Are "Good" Neighborhoods Really that "Good"?

Our discussions in class lately about different areas of Chicago and how abnormal the part of the city we live in is got me thinking whether the North Shore, in Mr. O'Conner's words, is such a "nice" area to live in after all. Of course there are endless things I really enjoy about living here that give it the label of being "nice". Everything is so close and easy, the streets are a really pleasant place to be with all the old trees, and most importantly I have never felt threathened or unsafe in any part of this area. Basically we have everything we need in this little bubble of space. You could have a very comfortable life without leaving the north shore once. However, I think that's exactly the problem. Many of us, with our busy schedules, don't really get out of this area very often. I'm sure we've all been able to travel and experience other surroundings, but on a daily basis were pretty much in this sheltered area. Once you get out of the North Shore and interact with others that don't live here and don't have the same kind of life, thats when you truly understand how lucky we are. But what I've found is you also realize how little you actually know about a life other than yours, and that's not a good thing. Two summers ago, I went on a trip to Europe with an organization that takes high school kids from a certain area to places around the world. My two friends and I went on the trip with kids from all over Chicago, and we were the only north shore kids in the group. I never saw this coming, but it was actually a lot harder than I thought to "fit in" with everyone and make friends with the other kids. Once they found out we were from the North Shore, we were automatically labeled the rich kids and no one really looked at us in the way they saw each other. At the beginning, they saw us as these people they couldn't relate to in any way, and the thing that bothered me is that in some ways, I felt I couldn't realte to them about many things either. It amazed me how hard some of these kids and their families worked to save up the money for the trip. Many of them had fundraisers at their school and community. One boy hosted multiple pancake breakfasts at his church to save up the money. My two friends and I didn't really bring up costs at all with our parents, because we never needed any help with it. At times I felt a little like a fish out of water with that group, because it was so far from the New Trier type of experience I encouter day to day. Of course there were many nice people that I ended up making friends with, but in general, we were highly judged because of where we came from. Looking back on that, it made me realize that no matter how cultured and intelligent we think we are at New Trier, living here just blocks us from experiencing a life anywhere outside our own. Sure, New Trier is an awesome school with huge academic success rates, but when it comes to relating to kids that aren't from anywhere like the North Shore, we struggle. Many kids who live here don't really know what it feels like to not fit in, because so much is provided for us. In my opinion this is a problem, because when kids like us enter the "real world," and interact with people outisde the North Shore that live a completely different lifestyle, we won't be fully equipped to relate to other people. We have been so conditioned to think in a mindset and act in a way that is perfectly acceptable for life here, but makes it hard to succeed socially and in other aspects in the outside world.

CPS Strike

It seemed like it was a pretty good ending to the Chicago teacher's strike. Both sides earned some victories and they were able to compromise. However, now that it's over, there are still a lot of articles coming out on how there are lasting implications, and that its not compltely resolved. Something that caught my eye was this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/20/chicago-teachers-strike-i_0_n_1900087.html. It was basically talking about how there are still questions relating to the public school and the union. B. Jason Brooks, research director at the Foundation for Education Reform and Accountability, said that it was a trimph for unions nationally because they "were looking for something to claim as a victory, and I think this gives them what they looking for. But as the country looked at this, it might have reinforced the notion that unions are standing in the way of turning around the lowest-performing schools." This really made me think. I wasn't really sure how I felt about the strike when it happened, but this article has made me more opposed to it than supportive. I don't think the strike was the right thing for the teacher's union to do. In the long run, it just created more problems, and, like Brooks said, was just another distraction that will make improving public schools harder. Right now, people need to be focusing on the actual schools and the children that attend them more than the fact that they feel they should be paid a little more. I'm not saying the teachers were being exactly selfish, because I'm sure they had good reason, but I feel the students and improving the school should take more priority. For some of these kids, the only meal they get is at school. Many kids can easily get caught up in trouble in their neighborhoods when they're not in school. Some kid's parents are never around to watch them during the day because they're working. Basically, for many of the CPS students, school isn't just school for them. They depend on it so much because it's a place for them to go to have structure in their lives. I feel that this strike, as well just keeping the kids out of school for a week, in general just created another distraction from the main goal: to improve these struggling school so that the students can have a better chance at education and success in their lives.
What do you think about the strike? Now that it's over, do you think in general it was a positive or negative thing?

