Shop...Give...Get...Return and the Cycle Continues

For Christmas this year I, like anyone celebrating a holiday this winter season, received a couple gifts that I didn't particularly like and wanted to exchange.  Different color this, wrong size that, the usual suspects.  When I took a trip over to the mall to try and make such an exchange, it was easily apparent that many and I mean many people wanted to make such an exchange as well.  I went to the mall the day after Christmas, and the parking lot was sprawling with cars driven by frustrated, impatient patrons.  You would be practically ousted from society if you decided to not subscribe to the regular holiday traditions by not getting someone a gift, yet those people receiving the gift are not bound liking it despite the amount of time and thought you may have put in.  At Target stores there are whole segmented desk areas for the sole purpose of making returns and exchanges.

The thing is, however, it is never this simple.  According to an article from a story done by CBS's Augusta, Georgia affiliate, people have lots of different and valid reasons for making returns the day after.  "I bought some games for my nephew.  I decided I had bought too many.  So I needed to return something," said a shopper in the news story.

Whatever the reason may be for taking a gift back, the article said that during this holiday season almost 40 percent of us are expected to return one of our presents.  I suppose it's easy to do with all of the advantageous post-holiday sales that stores advertise nowadays.  My only fear, however, is that people will just give up and just give a gift card or money for the holidays.  Then the magic of receiving a big, colorfully wrapped box with a neat bow tie on top and wondering what's inside until you tear the wrapping paper off in a whirlwind of fervor to find what you now have will be lost, though.  We can't lost this emotional part of the holidays in lieu of the logical choice of not giving something to someone because of the risk that they may not like it though.  In my opinion, people do not remember specific things as well as the feeling they had at the time that the specific thing was in their life.  What's more significant: 1) remembering getting a scooter and learning to go off a jump or 2) remembering the excitement and happiness of receiving a scooter and recalling the thrill/pride of learning to jump?

It seems that Americans, or perhaps Westerners in general, often care more about option one from above: just getting something.  Gift giving can sometimes be looked upon as a formality, and if one doesn't conform, it's automatically a faux pas.  In other cultures besides Western ones, gift giving is popular, but there is a little more that goes into the process.  One article about Japanese culture says, "In Japan, it's customary to give gifts periodically to certain people, such as co-workers, bosses, parents, relatives, teachers, and so on.  These gifts are given to express gratitude."  This time is somewhat like the holiday gift giving custom in the U.S., but the average price is about three to five thousand yen in Japan, which equals about forty to sixty dollars per gift.  These gifts are called "o-seibo" and "o-chugen".  The fact that these gifts are given to people other than family and close friends differentiates it from American culture and shows the amount of thought the Japanese put into the idea of gift giving.  If Americans receive gifts from family only to return them the next day, what would we think about buying expensive. ornately wrapped gifts for mere co-workers?      

Made in the USA

Over holiday break, my brother, mom, and I are currently visiting my cousins in the greater Boston area and while spending some time here, we've spent some time sightseeing historical sites.  A few days ago, we took a walk over the North Bridge in Concord.  The North Bridge is the starting place of the Revolutionary War and is famously dubbed as the location where the, "shot heard 'round the world" was fired.  The bridge crossed over a small river and led to a gravel path which wound up a hill to a little gift shop-museum building.  We bought a small ornament there to serve as a testament to our visit and as a pretty addition to our Christmas tree at home.  We joked around as to where the ornament was made since it was such an American artifact and things are so often made in other countries like China nowadays.  I pored over the small ornament, which has a picture of the minuteman statue, to find that it was hand painted in Russia.

I thought to myself, "I'm at one of the most important sites in the United States' history and they sell items made in other countries here?"  It was funny at the time due to the apparent irony, but I later thought about how lame this actually was.  There was no authenticity in the ornament now besides the fact that we actually bought it at the North Bridge.  However disappointed I was, the ornament is still nice and we are still happy with it.  So how important is it that something is genuinely authentic if the product is the same or better?  Also, if the ornament couldn't be painted as well in the United States as it could have been in Russia, then maybe we are doing the site better justice if it's painted in Russia.


