversy in the US.

 Just recently, however, the US government ended a three-decade old policy on corn subsidies. The policy was originally put into place during Jimmy Carter's presidency in an effort to increase the use of natural fuels such as corn ethanol and decrease the dependence on the Middle East for oil. However, it has been recently established that corn ethanol is not as environmentally friendly as we think it is. According to Michal Rosenoer, corn ethanol " leads to more climate pollution than conventional gasoline, and it causes deforestation as well as agricultural runoff that pollutes our water." This information pushed Congress to change the policy on corn subsides to be more moderate towards farmers.

 Is it a good idea for the government to decrease corn subsidies? How will this effect the price of corn? Will it help or hurt the economy?