Why Have a Spelling Competition?

The National Spelling Bee takes place annually at the end of May. Every year, surprisingly young children spell surprisingly sophisticated and obscure words. Although the ability the kids have to memorize thousands of spelling patterns and thousands more exceptions to these rules-- you have to ask the question, what's the point?

Even as I type in blogger I will mistype words and correct them immediately using spell check. In the world of computers and instant spelling fixes on almost everything that people write--do people need to know how to spell words like feuilleton stichomythia (the winning word at last years competition)? The spelling competition is seemingly obsolete. Having said that, I think there are many important skills that the Bee reenforces, such as understanding the origin of words and even learning their definitions.

I think that instead of spelling being the focus in school curriculums and competitions, the school would better spend their time growing students' vocabularies. There is a benefit to parts of the National Spelling Bee, but maybe it could be changed to keep up with the current times.

Classism From Hospitals to Schools

While reading an article written by Alexandra Robbins to promote her her book The Nurses: A Year of Secrets, Drama, and Miracles withe the Heros of the Hospital, an investigative report on hospitals through the eyes of the nurses, I drew a parallel to our recent study of classism in my American Studies class and even to a discussion in class about the destructive nature of the seniors last week at New Trier High School.

Robbins book acknowledges the large gap in respect between nurses and doctors in a hospital environment. Despite nurses often having longer tougher hours and spending more time with each patient individually doctors tend to get more respect from patients because of their high class and authority jobs. This judgement is often unfair, and is a perfect example of the mentality of Americans that makes us disrespect those we perceive as lower class.

I saw the same mentality in a group of senior students that had a pillow fight in the hallways of my school during their last week of school. Down from the pillows was everywhere but what the students didn't likely think of was who had to clean up. The janitorial staff, the lowest paid and often least respected staff of the school were the people that had to deal with the mess. A prank that was in good fun failed to affect the teachers or administration--it was aimed at the lowest class members of the school staff. 

Whether in a school or a hospital Americans are affected by their classist mentalities. The lower class is either irrelevant or not worth a little respect. Americans need to rethink this mentality because without nurses or janitors we might have to start doing the hard work.

Importance of the Americn Dream

Tonight, my dad spent time at his student's graduation at Northeastern University. Northeastern is a state commuter college that is often a choice for people that want education but don't have the money or time for a private university or more notable state school. Northeastern doesn't produce prominent political figures or field defining scientists, but what it does do is produce graduates that are better prepared for the professional world--the majority coming from lower to lower middle class families.

When my dad came home my mom asked him why he spent so much time watching graduation twice a year when many of his colleagues do not. His response was especially interesting: "That graduation is more notable than any Ivy League School graduation every has been." He went on to say that 60% of the graduating class would be the first of their family to graduate college and to have a good chance at raising their position in the professional world and move up their socio-economic status. 

The interesting question is not if either graduation (at an Ivy League School or at Northeastern) is important, the question is which is more significant. In American Culture is it more important that a large graduating class may be bringing themselves and their families and their kids up from lower class to middle of upper class, or is it more important that the wealthy and privileged majority of the high ranking private university stays wealthy and privileged? Out of an Ivy League School's graduating class could be a future American President but is it that notable that the powerful stay powerful.

What do you think matters more in the general scope of Americans?

How do Airlines Screen Pilots?

A Germanwings flight crashed in the French Alps on March 24th while flying from Spain to Germany. The alleged reason for the tragic accident is that the copilot crashed the plane in a particularly bad instance of depression that had effected him his entire life. Many are questioning the fact that this pilot was allowed to fly a passenger jet with this mental illness, how was this problem left unknown, how did he get his job or even his license to fly passenger flights if he had had problems with severe depression?

These are all reasonable questions, and many have been answered in many news articles since the crash. The question I have not seen answered is as follows: how loose is the screening for pilots in the modern airline industry?