According to North Carolina State University economist Mike Walden, "Now 12 percent of the durable goods that we buy are made in China, but only half of that 12 percent is using Chinese inputs.  The rest China does by assembling parts that come from other countries."  China is, of course, the primary source of the U.S.'s foreign imports.  If you watch the video to the right, ABC News reports that 98% of the clothes made for the United States are made overseas and the majority of that is from China.  The report also shows the massive price difference between Chinese and American factory wages, the root of outsourcing United States jobs, which has helped to fuel the current economic crisis.


All of this is somewhat besides the point as it pertains to the ornament we bought in Concord, but it is still relevant in terms of the current economic situation in the United States.  The fact is that the ornament we bought is about something strictly American, yet it was made overseas.  I'm sure there are Americans who could paint the piece just as well.  No matter how well they could paint it, though, the odds are that the American would charge more for their work than the Chinese, Hondurans, or in my particular case, the Russians.  Why is this?  Why does someone in China work all day for $14 and someone in Michigan for $88 a day?  Is this something that is at the root of Americans' ideals? 

Satire and Society

Last year, our high school started a satirical newspaper where students write articles that basically poke fun at whatever ideas they can muster up in their heads.  This year, I've begun writing for this newspaper, and it's so far been a blast.  I find that writing something for comedic purposes is often quite relieving, fun, and exciting; it's exciting to see how people will react.  I've always been a junkie for laughter and love to hear other people laugh at my jokes, no matter how stupid they may be.  I began to wonder as I wrote some of my articles, however, what the significance is to a satirical newspaper besides making people laugh.

At first, I thought that making fun of issues in society can be an interesting and raw perspective straight into the eyes of the public.  For example, if Saturday Night Live makes a hilarious skit about how there are always so many people in any given Apple Store not really doing anything but playing around with the various gadgets, this can send an important and true message about what is considered important to people in today's society.  Satirizing something is a gateway into what people are thinking and it often (but not always) adds a spin to relate it to real life or to make it funny.

According to an article titled The Purpose and Method of Satire, "Inseparable from any definition of satire is its corrective purpose, expressed through a critical mode which ridicules or otherwise attacks those conditions needing reformation in the opinion of the satirist."

Above all, the author is saying, true satire highlights what is wrong in society and offers a solution or a "correction." Of course, our high school satirical newspaper is not a relay of society's ideas, that's more the purpose of a free press.  Our ultimate goal is to be funny by finding out and exploiting what is wrong in high school, suburban, or global society.  In doing this, there is a sense of connection people feel to one another to see that something they see everyday is seen by someone else and they can talk about this with other people.  An illustration of this is found in the show Seinfeld, where some of the funniest episodes are making fun of what we see all the time.  This has commonly been dubbed as "observational humor" and an example is shown in the clip from Seinfeld shown above to the right.

You'll notice in the clip that George, the bald character, is describing a moment in a hotel that many of us have probably experienced and this connection is what's supposed to make it funny.  Same goes for the part with the woman at the payphone.  This part suggests a societal issue of the time (early 90s), however.  Back when this show aired, payphones were commonplace and therefore societal issues arose from this that led to popular t.v. show satire.  This is similar to the Apple store example mentioned above; as the times change, so do peoples' interests and opinions, and these are often relayed through the channel of satire.  Can you name a time when something funny also made you think about the society you're living in?  You could ask yourself, "what makes this so funny and how/why is this significant?"

Why aren't We Nicer and should America Make Us?

I was browsing through the home page of the New York Times and found one of the first articles to be about Somalia, a topic that has lost much media coverage in the past decade or so.  What most know about Somalia, however, still remains.  It's still horrifically violent, impoverished, and conflicted, but with a major change.  The African Union has been sending troops into Somalia's capital, Mogadishu, to officially wipe out the heinous militant group known as the Shabab.  The article says that they are making strides to killing off the Shabab, who have been wreaking havoc in Somalia as far back as the U.S.'s peacekeeping attempt known as Black Hawk Down in 1993.  At the end of the article, though, the author poses an interesting and painfully true question.  He writes, "What will these African Union sacrifices amount to?  All peacekeeping experts say the same thing: that peacekeepers are a Band-Aid on a gaping wound, a way to buy time until a political process takes hold and alleviates the cause of the conflict."  

