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?

America Runs on... Corn

            I have finally landed on a topic for my junior theme project. In my paper, I plan to explore the impact that corn has on the US economy as well as the farmers. The corn industry itself has become very powerful in the US, especially in the last 50 years. According to the USDA, consumption of corn products has nearly doubled since the 1950s, and consumption of corn sweeteners, such as high fructose corn syrup,(which didn't even exist until the 1970s) has increased by about 700 percent.

Clearly, our economy wouldn’t be the same without corn. However, although corn is used a lot in food, the majority of it is used in ethanol. According to a blog I read, “for every 10 ears of corn grown in the U.S., two are consumed by humans, and the other eight are used for feed and fuel.” So although our nation consumes many more corn products in out diets, we are actually burning right through it a much more rapid rate in the fuel tanks of our cars.

There are many pros and cons to the use of ethanol. Many are included in this video, which should give a clear picture of what ethanol is and the impact that it has or has potential to have on our society.

In summary, ethanol has made a huge impact on our society. Corn production rates have gone through the roof. The US government is also closely considering the sustained production of ethanol as a way to benefit our society.

Why should or shouldn’t the US look at ethanol as a major fuel supply? How will the increased production of ethanol affect the corn industry?

A Fast Food Nation

            For my junior theme, I am planning on investigating the social hierarchies of fast food corporations and tying them back to the slave industry. In an effort to jumpstart my thinking, I decided to watch a movie called Fast Food Nation, a movie about a mock McDonalds company called Mickey’s, which supposedly was using bad meat in their most famous burger, “The Big One.” The movie investigated the lives of a wealthy white marketing manager in the company, teenagers working in the restaurants themselves, and illegal immigrants working in the meat processing plant for Mickey’s. Here’s a preview of the movie to give a better idea of what the movie is all about:

            After actually watching the movie, I was horrified at some of the things that went on, even if this was just a made up story. But, it was all based on real statistics, real facts, and real stories coming from fast food restaurants (hint: McDonalds possibly?). The movie depicts some of the things the immigrants had to go through, such as getting raped or having sex to get a job in the first place, horrible work conditions, one many actually had his leg severed off in the meat mincer, another man got a concussion and other injuries, which unfortunately needed to eventually get paid off by his family who already had no money.

On the other side of things, the marketing manager was given a false taste of reality when he came in. He asked to get a tour of the meat processing plant, and was only shown parts of the plant, or at least the better parts. He was told there was fecal matter in the meat by an expert, but when he went in to the actual plant, he was given no reason to believe such a fact. Luckily, he was able to find another man who actually told him the truth about was going on in there. However, had he not found that man, he would never of known a thing about that plant.

I then began to wonder if this is how all fast food corporations work today. Are there immigrant workers in the meat processing plants of all fast food companies? Do the workers work under as poor of conditions as depicted in the movie? I believe there is a hierarchy in these fast food industries. They had to develop from somewhere, and they seem to mirror the slave industry very closely…

To be continued…

Putting Out the Fire

            I was listening to music this afternoon, when I started listening to a song by Billy Joel, entitled We Didn’t Start the Fire. It had a catchy tune and interesting lyrics. But after listening to the song, I wanted to know more about it, and what the meaning of the song is.

 

            According to one website I went to, the lyrics are “a stream of consciousness list of events” that Joel believed his generation shouldn’t have been blamed for. In the chorus, when he says, “we didn’t start the fire,” he’s saying that all of the societal issues going on during that time weren’t caused by his generation. The phrase, “it was always burning since the world’s been turning” states that these issues were already in place before Joel’s generation was born. Finally, he says, “ but we tried to fight it” to show that although his generation wasn’t the cause of all the social turmoil, they did try to stop it.

            This song was very interesting to me because it made me start to realize that issues in our society today might be blamed on my own generation by the time we become adults. Although these issues might not be our faults, we will have to take on the burden of taking blame for them as well as fixing them. Issues like immigration, poverty, and laws on gay marriage will become our problems to fix. It’s quite daunting to think about.

            Why are different generations blamed for all of the things that went wrong in our country? Will this happen to our own generation?

