Oprah Winfrey- Self Made and Self Loving

So as my American Studies class has probably noticed by now, I am not the biggest fan of Oprah. I appreciate how much charity work she has done, but thats about it. Oprah has accomplished many things in her lifetime and what makes her special and respectable is how she is the perfect example of the self-made (wo)man. In this month's edition of the Chicago Magazine, she is featured on the front with an article titled "Oprah Unbound" and the article questioned if all the fame and fortune has changed her. The answer: it has. So my question is, has that change affected people's opinions of her?

It is only natural that such success would change a person, having millions of people determine what they read next based off of your opinion can be stressful but also complimentary. The article explains how in the beginning when she was the talk show host of A.M. Chicago (later named The Oprah Winfrey Show) she could be seen taking the public bus to work every morning, taking jogs on the lake side, and stopping into her then restaurant, The Eccentric, to say hi. Now a days, things are a bit different.

Originally on the show she would get her own water, but now she has people to do that for her. She has shut down the restaurant she used to frequently go to to visit her fans, and her neighbors claim that now the only way they know she's home is because her jet is in the driveway. She even withdrew buying a Chicago duplex because, "she realized that residents from nearby apartments could see into her windows." This seems a bit extreme, but it's true. She definitely has gained an ego throughout the years, and though she may need some of one, has it gotten to be too much?

Now, I understand Oprah has done amazing things with charity, and she has created an empire which she still owns herself, it really is incredible. But in the beginning she was humble and modest, in fact, those words were popping up everywhere when explaining her background, but now a days the same cannot be said. In my opinion, it doesnt take away from what she has physically done, but it does take away from her persona. I wouldnt necessarily want to meet Oprah (would I decline the offer? No... but I wouldnt make an effort to meet her), and I have no desire to sit and watch a show that I feel is her naming her favorite things and people drooling over it. 30 Rock did an excellent episode with her starring in it. Sitting on a plane, she tells Liz Lemon all the things on her list of her new favorite things... it was quite humorous (Liz was also loopy off of travel pills at the time, but thats besides the point). My point is that someone who is self-made like Oprah definitely has more respect than someone who is born into riches, but with the persona that Oprah has changed into, liking her becomes a different story.

Who Needs Nature?

In a recent essay for American Studies, I question whether cruise ships can be considered progress or not, but cruise ships are just one example of travel that has been seen as progress today. Before now, every summer my family would carpool across America to a National Park and camp in the wilderness. But things have changed in the Finkel household, last winter break, instead of going to a cottage, my family vacationed in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico... the North Shore hot spot. People may consider this to be an economically superior vacation, because not as many people can vacation in such a luxurious place. But I dont think it is.

Yes, Mexico was beautiful, but it was filled with noisy traffic, expensive restaurants, and typical tourist sites. If you don't make reservations months before you go, you can't go whale watching, zip lining, or get a hotel. So every day you have a set schedule with times you need to leave by. This can become stressful and brings me back to think of Thoreau's idea to "Simplify, simplify, simplify!"

Thoreau's idea of a good vacation would probably be what my family originally did. Everyday we would wake up and go hiking to new places and at night we would make campfires and smores. It was simple, and if you maybe didn't want to go hiking one day, you didn't have to... nothing was planned and you were surrounded by nature. Every Labor Day weekend my family continues a tradition of camping with some of my extended family. But now, my extended family has made progress in their camping experience by purchasing a "pop up tents"... my family comments on these as "woosy tents." While we make hot dogs over the camp fire, my aunts and uncles can use their microwave, or even take a quick shower in their tent. By isolating themselves in a pop-up tent they are actually using more energy and harming the environment than they are being surrounded by it!

So yes, resorts, cruises and campers/pop-up tents may be seen as higher class and progress in our traveling days, is it? Each of these travel aids or spots have actually isolated people from nature and the calm serenity of it that originally drew people away from the hustle and bustle of work to vacation. I dont think that it's progress, and a lot of the time, I think it's silly, expensive, and wasteful.

So you want something simple?

Today, my dad and I took a small trip over to ABT to pick up a broken receiver of ours. Of course, my dad couldn't just leave after that. He just had to look at some tvs for my grandma's new apartment. We had a customer service man guide us through the aisles of televisions while my dad explained the situation. The moment my father said that it was for his mom, the man helping us replied, "So you want something simple?"