Somalia is a typical case of foreign conflict where a terribly corrupt government offers little hope at the end of the tunnel once the violence ceases.  What I've always thought to myself was, don't these militants and corrupt government officials see the pain and suffering felt by the masses in Somalia.  Where is the empathy that humans feel simply because we are all connected?  My teacher's daughter actually gave a presentation to our American Studies class about the civil war in Uganda where she touched upon this exact idea.

Some would say that the times overall have actually gotten better in terms of how people treat each other.  Coincidentally, on the same New York Times home page, I stumbled upon an opinion titled, "Are We Getting Nicer?"  The writer says, "Wars make headlines, but there are fewer conflicts today, and they typically don't kill as many people."  He also gives a number of specific examples on how we have become less violent as a human race since ancient times.  This argument definitely has basis because right after reading the opinion I realized how instead of watching people kill each other in gladiatorial death matches for fun, we watch football and hope nobody gets unintentionally injured. 

This is strictly an overall theory, though.  Atrocities still occur, people still kill, and violence still exists.  But the question is why?  And why does America often find itself stepping in to right wrongs?  Is it our responsibility due to how many would argue we are what John Winthrop called, "the shining beacon on a hill" whose beacon light as Reagan said, "guides freedom-loving people everywhere."?

Mac or PC?

Recently, in response to my brother getting older and having to use the family computer more often for school, I got my first laptop.  There was a bit of discussion even before researching the best computer because it was a large purchase and I of course did not want to hastily make the wrong decision.  Before researching, I talked to my parents about whether or not I should look further into Macs or PCs.  My dad is a big PC believer and strongly urged me in that direction and I'd heard from other adults that from a practicality standpoint PCs are the way to go.  So, I ended up getting a Dell and am happy with it.  

At my high school and even back in my junior high school, Apple products are and always were the preferred choice.  In junior high, surprisingly all of the school's computers were Mac products and nowadays, my friends tend to like Apple products over PCs.  So what really is better and what do Americans really think about when making a purchase of anything?

A friend of mine told me that anything you can do on a PC can be done on a Mac in response to m telling him my understanding that the majority of the working world uses PCs.  I had a hard time believing, however, that the whole world uses Mac products over PCs but have always wondered why someone would pick one over the other.

According to a couple of sites, it seems that Mac products are simply better.  The OS S Snow Leopard operating system beats out the Windows 7 system according to laptopmag.com.  The older Leopard OS beat out Windows Vista in a study conducted by Popular Mechanics' website.  According to these sites, there are a number of technical reasons they found the Macs better than the PC but what was interesting to me was the Popular Mechanics opening paragraph where the author writes that the guy in the Mac commercials is a, "hip, sport-coat-and-sneakers-­wearing type of guy who uses his computer for video chatting, music mash-ups and other cool, creative pursuits," and PC users,"probably think that Mac guy is a smug slacker with an overpriced toy that can't do any serious computing anyway."  The article does say that both of these stigmas are incorrect, though.  

So maybe my dad's original idea that PCs are more practical and Macs are a bit more artsy is incorrect, but what does the popularity of Macs suggest about the changing tides of American culture?  What do we care about?  The following is from an article titled, "You Can't Innovate Like Apple" on Pragmatic Marketing's website:

This is straight from Jobs’ mouth: We do no market research. They scoff at the notion of target markets, and they don’t conduct focus groups. Why? Because everything Apple designs is based on Jobs’ and his team’s perceptions of what they think is cool.

