Meta Post 2.0

At the beginning of the year, when I found out that our weekly homework was to keep blogging, I was very skeptical of the process itself. As the year has gone on though, I've become more comfortable blogging, and am very proud of many of the blogs that I have written. In second semester though, my favorite blog has to be, "Whistelblowers". This is the blog where I introduced my junior theme topic, why are whistleblowers not protected. This blog has to be my favorite because one of the biggest problems in my writing this year was empathy for the reader, and in this blog I introduce my topic and explain it even better than I did in my actual junior theme, I wrote, "A whistleblower is defined by Merriam-Webster as..." A major problem in my junior theme was that I assumed the reader would know what whistleblowers are, an assumption I didn't make in my blog.




Also, I touch on the limits of whistleblowing, similar to what we did in the perilous paper, and open up the argument to the class, writing, "Where should the line be drawn? I'm focusing on the reasons why the government restricts whistleblowing, so I won't be able to get into this side of the argument in my paper, so I'm curious what your opinions on the subject are". Even though no one in the class responded to my question, that is something that I have improved on over the year, bringing back the issue to the rest of the class. My blogging this year has been a journey, an often times I find myself blogging about things that don't interest me. I am particularly proud of this blog because I site multiple texts, I explain my issue, give my opinions, and bring the discussion back to the class. It is weird to be writing my last blog of the year, but I am happy with the work I put out. First semester I slacked in writing blogs, but this second semester I picked up my blogging and was nearly blogging weekly, with some gaps around junior theme.

Don't We All Want to be #1?

On Wednesday, May 30 the NBA Lottery took place and decided the draft order among all 30 teams. The team with the greatest chance to receive the 2012 NBA's top pick was the disheartening Charlotte Bobcats with 25%. After completing the season with the worst winning percentage in the history of basketball of close to 10% (7-59), basketball fans would feel terrible to see the woeful Bobcats not get the top spot in the 2012 draft. However, as proven in years past, the Bobcats, unfortunately ended up with the 2nd pick in the draft. The New Orleans Hornets won the 1st pick and undoubtedly will select the college player of the year and National Champ, Anthony Davis from Kentucky University. An ESPN article, says, "losing would pay off at the lottery", but for the poor Bobcats it did not. Their 59 losses amount to a lowly number two overall pick.

This basketball tragedy relates to American ideals because in America everyone is trying to get that top spot, but even when it seems that it can only be yours, it can, and is often, taken away from you. Even in sports, there is always twists and turns, upsets or injuries, the elusive one spot is nearly impossible to achieve. America is getting more and more competitive every day, and the opportunities that were once there are gradually decreasing.

Police vs. Protesters

Today in class, we briefly talked about the NATO Summit in Chicago. We talked of the goals of the protesters and of the way it is framed in the media. I found it very interesting that many different types of media highlighted the efforts of the Chicago Police, over the goals of the protesters. In a Las Vegas Sun article I read, a protest organizer said that, "Whatever violence there was, was the fault of the police, not the protesters." Yet the police are being praised for their work in not beating up protesters. It is American citizens' constitutional rights to be able to protest things that they disagree with. So why is it so important for the police to be praised for allowing the citizens to exercise their constitutional rights? Shouldn't the spotlight be put on the protesters for standing up for what they believe in? Their views should be held over the restraint of the police for not acting out, when still all of the violence was their fault. I don't understand this phenomenon where the police are payed more attention to than the protesters. Is it because America is so obsessed with tragedies that even when they are avoided that they make the news? Or because the protesters are just seen as troublemakers so the police are what everyone cares about?

Blackhawks Knocked Out

The 2010 Stanley Cup Champion Blackhawks were knocked out of the playoffs for the second year in a row, this time by the Phoenix Coyotes. Being an avid Blackhawks fan I was just as disappointed this year as I was last, when the Blackhawks went down 4-0 to the Vancouver Canucks, but fought back only to lose in game 7. You can't expect to win every year, but I always find myself doing exactly that. Is it because we have already won the Stanley Cup that coming up any shorter is a disappointment? Or is just an American expectation to always be first? In their final loss to the Coyotes, Mike Smith (the Coyote's goalie), had a shutout with 39 saves (Chicago Tribune Article) He played sensational through the entire series and was just too much for the Blackhawks to handle. The Phoenix Coyotes advanced to the second round of the playoffs for the first time in franchise history. I can't quite understand the hysteria behind playoff sports as every team is competing for that one final spot, but each time your team loses it is almost unbearable. Nothing other than first is acceptable and that is an American value seen over and over again in American society.