Immediately, little Mrs. Logan and Mr. Lawler appeared on my shoulders filling my head with questions influenced by Emerson. Technology today has been said to be improved, which it certainly has, and one thing that it has been trying to maintain is simplicity. What if, in reply to the TV guy's question, my dad just replied, "No, I want something really complicated"? It seems silly to think that anyone would respond that way (my dad didn't, by the way), which I think represents human nature's need for simplicity.

In today's top notch technology world, we still want things that are easy to navigate. To many teenagers, having an iPod, cell phone and lap top makes life more simple. They are typically easy to use, portable, and connects us with anything at any time. So would Emerson be proud?

Throughout the centuries, morals change, and certainly, our view on the environment and nature has skewed from our ancestors. To Emerson and Thoreau, nature was equal to simplicity. Today, we feel a stronger need to be in urban affairs with well paying jobs to get by, and many people have summer homes in nature to escape to that simple life. However, while not on vacation, the technology we have represents our need for easy, simple things that wont get us all riled up. Ipods, cell phones and lap tops display our desire for materialism, but they also show that we need simplicity or else we would do without the technology.

I am sure that Emerson and Thoreau are not proud of our conformist society that relies on technology, but even when looking at technology, there is no denying that humans are always searching for simplicity Emerson and Thoreau discuss.

Artsy Fartsy

This weekend I had the privilege to go see Blue Man Group for the first time. The experience was incredible, Blue Man Group is hilarious among being quite a party. Being in such a unique concert and the Blue Man Group's video voice over helped me to understand and appreciate how technology has progressed not just in efficiency, but into an art form.

During the show there is a segment discussing how animation has reached a new level of sophistication. In our parent's age, yes, they had animation like Mickey Mouse in black and white, but nothing compared to today. Movies like Monster's Inc, Finding Nemo, and the Incredibles (among other Pixar movies) have exceeded expectations in technological art. The video, displayed on a screen with shaving cream that in itself was quite a technological confusion for the audience (I'm still trying to comprehend how they achieved the display), explained how animation has improved over the ages. In the beginning of time historians and anthropologists believe that the cave drawings of animals that are superimposed on another were animated through the flicker of the fire light. From that, came animation. Now a days, we don't just use individual pictures flipped like in a flip book; we use computers.

Technology has made way for new art forms that are expressed in the Blue Man Group's performance. At one part of the show, the Blue Man Group each hold up signs with words going across them (message boards? I can't quite remember the word for them). Each have different phrases and sayings and then they become the drum sticks. It was so incredible! Though in my last blog post, I question if our society has become too reliant on technology and how it is not always good, the Blue Man Group opened my eyes to yet another point of view: art.

However, Blue Man Group is not all happy with technology also. During the animation segment, there is a sign that says, "Internet Cafe" and it goes on to show a stick figure man with coffee in front of his laptop. The voice over is sarcastic and explains how wonderful the Internet cafe is where you can sit quietly in a room full of people talking to people who aren't there, though there are people existing all around you. It was very funny and I couldn't help but think of American Studies.

There's No Techno-Logic

I remember my dad's phone in the car growing up. Its buttons would glow in the dark, it resembled a normal house phone, and it was stationed near the arm rest in between the driver and front seat. And I was never allowed to use unless it was an absolute emergency. Clearly, this "cell phone" was not much of a communication helper, it wasn't even portable. Even since the 90's, our technology has advanced beyond our wildest dreams. But although technology is advancing, are we?
From my dad's car phone that was untouchable, he now owns a Blackberry, or what my family prefers to call it: a Crackberry. At home, in the office, on vacation, even during dinner under the table, my father can be found typing away on his little keyboard. But he's not the only guilty one. Cell phones today have dominated the way we communicate and has changed our behaviors. I got my first cell phone in eighth grade for emergencies or contacting my parents for rides. The only reason I got it was because it came with a deal for my older sister. In a matter of a few years, we can see as young as third graders carrying cell phones. I find this despicable and disturbing. Children can use house phones to contact parents, and parents do not need to be in constant contact with their children. In fact, I believe this is bad.
Cell phones have created a completely dependent society. One cannot just be alone, I often find myself needing to text a friend instead of having alone time. Having kids and parents in constant communication with cell phones makes it more difficult to separate and for the children to become independent.
While cell phones have created a dependency for everyone, it also isolates people. It is not that we are more dependent on being physically near someone, in fact, its the opposite. I find that while with my friends, at least one person is texting someone. This is now normal, but it is terrible etiquette. It is like walking away from a conversation without warning. We cannot be with someone without talking to someone else.
Of course, this opinion is an extreme. People are not completely cut off of physical interaction by using cell phones, however, the behavioral patterns have certainly shifted with the advancement of technology. Though cell phones are a fantastic reach in technological advancement, is it possible that they are setting back our communication skills as well?