During the Industrial Revolution, Thomas Edison's goal wasn't to make something "cool" but was instead focused on making something practical and helpful to society.  Apple definitely does this and people will always tell you that their Apple product is very helpful, but there is another element essential to Apple's marketing ideals and that is aestheticism.  Mac products are cool, sleek, ergonomic, and appeal to a creatively-driven audience.  Mac products are unparalleled in this appeal and Steve Jobs has obviously built up an enormously successful company.  Looking at this somewhat apparent shift in what Americans look for in their purchases nowadays, what do you think this could mean?  Or does it mean anything?   

The Faster the Better

In America we're all about getting there fast.  This is a theme brought forth by many other students in my American Studies class for which this blog is for.  Businessmen and women will look for the fastest flight to get to a meeting (which they hope will go quickly) and then look for the fastest flight home so they can quickly move on the next day. Cell phones are always advertising "the fastest 4g yet", online directions are automatically calculated for the most direct, fastest route, and we do not like to be kept waiting for our food (thus we created the appropriately named "fast food" to fulfill this purpose). 

Americans are always on the move because a general statement about us is that we are always looking towards the future.  A "Pre-departure Orientation for ChineseStudents" off the Association for International Educators site says under the heading of 'Time Consciousness' that Chinese people pay, "Relatively more attention to the past and to the longer-term future" and American people are, "Less interested in the past; eye on near-term future."  In other words, Americans want to see what's next so they can move on as soon as possible.

Perhaps this is the reason we as a country have developed so much so fast.  The United States is 236 years old and grew from a laughable, loose settlement of former colonies to a booming superpower in that time.  The people that came/come to American, no matter where they were/are originally from, have a drive towards something and work to see that future dream come to fruition.  It's a stretch, but maybe that mentality has made its way into our regular minds.

My 5th grade teacher told us a story that for some reason I still remember today.  He described a trip he took to Italy where the dinner he ate was multi-coursed and lasted hours on end deep into the night.  In Spain, a siesta or a generally accepted "nap time" is commonplace in the middle of the day, everyday.  A camp counselor I had in 7th grade recounted a time to our cabin about when he was in Tanzania, he and his friends went to a restaurant and waited about an hour for a hamburger at a restaurant.  At first, they were infuriated and took the matter personally.  They brought it up with the waiter and he laughed at them saying something along the lines of, "You silly Americans are so caught up in moving forward, you do not appreciate the moment you are in right now."

This whole topic came to my mind during homeroom one day.  The guy sitting next to me was talking about his essay for English class where he argued  high-speed rail trains should make their way to America to replace the traditional style Amtrak currently uses.  An article from The Hill.com says, "Obama has argued that a high-speed rail network could eventually rival the interstate highway system that was built in the 1950s under former President Dwight Eisenhower."  The article talks about how creating high-speed rails can create jobs that are desperately needed in today's economy.  Aside from that aspect, however, this push for super fast trains, trains that can get you from Chicago to San Francisco (a roughly 2000 mile trip) in close to 11 hours as opposed to a day and a half by car.  It seems that we're always looking to go faster.    

"Joe Pa" and Penn State Spiraling Downward

My mom's family used to live in the Pittsburgh area and although much of her immediate family has since moved away or currently lives in different parts of the country, her brother continues to live there with his family.  My uncle Mark went to Penn State, met his wife there, and they are both HUGE Nittany Lions fans.  I'm not sure how they're reacting now to the abundant media coverage following the Penn State former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky molestation disaster.  

I do know that my uncle Mark (along with basically ever other Penn State student) loved Joe Paterno and he even had a life size poster of him in his dorm20 years ago. Joe Paterno is going down with this spiral, however, and the longtime most prominent man on campus was fired on Wednesday because of accusations that he didn't report sexual abuse violations made by Sandusky to the proper authorities.  Paterno even said, "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more."  According to the New York Times article that is linked in the beginning of this paragraph, Paterno has the most wins out of any other coach of a major college football organization and despite his lack of action in the.  The students love him despite the fact the his name in a dark light during this massive scandal.  Just look at this video showing kids protesting Paterno's firing.