No Happy Ending???

The discussion we had in class last week about the article written by Kurt Vonnegut really interested me. I felt that the graphs he made really matched up with how story endings really are in different cultures. I was able to relate to this because in the past, I have seen both sides of the spectrum and was able to compare them. When I was younger, my class did a unit where we read a lot of different Cinderella stories, each one a different version from a different country. Obviously all of them had the same general idea, but they weren't all completely the same. Most of them had happy endings when Cinderella ended up with the prince, but I remember the Native American version had the biggest impact on my by far because it was so different than what I was expecting. It was a story called The Turkey Girl, and it was the story of Cinderella adapted from the Zuni tribe. In this version, the main character, the turkey girl, gets help from some turkeys so that she can attend the festival. However, she ends up forgetting the time and loses out in the end. I distinctly remember the feeling of shock I had when I read the last page. I just kind of sat there staring at the last page for a couple minutes, dumbfounded at the fact that a Cinderella story could possibly end that way. I remember that it upset me a little bit, because I was so used to the main character winning in the end. Looking back on this, I think it's a really good example of how modern culture, US culture in particular, has ingrained a kind of expectation for a "happy" ending. Just like in the excerpt we read from Kurt Vonnegut, all the examples of American stories had the graph drawn up at the end, showing that there main character ended with good fortune. However, in the Kafka story, the graph ends going down, into the "ill fortune" area. I find it very interesting that we grow up believing that every story's ending will be a happy end, and even into adulthood we rarely encounter a movie or novel that has a unhappy ending. Have you encountered a story of any kind that ends in ill fortune for the main characters? What was your reaction to it? Were you surprised? In general, do you think this expectation our culture has created for a positive ending to every story is a positive or negative thing?

The Emotional Side of the Election

While looking around the New York Times website this weekend, an article that really caught my eye was titled, "Emotional Ties to Obama May Be Central to the Election." If you want to read the whole article, click here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/us/politics/romney-battles-americans-attachment-to-obama.html?pagewanted=all. Generally, it was talking about how Obama may have an edge on Romney because of America's emotional attachment to our last president. People are much more familiar with him. Many see Mitt Romney as this rich, emotionally disconnected man who hasn't been able to form the same kind of personal bonds with Americans that Obama was able to do so well. According to the article, one of the main obstacles Mitt Romney has to overcome is breaking through the comfort people feel with Obama, and reminding them that in many people's eyes, Obama's presidency was not all it was cracked up to be. However, this will not necessarily be enough to persuade people to forget about him. Many voters are disappointed in Obama, but that doesn't take away their hope in him that he can be more effective the second time around. In the words of Mark McKinnon, a former strategist for Bush, "It may be a bad marriage, but [Americans] still want to save it." The Republican party is obviously trying to paint these emotional reasons for continual support of Obama in a bad light. However, it got me thinking, is the fact that Americans might vote for him again because of their loyalty and hope for him really such a foolish thing to do? When I asked my mom about her opinion on this matter, she said she feels the same way as the people the article is describing. She plans on voting for Obama again because she remains loyal to him, and under the circumstances he faced when he was brought into office in 2008, she believes he can be better this time around. The way these people are feeling aren't just silly emotions like the Republican party is making them out to be. These people still believe in him, not just because of the personal attachment to him, but because they know that he has so much potential to be a great president and that he will reach his full potential if he gets another chance.
What do you think about all of this? Do you think the connection people feel to Obama and the belief that he can improve is enough a reason for people to vote for him again? Or do you think Americans need to look at  this with a more critical eye, and realize that personal connections don't necessarily mean Obama will be any better than he was the past 4 years? Leave your suggestions in the comments!