The Biggest Loser

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	Total
White	10	9	12	15	16	15	16	9	14	15	16	12	18	177
Black	2	2	4	2	3	0	4	5	4	4	4	2	2	38
Hispanic/Latino	0	2	0	0	1	0	0	2	2	1	2	1	0	11
Asian	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	4
Pacific Islander	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	2	0	2	0	0	6
Total	12	13	16	18	20	16	22	16	22	21	24	15	20	236

White: 75%

Black: 16%

Hispanic/Latino: 4%

Asian: 2%

Pacific Islander: 3%

Source

Only for Women

            Today I was watching TV and a commercial came on that reminded me of a fellow classmates blog post. (Unfortunately, I cannot remember who wrote it). Their post was about a Pepsi commercial and it directly related to gender. It talked about how it was “not for women” and “only men can handle the taste of it.” The blog then went on discussing gender related issues as to why companies would use this commercial and try to appeal to men. Well… The commercial I watched compares to the Pepsi commercial in that it appears to appeal to only women. Let’s take a look…

            There is definitely an obvious appeal to women here in this commercial. First we get the tough girl questioning the crystal light girl on her drink of choice because she thinks she’s putting herself at lower standards than men. Then, however, we get a twist in the action when two men on a motorcycle steal her purse and crystal light girl runs after them. Eventually, she catches them, gets the purse back, and scares them away using her “girl power.” This is what has been portrayed to us by this commercial.

            So what are we to make of it? I think the commercial has a direct relation to feminism, and is directly targeting women to buy the product. By seeing this commercial, women will want to be more independent and powerful, triggering them to buy the product. But why only women? Why target just one half of the world essentially, in this commercial? I am yet to understand why companies decided to appeal to only one gender when they are advertising a product…

Black Stereotypes

            A few days ago in American Studies class, we were discussing the topic of racial discrimination in politics. One of the most shocking statistics to me was the fact there have only been four black senators, three of whom were from Illinois. More popularly known is the fact that Barack Obama was the only black man to ever be elected president. But why is this? Why are black politicians rarely elected into office? Is it merely their race that prevents them from being voted for? I was watching a show on Comedy Central, when the comedian, Gabriel Iglesias, began talking about the issue of race in politics…

(sorry for the inconvenience but the video wouldn't load properly onto the blog... here's the link: http://www.tubechop.com/watch/283689 )

            I found it very interesting when he mentioned, “he’s not Snoop Dogg.” I think in that statement, Iglesias brought to light the idea of stereotyping black people. Although we think racism is over, it clearly isn’t because people still have their stereotypes of black people today. In fact, in class today, we were discussing the concept of racial stereotypes in television in the past and present. I find it very interesting that even today, blacks are put under this umbrella of stereotypes by the media. For instance, on clip today that caught my eye was of black men eating fried chicken and watermelon. Although people think that blacks love fried chicken and watermelon, race has nothing to do with taste buds or food preference. All of these ideas leave me very confused about the identity society has given black people. We don’t really know who they are.

            Why do people in society stereotype black people the way they do? Why does the media portray black people the way it does?

The Role of Race in Sports

In American Studies class today, we discussed many ways in which whites differentiated themselves from blacks before and during the civil rights movement. In some instances, whites would go so far to say that the genetic makeup of white people was different than that of black people, which somehow made whites more superior. We then very briefly touched upon the subject of black track stars and how they possess the fast-twitch muscles, allowing them to run faster. This reminded me of a certain video clip from Family Guy, a show that constantly identifies many social issues in the US as well as around the world.

This clip got me thinking. Is it just track that blacks have become more dominant in than whites, or are they starting to make their mark on other sports as well? And which ones? In did some research on the subject, and learned that a lot of the success of black athletes comes from their ability to combine their eagerness to compete with their desire for aggression. I remember one classmate in our discussion brought up a scene in the movie, Friday Night Lights, in which the coaches put the whites in as the quarterback and other “thinking” positions, while they put the blacks in as linebackers where brute force and quick instincts are necessary. I read one article in particular that discussed the education level of some of the most successful black athletes in our day and age. The author talked about how many of the black players seemed to be lacking a substantial education. In particular, he talked about Tony Allen, and how “he can play basketball but beyond that he barely knows what planet he is on.” But then again, if you were born with natural talent in a sport, and had little opportunity for a quality education, what would you pick: “unemployment and a good chance at jail or tens of millions of dollars?”

I then started to wonder about other sports that require more finesse and less aggression, golf and tennis in particular. It doesn’t seem like blacks have acquired the same popularity in those sports as others. I looked into it a little, and came across an article that discussed the segregation of sports. Apparently, these sports maintained the “whites only” policy long after other sports like baseball, football and basketball had become integrated. But is it merely the fact that blacks have not been integrated into these sports as long as others that has hindered their progress in them? Or is it the fact that these sports require a much lower amount of athleticism and aggression compared to the amount of thinking and finesse involved as well?