American Born Masters Champion

This past weekend, the Masters was hosted at Augusta National, in Georgia. The pressure was there once again, and the need to compete and place also. Tiger Woods, America's golf "hero" was favored to win the Masters, but fell short once again. Instead, this year's winner was Bubba Watson, with a miraculous last shot in a playoff with Louis Oosthuizen. In tears accepting his green jacket Bubba finally was a winner, saying in tears, "I never got this far in my dreams" (ESPN article). The winner of one of the best golf tournaments of all time.
While watching the Masters, I couldn't help compare the competition to that of New Trier. Everyone is fighting for that one spot, but there can only be one winner, one person gets to put on that Green Jacket at the end of Sunday.
No one likes coming in second, but the competition to be number one is just so great. I think that it is an American value to settle for nothing less than first. As Ricky Bobby famed in the great Talladega Nights, "If you ain't first your last", and it is the truth for Americans. What a way for Watson to win with a crazy hook out of the trees onto the tenth green. It was almost like the American dream, with a little bit of luck, and the right amount of hard work and determination you can achieve anything you dream of. As Watson tapped in that last putt to become a Masters champion, he conquered his.

Whistleblowing Legislation

In the past few years, there has been a push for a new piece of legislation, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. What this proposed bill would essentially do would be to ease up on the restrictions on federal whistleblowing, most importantly implementing that federal whistleblowers would get the right to trial by jury. However, in the bill's most recent push through the House of Representatives didn't go as intended. In a blog written by Richard Renner, a lawyer who was worked for more than 27 years advocating for whistleblower rights, he wrote that the amendments to the bill made by the House would, "Cut out the right to a jury trial for federal employees". The amendments also backfired on another platform where it now would empower the board that reviews whistleblower cases, the Merit Systems Protection Board, to be able to summarily dismiss whistleblower cases. The government also would be able to view the cases in the special court system that has been notorious for being unfair to whistelblowers, with a track record of 3 successful appeals out of 210 (taken from Tom Devine's Interview with On the Media). It seems that the advancements that are trying to be made in this ordeal seem to backfire, and no progress is being made. The government seems very content with the system to censor federal employees and does not want to change it by the constant refusals to pass any amending bills. Why? If national security was the sole issue, by at least giving whistleblowers the right to trial by jury, these decisions could be made case by case if the whistleblower was at fault for releasing the information. Simple amendments like that could be made so the government could show whistleblower advocates that they are trying to find a fair middle ground, but the government refuses to cooperate. What changes could be made so both sides are happy? Is there no middle ground, just protection or no protection at all?

Secrets

The book I read for my junior theme was Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers, and it was about Daniel Ellsberg's experience in releasing the Pentagon Papers. Ellsberg's experience was a great example of a whistleblowing case, and the story from his perspective is an invaluable source. On page 387, Ellsberg wrote, “The Nixon Justice Department was making a pioneering experiment, asking federal courts to violate or ignore the Constitution or in effect to abrogate the First Amendment”. Whistleblowing regulations are strictly in place to cover up the government's secrets. It all comes down to the public's right to know vs. national security, and in the government's eyes national security trumps the public's right to know. In perilous times, such as the Vietnam War, Nixon took it even further, and had courts "violate the Constitution". The right to blow the whistle is in the constitution under freedom of speech rights, and it still isn't given to federal employees. Secrets documents Ellsberg's entire experience of releasing the documents, including his intentions for doing so. The common perception of whistleblowers is that they are troublemakers who only speak out to stir the pot, but Ellsberg did what he did because he thought it was right. The intentions of the Vietnam war were unjust and Ellsberg did everything he had to to stop it. His story is unbelievable, and this book is a must read.
 