    

This video also focuses on the fact that the victims' struggle is overshadowed by football because the kids are only rioting for their veteran football coach to be back.  I found it sickening that this entire scandal ever even happened and am disappointed that Joe Paterno, such a large part of Penn State culture, did not turn in his colleague to the authorities and as a result has been ousted from the coaching staff.  In the video it does mention that one of the sisters of a victim is not upset at Paterno but more at Graham B. Spanier, Penn State's president who was also fired.  I'm disgusted nevertheless by the fact that such a heinous crime would even happen at Penn State by one of its former employees and am distraught that kids are not paying enough attention to the victims.  The video mentions jokes about Sandusky and an overall lack of sensitivity to the issue that has really put a dark light on their school.  What do you think this says about college culture in the US?  What do these riots specifically say about college football culture in the US?

Rap in Suburbia

Rap was started by African Americans in the Bronx and continues today to be dominated by black artists. Through my observations as a white teenager in a predominantly white community, I've seen that rap is one of the most popular music forms among my peers. According to an article from the Wall Street Journal, Mediamark Research Inc conducted a study to see what the main demographic was that bought rap music. The WSJ article talks about how "70% of rap listeners are white" was a thought that people commonly felt was accurate. This is what the author of the article, Carl Bialik, found through the Mediamark Research Inc study:

"...for 1995, 1999 and 2001, for both adults 18 to 34 and for all adults. For both groups, the percentage of recent rap buyers who are white was about 70% to 75% for all three years."

Bialik does, however, talk about how some parts of the research could be flawed due to various reasons (these can be found in the link above). No matter how accurate or inaccurate the research may be, I've seen for myself how popular rap is among my white peers and I've always wondered why. Much of rap is about lifestyles that are so different from the ones people live here in suburban Chicago so logically, why would people gravitate towards something so different? I do not disagree with this trend, but am only curious to understand plausible reasoning.

In an essay written on Magazine Americana's website or www.americanpopularculture.com, the author, Fiona Mills discusses her experiences researching this idea in rural Vermont. She says, " the hyper-masculine aura which surrounds rap music appealed to their [young men she talked with] adolescent desires to rebel against the constraints of their parents and white society, in general." Mills goes on to explain that her informants said they most often listened to rap music with friends, usually in a group, which could elaborate on the idea of masculine pride being a driving force as to why young, white males listen to rap.

Mills mentions that in the cases of the people she talked with, their like for rap declined as they grew older. This adds to the argument that rap music's different culture and often more prolific themes appeal to the individualizing, growing mind of a teenager growing up in what can be called a stifling, mainstream society. Overall, Mills found that it is often the case that teens want to prove their parents or their society wrong by liking something so different from what they're used to.

I find these themes of rebellion and power to the individual fascinating parts of American culture. People all have different reasons for why they like or dislike rap, but the reasons Mills discussed above somewhat align with what I believe to be fundamental American themes. Very much in the same way that American patriots rebelled against the overpowering British Empire, kids try to escape what they feel smothered by. It may be a far stretch of an analogy, as many of the reasons for the American Revolution were rooted not in a desire for individuality as much as a desire for change, but the idea of rebellion holds true. The question is, however, is it right to make your own path and seek out new things or to play it safe? How American do you feel revolution from the norm is juxtaposed to being more conservative and secure by following the "rules" a bit more?

American Football in the UK

I've been watching part of the Chicago Bears vs. Tampa Bay Buccaneers game today and recently found out that it is being played in London.  It was very interesting to me that the sport of American football has become very popular among British fans.  According to the British American Football Association (BAFA), there are currently about 11 million fans of American football in Great Britain 2 million of which are considered "avid fans".  This is a rise of 32% from two years ago.  Also, television ratings have skyrocketed in the UK: Sunday football game viewership has increased by 91% and Super Bowl viewership has increased by 74% (both since 2006) according to the online article.

