"Same Love"

This morning,  I did my normal routine of waking up, eating breakfast, and going to the bus.  Every morning on the bus, I plug in my headphones and listen to music.   However, for some reason, today more than other days, I focused on the lyrics of the song.  One song that particularly struck me was "Same Love" by Macklemore and Ryan Lewis, featuring Miranda Lambert.  Here are the lyrics of the song.

In this song, Macklemore focuses on how gay people are not treated equally to straight people: "Gay is synonymous with the lesser".  It's hard to argue that gays are treated equally to straights, especially when culture accepts this reality.  Macklemore recognizes this acceptance of culture as well: "'Man that's gay' gets dropped on the daily, we've become so to what we're saying".  I have to admit that I used to occasionally use the word "gay" in a derogatory way until I began to realize how offensive it really was.  As a result, many people are afraid to admit that they are gay for the fear that they may be ostracized.

I, like Macklemore, am not gay, but I also have a gay member in my nuclear family and I realize the severity of inequality.  The United States Declaration of Independence states, "All men are created equal"; however, are gay people really treated as equals?  Currently, I would argue they are not treated equally.  Gays are in a similar boat as African-Americans were when they were fighting for their equality during the Civil Rights Movement.

The Civil Rights Movement resulted in the Civil Rights Act, which was a step in the right direction, even though it did not solve the social problems.  Macklemore sings, "And a certificate on paper isn't gonna solve it all, but it's a damn good place to start".  After gays can legally marry, they will be legally equal, but then the next step would be social acceptance.  "No law's gonna change us, we have to change us".  It's going to take a public acceptance in order for gays to feel equal, allowing gays to come out of the closet.  A lot of work needs to be done in order for gays to feel equal, but many states that have legalized gay marriage have made a good start.

Why do you think gays are treated unfairly?  What do people have against gays?  Please comment below.

Selection Sunday

As I write this post, I am sitting in front of my TV, watching the endless series of Bracketology shows.  For those of you that are not familiar with bracketology, it is a show that discusses all of the matchups in the NCAA Basketball tournament.

Over the past few decades, bracketology has been increasingly popular and is becoming part of the American culture.  In fact, 60% of people say that they will be filling out a bracket this year, whether they know anything about college basketball or not.  Actually, I have some relatives that pick winners based on the name of the school or the colors of their logo.  For sports fans, March Madness is one of the best times of the year, with games every week and incredible underdogs to root for.

So why do Americans love filling out brackets and watching March Madness?  Do Americans love underdogs?  Is it a social talking point?  I believe it is part of American culture.  Americans LOVE to win.  Consequently, when there is an opportunity to have the best bracket, they jump on the opportunity.  I mean, who wouldn't want to have the most accurate bracket in the US and win up to $1 million.  Competitiveness is in the blood of Americans and there is no changing it.  I myself am a sports fanatic but also am extremely competitive so filling out a bracket is a perfect way for me to combine two of my characteristics.  So go print out a bracket, and write down whoever you want, because chances are your neighbor is doing it too.

Why do you think everyone obsesses about March Madness brackets?  And will you be filling out a bracket this year?  Feel free to leave comments below.

Routine DNA Testing- Constitutional or Not?

Last week in Biology class, we discussed that following an arrest, DNA samples are collected from the suspect and stored in databases.  While initially I thought this may be an effective method to identify criminals, I began to question whether it was constitutional.  Then I read an article that addressed this topic in greater depth and the article referenced the Supreme Court case Maryland v. King [12-207].

In some states, DNA is taken from every person that is taken into police custody, whether they are guilty of a crime or not.  This means that anyone who gets arrested, not necessarily charged with a crime, has to give their DNA, an integral part of their identification.

Although, according to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, "lots of murders, lots of rapes can be solved using this new technology", it also pushes the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment.  The Fourth Amendment protects against search and seizure without probable cause.  However, the police are taking the DNA of people that may be completely innocent.  Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia remarked sarcastically, "I'll bet if you conduct a lot of unreasonable searches and seizures, you'd get more convictions, too."  Scalia clearly believes that routine DNA testing is wrong because it violates the Fourth Amendment.

Without any evidence of a criminal conviction, the government can take DNA from citizens that are arrested.  Therefore, I believe that it is unconstitutional to DNA test suspects following an arrest because it violates the Fourth Amendment.  I would not want my DNA sitting in a government database for them to test and monitor without my permission, especially if I was not convicted of a crime.  On the other hand, there is the possibility that criminals could be detected, preventing more crimes.  Is it worth taking the DNA of the innocent with the hope of stopping the guilty?

Would you want the government to have your DNA in their database? And do you think DNA testing after arrests violates the Fourth Amendment? Why or why not?  Please leave comments below.

The Sequester

This past Friday, the US government passed the deadline for the sequester, automatically initiating budget cuts.  However, some of these cuts make absolutely no sense.  One automatic cut is regarding the distribution of vaccines.  This article explains why this cut is absurd.

First of all, this cut does not make sense in terms of disease prevention.  Without giving certain vaccinations to large quantities of people, there is a higher chance of the reemergence of diseases that  have been non-existant for years such as polio.

Additionally, vaccines are used in order to save money: "Vaccines are one of the most cost-effective preventative strategies in health care, saving billions of dollars a year".  Why would the government cut something that saves money?!?!?!  Some of the sequester cuts are understandable but seriously. Yes, cuts had to be made, but don't make cuts in a sector that will lead to more debt.  Also, the government claims they care significantly about healthcare, but are depriving people from receiving vaccines.  