Whistleblowers

For my junior theme this semester I will be focusing on the question of, why are whistleblowers not protected. Many people don't even know what a whistleblower is, so I will get into that a little. A "whistleblower" is defined by Merriam-Webster as, "one who reveals something covert or who informs against another". Now the interesting part of the whole dilemma of whistleblowers is that the idea of whether they should or should not be protected could be decided with the First Amendment. Many argue that whistleblowing should be allowed, and fully supported, because it is a constitutional right. Whistleblowing expert, Stephen Kohn, said in an interview that, "The First Amendment was enacted to prevent precisely what we're seen unfolding today. People in the government witness abuses and they have the right to blow the whistle on them." First amendment issues are something that I have found myself blogging about repeatedly this year, because they aren't as clear cut as they seem. The problem with federal whistleblowing is that it comes down to national security. Is it worth it to risk national security for federal employees to have their constitutional free speech rights? Or should they be limited? There have been many successful whistleblowing cases that have had no negative effects to our security, but there has also been many that have risked security. Defense Department secretary, George Morell, was quoted in an article saying, "We know terrorist organizations have been mining the leaked Afghan documents for information to use against us." The leaked documents he was referring to was part of the collection United States soldier,Bradley Manning, leaked to the whistleblowing website, WikiLeaks. Where should the line be drawn? I'm focusing on the reasons why the government restricts whistleblowing, so I won't be able to get into this side of the argument in my paper, so I'm curious what your opinions on the subject are.

TV Tokenism

SOURCE

SOURCE

Jericho is about the struggles of one town in Kansas to survive after multiple nuclear explosions across the United States. No one knows who is behind the attack, and the town, Jericho, is cut off from the rest of the country, and is on their own to survive. Hawkins, the character in the blue shirt on the far left, is the show's token minority character. He is a CIA operative that just moved to Jericho, and the rest of his character is sort of a mystery. He is given little air time during the pilot, but begins to develop into a main character as Jake's - the main character in the center wearing the red shirt - "go to guy". He becomes a significant part of the show, and then it gets cancelled. It ran for 2 seasons, but the second was cut short.

Who Makes Freedom Count?

In class the past few weeks, we have seemed to be falling on the same train of thought time and time again. It all started when we our teacher noticed the frenzy of high school seniors trying to register to vote before school. Two students saw the line and decided to go another day. We fell into the conversation of the history of voting, and what intrigued me was the minimal number of black office holders, most specifically senators. The train of thought that kept resurfacing was maybe black candidates just don't want to run for office. Its the easiest answer to let the topic slip from your mind, but I came across an article that disproved this so passive response.


The article is about the additional "hoops" states have been implementing for possible voters to jump through. My immediate thought was back to the Alabama literacy test that was required for citizens whose grandfathers hadn't voted, more specifically freed men, but then my conscious quickly kicked in and I thought there is no way. As I read on, I learned that a specific hoop that the Florida government added was that, "the state imposed new rules restricting third-party voter registration drives". I read that line a few times, let it sink in, and decided that our country hasn't advanced at all from literacy tests. Why does it need to be made so much harder for people to register to vote?  Attorneys have argued that the law will, "disproportionately harm members of minority communities who rely on community-based group to help them overcome barriers to registering to vote". This law is clearly targeting minorities and hindering their say in our "democratic system". Volunteer groups are being shut down in helping minority groups register to vote, on the basis of voter fraud? I don't understand how it is so hard for the government to give these people the right to vote that they constitutionally deserve.

The Real Acts of Valor

Over the weekend, I went to see the new movie, starring real Navy Seals, "Act of Valor". After watching the movie, I first and foremost recommend this movie to everyone in the class, even though the acting in the non-action scenes isn't Oscar winning, the plot and overall message of the movie more than makes up for it. While watching this movie, I was not only thinking that this could be the most badass movie I have ever seen, but it made me think of something I glanced at on Facebook about a week or so prior to watching the movie. The image below compares the idea of legacy between to heroes within or society, Whitney Houston, and Lt. Michael Muphy. I posted a blog on legacy a while ago from the athletic standpoint, about Sidney Crosby, "Fall From Grace", but this idea of who is remembered kept nagging me.