It is kind of cool, to me, that American football is taking flight in a country I usually associated with cricket and soccer.  There is a somewhat ironic yet exciting unity that is formed between England and the United States when NFL games are played, "over the pond".  Following the American Revolution, we have tried to distance ourselves from Great Britain in many ways (despite now being on friendly terms).  We do not use the metric system, use Fahrenheit instead of Celsius, and created our own currency that has no pictures on it connected to England.  Now that a purely American sport and a large part of American culture has gained substantial popularity in England, it is ironically unifying the two nations that have been separated a bit.

In a similar way to how the World Cup or the Olympics bring people together in friendly competition, the new popularity of football in England can be interpreted as an encouraging sign of human unity and overall connection.  Sharing cultures and appreciating differences through a common enjoyment over sports, art, or music can be a great way to stay positive in a time of economic strife and controversial war.

The New Generation

As many things once always in print are starting to become digital, we are slowly walking away from the days of the past and moving into a new, electronic realm.  In a previous blog post about baseball I wrote about the argument between tradition and innovation as it relates to technological advancement.  In the case of baseball, the technology seemingly helped one organization succeed.  But in the case of this recent CBS Early Show clip, it can be difficult to tell what is the better choice: iPad or magazine?

In this video, a baby is playing with an iPad comfortably, but then when handed a magazine tries the same thing, poking it with her finger only to find that it wouldn't interact with her.  Of course, a one-year-old would never be able to read the magazine anyways or be able to tell what you exactly do with it.  But the idea that something with images on it should come to life and be interactive has been instilled in her mind at a very young age, proof that a new generation is sprouting right now.

This baby will grow up in a world where digitized mediums are more prevalent and accepted than print.  I'm not saying that that is wrong nor am I saying that we should shun technology.  I'm also not saying that we should dismiss old traditions all together either.  I'm simply interested in why we as an American society have a constant desire to progress.

In the prologue to Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs, and Steel he discusses the puzzling question on why certain primitive societies are what he believes to be genetically more intelligent than more developed societies.  He talks about how Western children are often passively amused by such technology as television and radio which doesn't stimulate the mind in the same way as some New Guinean children who don't have that technology but instead socially and physically engage more.  I understand that Apple products try to increase interactivity with touch screens and "face-time", but even still, why do we want a society of more and more technology when people in more underdeveloped societies are often very happy themselves?  Besides trying to get that "wow factor" of a new technology or trying to get better medical technology, why do people want to advance and constantly change? 

America's Pastime in a New Time

I went to the movies a couple weeks ago to see the recently released "Moneyball" starring Brad Pitt.  I'll be honest, I wasn't expecting much for some reason.  But after seeing the movie, I was shocked by how well-cast Pitt was and how well he acted out the part of Billy Beane, the General Manager of the 2002 Oakland Athletics who with the help of a young Assistant General Manager (Peter Brand) had a very successful season, even with the lowest payroll of any team at the time.  

After seeing the film and liking it, it got me thinking (as any good movie should).  One major theme brought up throughout the movie was that of tradition versus innovation.  Beane revolutionized the way baseball teams scout, manage, and organize their players through a system that used statistical data and straight numbers to predict a team’s ability to win based on its players.  Beane and Brand with this computerized data figured out odds to construct a baseball team based on stats instead of intuition and scouting reports to fit their meager payroll.

This innovative methodology of choosing a baseball team is so radically different from what baseball scouts believed passionately in for generations.  In the film, Beane gets into a heated argument with Grady Fuson (A's Head Scout), an older man, who says, "You can't put a team together with a computer, Billy."  Beane responds by saying, "Adapt or die."  

The movie is, of course, dramatized for Hollywood effect, but I feel that the same ideas hold true.  Americans tend to hold very romantic views about baseball, I've noticed.  We call it our national pastime and associate its best old-time players with almost legendary status (Babe Ruth, Joe DiMaggio, Honus Wagner, etc.)  There's a certain sense of baseball lore and true sense of American culture that is difficult to explain but nonetheless rooted in the humble beginnings of the sport.  