In my blog I expressed how I feel about children owning cell phones, this article explores the pros and cons of it.
Here are other people's views on cell phones and the pros and cons, this is from yahoo answers

It's Always Sunny in 1776

One of my favorite TV shows currently on television is It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. It's crude humor, vulgar language, and often offensive material led me to believe that I would never relate it to school. However, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia and American Studies have proved me wrong. In this past week's episode (spoiler alert), the characters went back in time to 1776 for a wild time during the American Revolution not seen by history books. Mostly, the lack of historical evidence of the events is because it was made up, but it still is relateable to our American Studies class. In the episode, two characters, Dennis and Mac, discuss how the meetings for the revolution are taking place in their bar, and they don't like it. The two are frustrated and confused because they claim that the alliance with Britain "rocks", and that it'd be ridiculous to separate from them. So, to retaliate the revolution, Mac and Dennis decide to write "The Declaration of Dependence." This humorous episode represented people during the American Revolution who did not want to split with Britain. However, because of how the characters are depicted in the show as complete idiots, it makes it seem that keeping an alliance would have been not well thought of. The episode did lead me to question how many people did not want to split with Britain? I think it has been, overall, a good idea to break away from them because that way, in 2008 we would be able to elect and have an African American president for the first time.

WE DID IT!

I am too tired to fully write a blog entry but for now...
Congratulations Obama, YOU ARE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Green for Grade$

In our American Studies class this past week, we were discussing the difference and importance of intrinsic motivation vs extrinsic motivation. Which one is better? Which one is more effective? And what does New Trier do to support each one? At New Trier, students can be inspired by music, theater, sports, parents or teachers, but not everyone is. In the inner city of Chicago, less and less people are being motivated to get good grades or graduate high school. This trend is also apparent in other big cities like New York City and even our country's capital, Washington D.C. Parents and adults are becoming restless with the loss of hope for the children. However, there is an idealistic view of motivation for the students created by the Harvard Education Innovation Labs. The idealistic thought of an extrinsic motivation became a pragmatic program called Green for Grade$ which grants 265,986 to students who get good grades.
This idea sounds... well, pretty sweet. But is it ethical? Some people believe this program is simply bribing students to do well, it doesn't enhance their love for learning. However, Mayor Daley and multiple others disagrees in a Chicago Sun Times article I recently read.
Mayor Daley brings up the North Shore and suburban students being treated the same way. Many parents will get their kids gifts or a trip somewhere to reward them for good grades. I know my parents would always take me out to my favorite restaurant or do something special for me, so why is this any different? The money being given to the students is another extrinsic motive to keep students in school, and eventually, teach the students how to be intrinsically motivated. Mayor Daley also says that the program is "Just an idea of celebrating their academic performance and hard work." The program itself is a private organization that not only strives for extrinsic and intrinsic inspiration but also finance budgeting. By awarding these students they learn how to budget their money sufficiently.
I think that this idea is going to help students a lot, and parents are already noticing a change in the grades and study habits of their children. Helping students be motivated is definitely idealistic and very difficult because you cannot make someone motivated, they have to learn it. However, the program is a very pragmatic way of dealing with the issue. It gives students tangible motivation that will (ideally) transfer to intrinsic inspiration.



(For more information)

Say Yes to Drugs?