Now in no way am I saying that singing legend Whitney Houston doesn't deserve to be remembered, but a Medal of Honor winner, a man who fought for our country, a man who gave his live for his squad, a man who sacrificed everything for the United States of America, is just simply forgotten. Why? What does it take to be a household name? Isn't it enough for you to give your life for this country to be remembered? I feel that in the society we live in, only Hollywood is glorified, and the type of media in which we receive our news pushes heroes like Muphy to the background. Whether it be magazines, television, or the internet, it is hard not to find news on Hollywood celebrities. What about Muphy? Without previously knowing about his tragedy, could you find it, or does he just slip through the cracks?

The Problems of Speed

Recently, while reading through the editorials section of the online New York Times, I came across an article titled, "The Reality of Dyslexia", and instantly became interested. Growing up, there was a kid in my middle school advisory who had dyslexia, and as we became better friends he would tell me the struggles he faced daily. Reading was a painstaking task for him, that I so easily took for granted. As we got older, we began to grow apart, and my concern with the problems of dyslexia began to fade away as well. As I read this article, the statistics of dyslexia and all of those who suffer from it astonished me. "Nearly two million students in our public schools struggle with reading because of dyslexia". Later the article goes on to state that, "Learning to read with accuracy, fluency, and comprehension greatly increases the likelihood of high school graduation, enrollment in college, and career success".
What struck me as so interesting in this article was all of the benefits of simply learning to read, something I wouldn't even think twice about knowing to do. All of my goals and dreams of college and careers and plainly my future are hindered for millions by dyslexia. In this day and age, I believe that dyslexia is an even bigger problem than before because efficiency is now so valued. Every week it seem there is a new commercial advertising the "newest, fastest phone". It is hard to find a town without a fast food restaurant. Standardized testing for college or in school is difficult mostly because of the time restrictions. Nearly every aspect of life in the United States is becoming speedier and speedier, while those with dyslexia need time to process information to understand what has been given to them. Is it necessary? I have blogged more than once on speed or efficiency, and it seems to be a recurring theme in my class as well. I believe that it is such a lingering topic for me is because I don't understand why it's necessary. Don't get me wrong, I love all the new technology these days, but I feel that this necessity to be the fastest has become overwhelming. I ask again, is it necessary?

Meta-Blog Post

After rereading some of my older blogs, the change in my writing is quite apparent. One of the things that bothers me though, is that in one of my first blog posts, the NFL: Winning?, I referenced statistics from an article, tied the issue back to American themes, and then connected the issue to previous events in American history. Now don't get me wrong, I'm very proud of my first blog, and the effort and process I took in writing it, which is why it makes me so upset to read blogs like, Fantasy Football. One of the things I've learned from blogging this year is that there is nothing worse than a forced blog. My problem was that when the week started coming to an end, and I still didn't have a blog, I would just force a blog out just to get the weekly requirement up. Not only the topic of fantasy football is hard to write a good blog post on, but not impossible, in all honesty it is one of the worst blogs I've written all year. There is no sentence or quote on its own that could be put in this blog to display this blog's weakness, but if you were to read Fantasy Footabll and compare it to one of my newer blogs, you will see the difference. A change in my writing that made a big difference was anchoring my arguments to a text. In my blog Fall From Grace, I analyze Sidney Crosby and his plaguing injuries using quotes from ESPN. Its unbelievable how much stronger my argument is when its backed up by ESPN, and Sidney Crosby himself. Also, one of the things that has helped my writing is leaving the blogs ending up for question. For example, in the Fall From Grace blog, I ended it in, "In this society will anyone be remembered positively?". The importance of this is that my blog doesn't just end in one post, it can be continued in the comments or even in further blogs. My writing has progressed from forced, stand alone arguments to strong arguments anchored in text.