I've always had the idea that old-timers would go out and scout the young blood on the field, handpicking and crafting a cohesive team based on a traditional, handed-down method of intuition mixed with personal experience.  This idea was supported by Fuson in the movie "Moneyball".  This process also is, to some, a more gritty and traditional yet pure and old-fashioned charm that has kept with baseball since its start.  

What many swore by for years was shot down swiftly by Billy Beane, who replaced it with what the traditionalists believed was shallow and non-nonsensical, computerized garbage.  I believe there is a conflict of American ideologies here because as some in the U.S. value tradition and stability others value innovation and progress as well. 

I initially felt that there was something wrong with Beane’s approach; it just seemed kind of impure and too far-off from the traditions of baseball.  But, as I thought about it more, the themes of innovation and progress using technology as a guide have always been a key part of the intrinsic, American way.  Therefore, I was and still am conflicted on how to feel about Beane’s method, however successful.  Yes, it did work for a great season, but Oakland didn’t win the World Series and haven’t yet.  What is the best way to approach a difficult situation?  Is it to rely on your ancestors’ passed down teachings or on the up-and-coming, most creative technology to-date?  Or maybe a mixture of both…

What Makes a Patriot?

     I recently saw on the news that a Medal of Honor was bestowed upon another American soldier who was fighting in the war in Afghanistan.  His name is Sergeant Dakota Meyer and according to the Congressional Medal of Honor Society website, he literally put his life on the line for his comrades, American and Afghan.

     Whenever I hear these stories of young soldiers risking everything they have in order to help others that are in perilous situations in combat, I have trouble understanding what exactly goes through their heads.  I specifically have most difficulty with comprehending how a person can overcome fear so much so as to do something so heroic.  In pondering this thought, I've come to realize that people all have different reasons for joining the armed forces (some more noble than others).  For instance, in a book titled Where Men Win Glory by Jon Krakauer, Pat Tillman, a successful NFL player, leaves his comfortable life in the states and joins the Army Rangers to fight overseas.   Krakauer describes Tillman as having idealistic, virtuous reasons for fighting in the army and Tillman writes in his diary within the book that there are many people he trained with who were immature and only wanted to see things blow up.  

     Just wanting to see things blow up would not be a reason for someone to run into open fire and try to save others fully knowing that they would probably die as result.  This means that there is something powerful propelling people like Dakota Meyer into such danger, something virtuous.  I think many people have noble thoughts and live very good lives, but most in today's society don't seem to trade in a comfortable life for something as abstract as 'the right thing to do' which often has harrowing consequences.  People like Dakota Meyer and Pat Tillman somehow embrace this danger and self-sacrifice with dignity.

     As I am not Dakota Meyer, I have no way of finding out exactly why he joined the army.  However, I can infer from his recent actions of running directly into enemy fire to save his fellow troops that there were some intense, compelling, and probably virtuous feelings from the beginning of his decision to fight.  Perhaps it was his desire to save others for their benefit.  Maybe he wanted to give his all to feel self-worth and purpose.  It is also possible that the event leading to his Medal of Honor was in part caused by unrelenting patriotism, something many Americans identify with.
   
     The United States as we know it did start off with patriots fighting for values most would agree with, such as personal freedom.  Even though I would consider myself a patriot because of how I agree with the overarching values our country was founded on, the idea of patriotism is really abstract and has always been hard for me to understand, though.  I would consider myself a patriotic person but how patriotic am I when there are people like Meyer fighting to counter terrorism and promote American values?  How important is fighting fire with fire as it relates to being considered patriotic?

The Next Best Thing

Sometimes at school I feel like I'm literally the only person there that doesn't own an iPhone. I'm very grateful that my problems aren't worse than this, but it often feels like I'm left out. I'm not trying to complain about lacking an iPhone or iPod Touch and in no way am I angry or trying to bash those who have these products. I'm simply observing what I tend to see at school. And I understand that, of course, not everyone has one of these Apple products and my intention in writing this is not to accuse my fellow peers of being spoiled or anything like that. However, being one who doesn't own an iPhone, I noticed, particularly among my group of friends last year, that life often circled around a technological device. For instance, one time during lunch we all arrived at our usual "hang out spot" and everyone took out their iPod touches or iPhones right away. All at one time there was a YouTube video being played out loud, multiple Words with Friends games going on, and everyone's heads were tilted downward at their individual screens. Without one of these Apple products or a similar Smartphone, I was somewhat left out of it all in a sense.