While flipping through the Chicago Tribune this morning I stumbled on an interesting article about Mexico and it's changing views on drugs. Recently in Mexico, the crime rate has worsened, and the government has pin pointed it down to the drug problem. Instead of the usual "Say No to Drugs" mentality, Mexico is giving it second thoughts. The article explains that, "President Felipe Calderon, has sent a proposal to Congress that would decriminalize small amounts of drugs by giving those consumers the choice of treatment instead of jail time." So my question is, is this a more idealistic path, or pragmatic path?

Seeing as it is the beginning stages of the process, it would seem to be more idealistic. It would seem so simple and reasonable that the idea that legalizing small amounts of certain drugs, like in Amsterdam, would bring down the crime rate. However, this approach has pragmatic values as well. The potential result would be that by legalizing marijuana, the prices of criminals would need to go down and they would lose a lot of money. By losing money, their whole underground system would collapse, and therefore, the crime rate would lower. It becomes more pragmatic because the law would not just legalize drugs, because that could end in more addiction (and therefore violence and crime), it would give those caught with drugs a chance to go to treatment rather than jail. Treatment not only helps people to become sober, but the ultimate hope is that it changes the person for the better. It seems rational and equal between idealism and pragmatism for Mexico that this law would help.

The article also showed the opposing side. It quotes a U.S. official named John Walters saying, "There's only two ways this goes: They either surrender to law enforcement or they die." This is a very extreme opposition and yet people agree with him as well. If Mexico legalizes drugs, it's possible that people will abuse the law profusily, and the country could end in more peril than it started in.

So if Mexico's pragmatists and idealists work together, would saying "yes" to drugs help them or hurt them?

It's a Balancing Act

Since May of last year, a group of 21 students and four sponsers have spent months creating and working on a New Trier production from scratch. Lagniappe Potpourri 2009's Twisted: It's All in Your Head has been the time consuming, grueling, distracting and fantastic theme of my life since last year, and it's almost coming to an end.
By being on board this year, I was able to see the makings of a full plot driven show created from nothing. This experience is important if you're interested in theatre or film, but then I realized it's relevence to American Studies. Lately, we began a unit on Pragmatism and Idealism, and how one needs the other. It is true in government, the idealists need the pragmatists to carry through with their ideas, and pragmatists need idealists for inspiration, but it is also true when creating anything. With Lagniappe, we had many ideas in the beginning for themes of the show. Those on board who created the themes could be labeled as the idealists, but it took the voting and "realistic" look of the pragmatists of the board to make the show come together. When designing a set, lights, or directing, you have big ideas but you need to narrow them down to what is possible and what works. In politics, teaching, party planning, and anything and everything, this balance is apparant. Without pragmatists, idealists would just dream big, and never reach a goal, but without pragmatists, the world wouldnt be able to progress in creativity and inspiration. When this balance is succesful, people are able to achieve their goals. For me and the board of Lagniappe Potpourri 2009, our idealistic and pragmatistic balance has achieved a show with music, dancing, lighting, costuming, programming, and every small detail that a show needs.

The Pressure of Peril

With the recent stock market crash, everyone's focus has been on the economy and the peril of who lost how many points a day. But the lack of focus on how it effects those already in peril has been lost in the panic. In Chicago, a major problem is the amount of homeless people. Their lives are difficult, especially with winter on it's way. A Chicago Sun Times article delves into the ripple effects of " A sinking economy and soaring energy costs" and how it effects those who are already in peril.

On October 5th, the Epworth United Methodist Church evicted it's homeless shelter with 65 beds for the homeless. However, what's interesting about the article is that it is not blaming the government, in fact, it explains that we have enough money to sponser shelters. It is the neighborhoods that are closeminded to helping the homeless. During times of peril, people cannot turn against eachother like the Salem Witch Trials or the Red Scare, people need to work together. Though the trend of excess government power is apparant in such times as the Red Scare and Salem Witch Trials, had the people as a nation or town stayed together and not let fear take over, things could have been different. The issue with the homeless is that there aren't enough neighborhoods that will open a shelter. The article further explains that contrary to popular belief, shutting down a shelter does not lessen homelessness, it only enhances it.