If this very sick man was allowed to fly a commercial jet then who else could get one of these licenses? Airline passengers go through fairly strenuous security to even travel by air but this incident has me thinking about the pilot's screening.  In the case of this flight 150 people died because the pilot made a selfish act, but what if it had been worse than selfish. It is little comfort to the families and friends of those lost, but while the pilot had control of the plane he could have taken that plane and run it into the middle of a town, or even a major city. If this man had been malicous rather than depressed then this situation could have been much worse. Should we require more screening for pilots, mentally and physically, to make sure this never happens again?

Is it Good We No Longer Give Lethal Injection?

Many states are having to abandon the strategy of lethal injection as a way of carrying out capital punishment because they can no longer get the necessary drugs from European pharmaceutical suppliers. The reason that States can no longer buy the drugs is because European companies that are opposed to the death penalty don't want their medicinal product to be used for murder.

These companies may have the goal of ending capital punishment but they are not succeeding. The death penalty continues, except states have now reverted back to executions by firing squad. Though I don't agree with capital punishment, if criminals do get charged with a death sentence I would argue that the companies are doing the Nation a favor. I would argue that if capital punishment has to happen, the firing squad is actually a better practice.

Firing squads are a simpler, more efficient solution. As awful as it is to call one murder better than another due to efficiency and cost effectiveness, if criminals have to be executed by law it is better to make it faster and easier. Both the executioners and the prisoner benefit from abandonment of the lethal injection. The executioners in the case of a lethal injection walk away knowing that they have murdered, in the case of a firing squad one out of the 5 marksmen shoots a blank so there is always a chance that you didn't fire the lethal shot.

Criminals in the case of both executions are allowed their last words, standing up. In both cases they get to see who is killing them. In both cases if everything goes right the criminals die very quickly and supposedly painlessly--but lethal injections more often don't meet the last condition. If the executioner misses the correct vein the prisoner will die in a very slow and painful way. A firing squad will almost never fail, and if a criminal has to pay with his life, it is done better with a firing squad.

Is American Culture Becoming Central?

Since the United States is such a young country compared to some of the other superpowers it sometimes seems that we don't have as rich of a culture. France has the largest cycling race in the world, Germany has Oktoberfest. America is a melting pot so we celebrate and recognize all cultures, but it also feels like Americans should have an event to call their own.

This year I realized that March Madness has become a cultural phenomenon for Americans. The tournament brings people together in a way nothing else can. Due to the brackets, people can come together behind teams that they would never root for, or even watch. I also think that it speaks to our focus on educational success as well since the tournament is made up of college teams rather than professionals. March Madness lets Americans cheer for their favorite teams, the teams they wagered money on, and on a different level--the up and coming generation.

As Americans come behind the common enemy, root for the underdog, all focus on the same event--the country comes together. America has always been famous for its mix of cultures, the melting pot idea is central to U.S ideology, but I think every nation--on some level--has to be a complete piece. As our country ages it gains tradition and history. March Madness, for better or for worse, has become a huge part of American culture, and it's here to stay.

Two Truths and a Lie

Recently in Photography Class we did a project mimicking the ice breaker game "two truths and a lie." For those of you who haven't played the game the premiss is a person says 3 facts about themselves and the other people playing have to guess which one of the facts is a lie. The game is fun, especially with people you have just met, but as a photography project it was especially interesting. The theory was that one picture in a series of 3 would be manipulated, and during a "critic" with the class the other students had to guess which was the manipulation, or the "lie."

At face value the project seems kind of dull, a guessing game with no real value. However when a little more thought is applied to the project, it is an interesting criticism of our modern society. The point is that the class cannot see what you have changed. The criticism is that it is so easy to fabricate events through photoshop, or even with darkroom photography; that people today never truly know what happened and can never know what is a lie. In the modern media, ideas, events, and outcomes can be changed through photo and audio editing--does this mean that the public cannot trust what we learn and see?

The idea is a frightening one, but once the class reached the end of the project, most people could see what was manipulated. Since the class was told to think critically about the 3 pieces and determine which was true and which was false, the fabrication was usually picked out. I believe the comparison of this project and the modern media holds true. If the public knows to think critically about the what they see, then they will not be convinced of false information. Nothing should be taken at face value, whether it be art or news, never be sure that something is not fabrication--is not "the lie."