I have been pondering this idea for a while now. I am not sure exactly why blacks are more successful in certain sports than others. Is it due to the different skill sets required in certain sports that limit blacks from excelling, or is there still segregation through sport today?

Football Evolution

This past Sunday went just as any other Superbowl Sunday goes in my house: my brother and my dad parked on the coach getting through a minimum of three bags of potato chips, my mom constantly commenting on how they are the epitome of American health, and me, drifting in and out of the TV room, amusing myself with a few commercials and then going back to my room to do homework. However, this year was a little different. I decided to spend more time watching the commercials, but with a more critical eye. One commercial in particular came to my attention, and it really opened my eyes to how far sports in America have come over the past century.

If you look closely at the commercial, the yard markings on the field are actually years. For instance, at 0:19, you can clearly see the yardage markings, and someone being tackled at about 1940, which indicates that this is about the time that “we had a game on our hands,” according to the narrator. This commercial to me seems more than anything to be a historical overview of the pathway the game of football has been on for the past century. It is incredibly eye opening though, because this game, although it has not been around very long, it has made quite an impact on American society and taken some huge strides in terms of development.

I went to one website to look at the timeline of American football, and was amazed to find that it only dated back as far as 1820, which was when the timeline stated that “football evolves.” Although it seems like a long time, it really isn’t when you think about it. Sports like lacrosse have been around for centuries, dating back to the native Americans, while soccer dates back before the common era. These sports have grown and developed over an extensive amount of time, whereas football has taken less than two centuries.

            Why is it that football has developed so quickly compared to other sports? Is it coincidence, or is it something about the game itself?

Who Needs Sleep?

            After a relaxing first week of the second semester, it seems that everyone is ready to kick it into high gear. To most students, this means working hard in school, doing a substantial amount of homework after school, as well as staying fully committed to extracurricular activities. Somewhere in between all of that, students will find time to get some sleep in. But with all the hard work they are doing, are they really getting enough? This video should give some insight as to whether or not high school students get enough sleep at night:

            There were a couple things that I saw as a mirror image of myself. The girl with the coffee, for example, drinks it to wake herself up every day from being up late the night before because she was working. I drink some form of a caffeinated drink, which is generally tea, in order to get myself going in the morning when I am at school. The fact that many students go to bed at or after 11:00 also resonated with me because I often find that with my hectic schedule and heavy workload, I am struggling to make it to bed before 11:00. Although I am supposed to be getting more sleep than my parents, that is never the case, as I am going to bed later than them, yet waking up at the same time.

            I then started to wonder why teenagers in our society have placed such little value on sleep. It seems that there have been extremely high expectations set on getting high grades, excelling in extracurricular activities, and getting into prestigious schools, yet none on leading a healthy, balanced lifestyle. Health and sanity have been thrown out the window at some point in this race for excellence that we have in our society.

            But why? Why has our society stopped valuing the simple things such as sleep? At a certain point, doesn’t it seem more worthwhile to get more sleep and feel rested, or are we all just wired to work nonstop? When does this deprivation of sleep for the sake of success become too much?

The Meta Post: A Summary of My Growth in the Blogging Experience

            Our assignment: write one blog post a week during the semester. It seems like a fairly simple task to accomplish. Yet the amount of thought that went into these posts turned out to be much more than I had ever anticipated. Looking back, I think my style of blogging has definitely changed, but not necessarily all good changes. Two changes that stood out to me when reading back through all of my posts were my analysis of articles, and use of quotes from the article, and my use of questions to trigger responses.

In my very first post, A Jobless Nation, I decided to quote the author of an article I had read. I took an entire block of quote, saying that the author “ ‘understands that we all want paychecks—or at least money. We want food, shelter, clothing, and all the things that money can buy us. But do we all really want jobs?’” This year we talked a lot about analyzing quotes in class. One key rule that I will always remember is to never leave a quote standing alone. You have to analyze your quote. In this particular post, I did not do a sufficient job of analyzing quotes. I may have thought that I did, but I clearly did not. Another rule I remember was to only quote what you are prepared to analyze. No offense to myself, but I don’t believe I was prepared to analyze almost two whole lines of text. But then as the semester went on, I regretfully never showed any growth in this department. I never really took a chance in trying to analyze many direct quotes. All I did was pretend like I had by summarizing the points of an article pertaining to the topic I was discussing. In one of my later posts, Television: Exaggeration at its Finest… I simply stated that “according to one article, the show helps people be more accountable for themselves in terms of their workouts and their diets,” instead of actually taking a quote and using it to make my case stronger. I did this same thing in many of my posts. I would read an article pertaining to my topic and summarize. I have now learned my lesson that this is not an effective strategy, and I think I should work on that in the future when I am blogging.