Homeless people are stereotyped as all being drug crazed men and women you should ignore on the street, and although in some cases this is true, it's not all true. With the economy in the state it is, more people are losing jobs, and therefore, their houses as well. We need to look at F.D.R.'s example during the Great Depression and help those who dont have enough food or are without shelter, or else we could delve into a similar atmosphere as the Great Depression. The article ends on a note of helpfullness giving examples of how to help, and since we all live near Chicago and go there fairly often, it is a relevant issue to us.

Wanted: Police

Lately, Chicago has been growing in violence, and people are putting the blame on Daley and the lack of police officials being hired. Daley claims that the growing violence does not have to do with not hiring more policemen. His evidence is that, "we have an economic crisis. . . " so the violence rate is up, and the jobs are down. He further states that cuts in Chicago's funds will be made since "We have to look at this in a four-year financial plan; we're not going to be irresponsible." Daley's statement that it is based off of economic crisis warrants that because of the economy issues, many people are being laid off and few people are being hired which leads to more desperate times and therefore more violence. He also doesnt want to be irresponsible so he and the government need to make every step carefully so they don't land in debt. Mayor Daley is basing his argument upon logic (logos) with the economic issues, as well as pathossince he doesnt want to mess up the economy or Chicago further. I think Mayor Daley makes a good argument putting the lack of police force on the economy, however, there's no hiding the fact that if there were more police, violence rates would most likely go down.

iPhones, Uggs, and Religion

While reading my morning Tempo section of the Chicago Tribune, I stumbled upon an article title that immediately got my attention. It read: "Catholicism suddenly trendy." It wasn't the religion or even the article itself that stood out to me, it was the word describing Catholicism, "trendy." In American Studies, we are discussing the lives of the Puritans, a community based off of religion, and eventually, Puritanism died out, just like how snap-on bracelets or baggy overalls died out in the 90s. So that got me thinking, is religion simply put, a trend?


A trend in fashion is made by a designer who is sick of the old trends so he/she designs a line, puts it on the runway, and one domino effect later, every Walmart or Kohl's is mass producing it. If brought down to the basics, religion is very similar. For example, Puritanism was created by a group of people who were sick of Europe being under the Catholic rule, so they started Puritanism. Puritanism didn't become the "next hot thing" per say, but it had enough of a following to bring people over to the New World, begin communities there and later have the country be one of the most powerful in the world. However, similar to every trend, it died off and newer religions took hold of the populations creating the United States of America to be what it is today. In today's world, Kabbalism is an example of a "trendy religion." It is a mystical religion inspired by the Jews thousands of years before it was sold to the American public by Madonna and her red bracelet. Still today people strut around with their evil eye bracelets although they may not know the true Kabbalistic reasons behind it. The difference however, is that in America it is more about the trendiness of Kabbalism than the actual practice of it.


I am not saying religion is strictly or predominantly trendy. However, when looked at closely, the connection between religion and the word trend is more evident then one would expect which I find very interesting.

Some websites that might interest you:

Kabbalah: http://www.kabbalah.com/01.php

The article I read (in the paper it was titled "Catholicism Suddenly Trendy"): http://www.kabbalah.com/01.php

ps: The Cubs are in the playoffs =]

The Forgotten Voters

While discussing contemporary Native Americans in class, and the election just around the corner, I began to wonder: Who will the majority of Native Americans' vote for?

I had never heard politicians speak outright about any Indian issues, mostly because those views do not speak for the majority of the American population. While I was researching, I was surprised to find an abundance of information that swings both left and right. A You-tube video I found explained that the Indians of Fort Peck Reservation in Northeastern Montana were in great support of Obama, and even named him, "Black Eagle." Typically, Native Americans' vote democratic, and with Obama, many Indians feel closer to him since, as one man states that, "The Blacks have suffered like the Native Americans have." According to the video, Fort Peck Reservation will be voting for Obama.

McCain, however, seems to becoming more popular. McCain has made obvious effort to meet, greet, and understand Native Americans. Not only was he the only candidate at the NCAI's national convention, but he was also the chairman for the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. His knowledge with how tribal governments work independently and with the US government is wide and respectable. The issue with McCain and the Native Americans, however, are his environmental views.

The Native American choice should not swing voters one way or the other, but their 1 percent of the population will have a significant role in the upcoming election.

My First Blog!

This is my first blog!

I'll blog again later...

-Bari