More First Amendment Issues

In a recent article I read, the government is now trying to decide further of what can be restricted and what shouldn't be, most specifically on broadcast. In 1978 there was a Supreme Court ruling "letting the Federal Communications Commission ban "indecent but not obscene" material from radio and television" because they deemed it to be inappropriate for children. This ruling is now being called into question to try and make the boundaries for broadcast a little more clear than "indecent but not obscene". The case is F.C.C. vs. Fox, and the argument for the change in the 1978 ruling is that its "unconstitutional because its impermissibly vague". I agree with Fox for appealing the previous ruling, because the argument of the F.C.C. is based around the fact that they don't want kids to see or hear profanity, but in this day and age, parents can block what their children can see with Parent block, a common function on most televisions.
I believe that the line has to be drawn somewhere, and in 1978 that might have been the correct decision. As times change though, the restrictions on what is acceptable and unacceptable must adapt to the times as well. Although it might be challenging to draft new restrictions for first amendment issues, its necessary because the old restrictions become out dated. Fox should win this case, and broadcast restrictions should be more lenient.
What do you think should and shouldn't be restricted in terms of broadcast? Do the old rules still work?

The Purpose of College

Being a junior in high school, this is the year that colleges have transformed from something that you dream about to a reality. ACT prep, realizing the importance of grades, and the stresses of finding out where I want to go to college are common problems I face these days. While on the New York Times website I found an article where a writer argued the purpose of college. He wrote, "Preparing students for the workplace should be the job of high school, not college". After reading this I completely disagreed. I could name a handful of students I know that are prepared for college at this very moment in high school.
College is a very important part of American society. However, as college has been seen as the path to achieving a good career, America is in a economic struggle, and recently this has been very hard. College is to serve the purpose of developing the skills used for a career, which is why there are so many options to major in. Because the number of jobs out of college is on the decline doesn't mean that high school now has to carry the burden of preparing students for the rest of their life. A career is a big decision, and high school students aren't ready to decide, I certainly am not. I believe the chain works that high school is to prepare for college, and college is to prepare for a career. The purpose of higher education is more than "a highly restricted enterprise, educating only professionals who require advanced and special skills". The ages of the students attending college are the ages career choices should be made, not grade school and high school.
What do you think the purpose of college is? When should someone start focusing on their career?

Walking and Texting

These days, its hard to run in to someone who doesn't have a cellphone with them. Whether they have no idea how to use it, or know every trick in the book, cell phones are one of the most commonly seen things today in American society. I recently read an article and watched a linked video on a topic I hadn't heard of as a problem yet. Texting and walking. The video portrays the dangers of walking while texting, which are amplified being that the video is set in New York City. Everyone you see is looking down at their phone. I found the video interesting, but it sparked the question of are we becoming too dependent on our phones?
Every step forward in technology is great, but it seems that now these technology companies are coming out with something new for us to be addicted to every day. The article stated that "more than 1,000 pedestrians visited emergency rooms in 2008 after they were injured while using a cellphone to talk or text". To me, that statistic is simply horrifying. If 1,000 people can be so taken out of reality to get sent to the emergency room with injuries caused by phones, than the problem is apparent. People have to learn to be less dependent on their phones before everything works through phones and computers.
What can we do to solve this problem? Is it a problem?

The Ongoing Struggle With Civil Liberties

Recently while reading over a few posts in the editorial section of the online Chicago Tribune, I came across an article on the new legislation passed regarding how to handle terror suspects. Having the perilous times unit still fresh in my mind, I finished reading the article and realized how much of a problem the restrictions on civil liberties actually are. The article stated that the Republicans in Congress wanted to, "decree that anyone connected to al-Qaida could be held only in military custody, not tried in civilian courts — even if the detainees were U.S. citizens captured on American soil".
Now at first when I read this I believed that the Republicans were crazy, and how could you step on the Constitution by even thinking this? However, after thought on the debates within class during the presentations, especially the war on terror, I realized that the problem isn't as clear cut as it should be and views like this aren't as radical as they seem. My gut instinct is to protect the Constitution at all costs, but when American lives are being lost at the hands of terrorists I also believe everything needs to be done to stop those doing it. An ongoing struggle in my mind in what's right and wrong, and one in Congress also, the restrictions on civil liberties are a hard choice to make and at this point it looks like it will be a while before they are resolved. Civil liberties are a touchy subject because no President wants to leave a bad mark on history taking away the rights of Americans. The legislation that was just passed didn't change much, it just solidified the abilities of the government that were already in place, including the right to take a citizen of the street and detain him for the rest of his life with no chance of appeal. 
What is too far? Is there anyway to solve this problem or will it always be an American issue?