I'm not trying to feel sorry for myself, but instead just trying to understand everyone's desire of getting the next best thing. I'm guilty of it too and that's because I, along with everyone else I know is American. It seems as though it could be an American value to go out of one's way to just get the new thing. We seem to really value getting what we want now. A camp counselor of mine a few years ago told us a story of how when he was in Africa, he was originally confused by how it took hours to simply get a hamburger because the way people view time there is different from us.

Along with doing things faster, however, we also just like to get the new big thing, whether it be a Scooter when we were seven or an iPad 2 for our birthdays coming up. On one hand I feel that we need to be able to live our busy lives in an organized way, and getting things done quickly is a good methodology. On the other hand though, actually going places and meeting people face-to-face can be important in my mind as well. Doing things non-virtually feels a bit more substantial to me sometimes. For example, why would someone text a person back and forth for a really long time when they could instead arrange to meet and have an actual conversation in person. This is how it was done before the age of technology, during a time that some speculate the people were happier. According to an article titled “10 Reasons Why Our Ancestors Were Healthier Than Us” from healthcave.com, “The distractions we have coming at us all the time aren’t helping us live a calmer life. Gadgets contribute to stress and fatigue…” So, perhaps it is better to take a break from our handheld lives stop stressing ourselves out over getting the next best thing. But maybe we should still keep up with what everyone else is doing so we don’t get left in the lurch and instead be social in that regard.

What are We Allowed to Know?

            As I’m sure we’ve all done before, I was beginning to procrastinate on some of my homework last weekend when something on the television caught my attention (and furthered my procrastination, yet at the same time it spawned this blog post idea).  My parents were watching 60 Minutes, a popular CBS television newsmagazine.  As the ticking of a watch sound synonymous with 60 Minutes subsided, Steve Kroft came on the screen interviewing Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, a very controversial website that essentially “leaked” information deemed confidential by government officials from throughout the world.  I watched part of the interview and couldn’t help but relate the American values associated with Freedom of Speech/Press with what was being discussed on the program. 

This is an excerpt from the interview between Kroft and Assange:

Kroft: There's a perception on the part of some people who believe that your agenda right now is anti-American.

Assange: Not at all. In fact, our founding values are those of the U.S. revolution. They are those of the people like Jefferson and Madison. And we have a number of Americans in our organization. If you're a whistleblower and you have material that is important, we will accept it, we will defend you and we will publish it. You can't turn away material simply because it comes from the United States.

            I find it very interesting that Assange would publically call himself a person with American values at heart.  Perhaps it is simply a public relations stunt and he is trying very hard to appease to his adversaries, many of who are American.  Although Assange has been commonly referred to as an anarchist and as Kroft puts it, “an anti-establishment ideologue with conspiratorial views,” I understand what his argument is as it relates to Freedom of Speech.  From the interview Kroft narrated that Assange, “believes [that] large government institutions use secrecy to suppress the truth and he distrusts the mainstream media for playing along.” 

            There seems to be a discrepancy between what we as the public should be allowed and should not be allowed to know.  U.S. officials are infuriated at Assange for leaking out information not intended for public attention and still he sticks by his ideals, according to the interview.  In my journalism class here at school, we actually had a discussion recently about truth and to what lengths a journalist should go to uncover it.  We took, for instance, the Watergate Scandal.  Was is the journalists who uncovered this scandal's job to bring forth the truth from muddied waters?  Or is it better to stick with the old saying, "ignorance is bliss" with issues such as this? The controversy regarding Assange caused me to further ponder a few questions that I’ve had much trouble answering: How much should ordinary people know about governmental issues deemed as confidential?  Also, to what extent should one go to find the truth, and should the people as a whole see this truth?