Although I was unable to grow in terms of analyzing evidence in my blogs, I think I did grow in terms of the questions I asked at the end of my posts. In one of my first posts, The Price of Modern Society, which I happened to think was one of my strongest, I asked, “What has made Starbucks this huge phenomenon? Why is it that we allowed Starbucks to impact our culture so much?” These questions are way too general. There is a wide range of answers I could have gotten that had nothing to do with my post, simply because I did not as a specific enough question. However, in my later posts, I think I was able to come up with more specific questions that triggered better quality responses. For example, in my post, When Athletes Burn Out, I asked, “Why are the expectations now so high for young athletes to perform at a high level?” This question was a lot more specific. I didn’t ask a general question like “Why do athletes burn out?” Instead I took a much more specific approach and asked why expectations are set so high for young athletes.

I have learned through the types of posts I have put up the kinds of things that I value. For instance, I know based on my posts that I value social aspects of American life. I knew this before but I confirmed that I value education and competition. The experience of looking back over all my posts allows me to realize the things that I truly feel passionate about. It also shows me that in the future I should look more towards these topics to talk about in my posts. Overall, the experience of blogging has been a very interesting one, and I definitely look to use this experience to improve upon my writing skills in the future.

When Athletes Burn Out

            This weekend, more than ever, I realized that although it might have been a disadvantage in the short run for me to start specializing in tennis earlier than most of the girls I am competing against did, in the long run, it may serve its benefits. I recently switched coaches and got a lot more serious about my tennis, (I was before but not like I am now) and am seeing huge improvements in my game. However, as I look around at the girls I am competing against, I don’t see the same improvements. I see either plateaus or even decreases in performance.

At first, I thought it was a discipline or motivation issue, but then after looking into it some, I realized that specializing in one sport at a young age and overtraining causes athletes, not just tennis players, to suffer from “burnout,” or overtraining syndrome. I came across an article that answered my question of why a lot of girls that I used to consistently lose to would never be able to beat me now. That answer is “burnout.” According to the article, it’s very easy for an athlete to decrease performance in a sport if they had specialized early in the sport and/or had excessively trained for that particular sport. Athletes are not machines; they will eventually get tired of training, and if they are pushed too hard, they will break and interest lever will drop. Therefore, it’s almost a given that performance will drop as well.

To me, I think that it’s amazing how much sports have changed since my parents were kids. My dad explained to me that back when he was growing up, there was much more emphasis on growth and enjoyment in a sport rather the excelling at it, and rarely would somebody specialize in one sport before highschool. What I really wonder though, is what caused sports to change so much? Why are the expectations now so high for young athletes to perform at a high level?

My Super Sweet, Ignorant of Reality Sixteen

            Today I was watching My Super Sweet Sixteen, in my opinion, one of the most insane shows on MTV. Every time I watch an episode, I cannot believe what I’m seeing. On one episode, a girl expects her parents to get her a custom car for her birthday, and on another, a boy orders his dad to get him a $30,000 watch just because “it’s fly.” The kids on this show are so ignorant of reality it’s sickening sometimes. In case you’ve never seen the show before, here’s a clip that basically sums the show up:

            Here we see a spoiled teenager upset because her mom gave her a car at the wrong time and apparently, it wasn’t even the right car. This mom is obviously depriving her child… (note the sarcasm). What I don’t understand though is why. Why do parents allow their kids to get this way, and more importantly, why is this nonsense then put on television? Most of the time, the characters on TV shows are relatable, but the kids on this show in particular have nothing in common with most of the kids in America watching the show. It’s even been discovered that approximately every 1 in 5 children in America live below the poverty line. And even for kids like me living in a very privileged area of the United States, none of the things these kids get on the show would most kids here expect the get in their wildest imaginations. According to an article I read, these parties can cost as much as $200,000. There’s no way my parents would ever pay that much for anything in my life besides perhaps for college, (and honestly I don’t really know how much college costs so I don’t know how much they’d pay).

            This show is completely ignorant of reality in the United States. Most birthday parties are spent in someone’s basement drinking soda and watching movies, yet it’s been projected to us through shows like these that having a huge birthday bash is a must. Why, though? I just can’t understand why these shows are on TV. I watch them from time to time just to see how crazy people are, but then I always ask myself, what kind of value does a show like this have? Does anybody have sanity, or am I the only one who thinks shows like these are crazy?