1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Today my AiS class went on field trip to the Court Theatre to see the play Jitney, the Osaka Gardens, and finally to the Museum of Contemporary Photography at Columbia College. At the museum, there was one exhibit which I found very interesting.

This exhibit featured about 10 different photographs of all different kinds of houses; however, they all had one thing in common: their address.  The address, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  What comes to mind?  The White House in Washington D.C.?  That was what I originally thought of when I viewed the address.  Upon further inquisition, I realized what the exhibit meant to me.

All of these houses were in different locations around the country in a vast array of areas.  One looks like a barn, another a building, another a rural house, and one a lower-quality house.  Interestingly, there was no photo of the White House.  This signifies how all of these buildings have the same address, but only one most people consider to be important.  I bet that if anyone mentions the address 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, they are mentioning the one in Washington D.C., not the one in Indiana or even Arizona.

I personally think that this confusion is due to priority and recognition.  Most people consider the President to be very important and famous.  Since we recognize him, we know the address of his house-- which is a famous monument itself.  People are so caught up in fame, they immediately associate the 1600 Pennsylvania reference to the White House, when 1600 Pennsylvania is just a way to identify a solitary location in a given state, not the nation.

This fame idea is similar to Timothy Treadwell from Grizzly Man.  His father claimed he went downhill after he did not get a part on Cheers.  This American view of celebrity warps people's minds.  Some people spend their whole life trying to be famous and gain recognition.  For example, Will Ferrell is an actor, just like any of the characters we saw in Jitney today.  Same as a member of theater at New Trier.  However, their degree of fame separates them.  The majority of people recognize Ferrell, but not a New Trier actor.   This perception of fame shapes American culture.  

The idea of fame is just like 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue but with buildings instead of people.  The White House has an aura and is well-known, unlike any ordinary house with the same address.  This exhibit really changed my view on how Americans perceive fame and how important it is to society.

Feel free to leave other comments about the exhibit if you saw it.  Also, how do you think Americans perceive fame?  And is it fair to rule out less famous people with the same jobs or lesser-known buildings with the same address because you do not recognize them?

In Memory of 9/11

I was siting in advisory today listening to the morning announcements, which I and everyone else normally ignores, but today I had a reason to listen.  Today marks the 11th anniversary of 9/11 and I definitely wanted to show my acknowledgement with a moment of silence for all the victims.  Obviously this was a horrendous attack on the world trade center, Pentagon, and the attempt on the White House or Capital.

However, there were only about 3,000 deaths.   This number is similar to the death tole on any other day.  So what makes this event so special?  I believe it has a significant impact on American society, not only because it was a terrorist attack, but it sparked patriotism.  I read an article about some of the changes Americans made in their social life after the 9/11 attacks.

Not only were people displaying American flags outside their houses, they were hanging them from their cars and other places.  People also started to have different perceptions of others.  One woman said that "I think you're a little more cautious because you don't always know who your neighbor is."  People did not know who to trust and were scared that the mighty America had been attacked.

After the attack, people were more cognizant of their surroundings as well.  Airports cracked down on anyone with anything sharp, liquid, or dangerous.  In addition, people were cautious when it came to air travel.  No one wanted their flight to be one that crashed.

Now looking back,  it seems as if a lot of information has surfaced about hints that something was going to happen.  For example, when the pilots that flew the four planes went to pilot school, they only wanted to learn how to fly, not land.  In retrospect, it is easy to blame people for not doing something that could have stopped the attack.

I would argue that although this event was tragic and devastating, it may have been a little bit good for America.  People became more patriotic.  The government became more aware of possible threats.  And it gave the US motivation to hunt down Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.  By no means am I saying the event was a good thing, but I think America emerged stronger.

Do you think America was stronger after 9/11?  And do you think 9/11 had a bigger impact than just 3,000 deaths?

National Conventions Word Chart

The Democratic National Convention has just ended and in reflection, I was looking at the word chart that we discussed in class.  This chart shows the number of times each word was used by a particular party.  While the chart does not account for context, it does a pretty good job summarizing the points made at the two conventions.

For example, the Democrats used the word "millionaire" 7 times while the republicans did not use it once.  When in context, "millionaire" was used in a negative way, taking a shot at the Republicans for lowering taxes for millionaires.  Context aside, this chart is very instrumental.

Many inferences can be made about the chart, but I wanted to talk about a specific few.  First, it appears as if many of the words on both sides focus directly on Obama and how he did as president.  This is not a surprise; however, it seemed as if the speeches were more reflective as oppose to what a candidate will do once he becomes president.

Some of the words that evidence this on the Republican side are "business", "Obamacare", "fail", "spending", "unemployment", and "debt".  All of these words refer to what the Republicans believe Obama did incorrectly as president.  The Republicans are not big fans of the new healthcare reform and refer to it as Obamacare more than Medicare because they believe that it is a doing of Obama and will only survive if a democrat stays in office.  A lot of the other words surround business because the economic issues in the country.  By describing the unemployment rate under Obama as well as the government spending and debt, it may seem like a turn-off.  It is very interesting that the Republicans used "fail" so much.  This implies that the believe Obama has failed as a president.

On the democratic side, the words that show Obama's successes are "Medicare", "education", "Bin Laden", "middle class", "workers", "seniors", and "women".  The Democrats believe that the new Medicare bill was very successful because everyone now has healthcare, even though it may cost hospitals a significant sum of money.  The Democrats also mention Bin Laden while the Republicans did not mention his name once because the killing of Bin Laden was a major success.  It is not easy killing the number one terrorist.  The majority of the other words refer to the normal or ordinary people of the middle class and the same treatment of seniors and women.  Obama is a big proponent of supporting the working middle class and by mentioning words that relate to them, he may gain more of their votes.

In summation, it seemed like the conventions significantly focused on how well Obama has performed at president. Now the big question for voters is: Did the Republicans do a better job of explaining how Obama has been a bad president or did the Democrats do a better job of explaining how Obama has succeeded?

Please leave comments about other patterns you noticed in the chart or your stance on who did a better job.

Campaign Lies

The next presidential election is coming up this November and we are starting to see ads on TV. Every year these campaigns seem to focus more on the shortcomings of the other candidate than the advantages of themselves.  I read an article explaining how many candidates stretch the truth and take quotes out of context.  Brooks Jackson, the director of factcheck.org, said that, "at various points this year both sides have blithely gone on repeating statements that were found false."  He went on to say "'They don’t care...because it gets votes."'  Obviously candidates want more votes, but why can't they be truthful? Instead of talking about the disadvantages of your competitor, candidates should talk about the advantages of electing them.  Mitt Romney released a video last year that focused on the mistakes of Obama.  Political views aside, it is not ethical to talk about how bad a specific candidate is no matter what one's stance or opinion is.  Why do you think that political figures always say the problems with the other candidate? And do you think this is ethical?