If the government truly cared about the health of the people, they would cut from a different sector.   Yes, it's upsetting that they are giving less money for vaccines, but that isn't what is frustrating.  What is frustrating is that the government spends money on many unneeded projects, but when they do decide to cut spending, they are making the debt worse.  How does it make any logical sense to cut something that will put you in more debt than if you didn't cut it at all?  IT DOESN'T

Do you think the government is doing the right thing by cutting spending on vaccinations?  And do you think the government spends uncontrollably on unnecessary projects? Please leave comments below.

The Fiction of Facts

We recently discussed how many movies do not always give a truthful recount of historical events.  Even though these movies have been nominated as some of the best movies of the year, should they give a true reenactment of events?  Movies like "Argo", "Lincoln", "Zero Dark Thirty", and "Django" have all exaggerated the truth.  This article explains where these fallacies occur.

In class we mentioned how in "Lincoln", Connecticut voted against the 13th Amendment, while in real life, they were for the amendment.  Spielberg decided to change it because he wanted there to be drama towards the beginning of the voting, which is counted alphabetically, in order to make the viewer think that the amendment may not pass.  In "Django", "a freed slave in 1858 did not lay waste to a Mississippi plantation called Candyland to free his German-speaking wife".  However, this addition to the movie added drama and was better for the viewing audience.  And isn't that what directors truly care about?

Despite this notion, directors should at least acknowledge when they do not tell the whole truth.  That is the difference between Truth and truth.  "Truth" is staying true to the intentions of the story, meaning the overall series of events are correlative to reality.  In contrast, "truth" is making sure everything matches exactly what happened in reality, with every quote correct down to the last comma.  While I believe it is alright to exaggerate the truth a little bit, there is a fine line between Truth and truth.  I think that Spielberg crossed that line in "Lincoln".  By changing the vote of a state in the most influential amendment passed for African-Americans, some people may view Connecticut differently.  However, I do not think that Tarantino crossed the line in his movie.  Although Candyland is an unlikely name for a plantation, the overall essence of the treatment of African-Americans was true to history.  

When do you think a director crosses the line between Truth and truth?  And can the line be different for each circumstance?  Please leave comments below.

Michael Jordan Turns 50

Today is Michael Jordan's 50th birthday.  It's hard to believe that Jordan hasn't played basketball in more than a decade, but he is still talked about regularly.  Jordan is arguably the best and most iconic player in NBA history.  He is so iconic that ESPN spent the last 2 weeks talking about Jordan and doing a countdown of his top 50 plays and moments.  However, I wanted to talk about the entrepreneur in him.  Michael Jordan revolutionized the marketing industry, especially for companies like Nike and Gatorade.  Here is an article explaining how Jordan got a deal with Nike.

Nike's fourth quarter 2012 sales were $6.5 billion.  A quarter of those sales can be attributed to the Jordan brand.  That is a significant amount of money and it all started because of the idea that everyone wanted to be like Mike.  When Jordan first signed a contract with Nike, they offered him $500,000 a year for 5 years.  Yes, that is a lot of money, but look at the contracts today.  Derrick Rose signed a 14 year, $260 million contract with Adidas.  Lebron James and Kobe Bryant are each making $15 million a year with Nike.  The point I'm trying to make is that Michael Jordan did not just revolutionize basketball, he changed marketing.

Everyone wanted to wear the same shoes or drink the same sports drinks as Jordan.  Businesses began to realize this and began to put significant sums of money into hiring key opinion leaders in order to appeal to consumers.  People are paid millions to associate their name with a product and many people think that advertising is a waste of money.  However, it works.   Companies don't just want a viewer to buy a product, they want the viewer to talk about the product.  Companies care about name recognition because they want you to talk about their product with your friends.

This fundamental idea of marketing is also particularly American, especially when athletes are involved.  Many athletes come from lower socioeconomic status' and don't have very much money.  When they make it to the pros, they are bombarded by large pay checks and sponsor contracts.  The idea that a poor boy in the ghetto can become a millionaire and be a role model for many others is an American idea and both Jordan and Nike capitalized on this opportunity.

Why do you think that marketing is so successful?  And besides Michael Jordan, who do you think revolutionized the advertising industry?

Happy 50th Michael!

Luxurious Ideals

This past weekend I was in Orlando with a group of New Trier students and crossed paths with some interesting people.  However, Karisha, an Argentinean girl, had some particularly interesting comparisons and contrasts between the United States and Argentina.

One thing that stuck out was her idea of socioeconomic status affecting the way one presents themselves.  In America, many people pride themselves on their "looks" and go out of the way to buy more expensive and luxurious items to demonstrate their wealth.  In contrast, Karisha mentioned how it is very difficult to distinguish social classes in Argentina because people generally do not gloat about their wealth.  I found this very interesting coming from a different perspective because as an American, I am often exposed to people that either show their wealth or make it obvious that they are poor.

I think it is important to gain exposure to how different cultures operate because it makes one question why certain things are the way they are.  Although I do not agree with showing off wealth, I understood that it occurred regularly in the United States.  This made me assume that it was the same way in other countries.  However, after getting a different vantage point from a non-American, I am beginning to wonder why this is primarily an American ideal.

I believe that showing wealth is one of the basic ideals of the United States because of the American Dream idea.  When someone comes to America, they are looking for opportunity.  They are looking for freedom.  Many people can attain both opportunity and freedom through wealth.  By working their way up the social class ladder, someone can fulfill their American Dream.  In order to demonstrate that they have reached their goal, I believe many people may display their wealth as a sign of "I did it".

Do you think luxury items are more noticeable in the US than in other countries?  And why do you think Americans show their wealth in the form of luxury items?