HOCUS POCUS I CAN'T FOCUS~ AMERICAN STUDIES BLOG 2011-2012

Re: Ritalin Gone Wrong

2012-02-12T10:58:00.002-06:00

It seems to me that there was a time when kids who were especially fidgety or had a hard time focusing were treated like any other kid-- they weren't diagnosed with some sort of mental disorder by a doctor, or other pharmaceutical dealer. They're just kids! All kids are different, all minds are different, and we all have varying degrees of focus or learning style.

This has been my contention on the subject of medicated children, especially children and adolescents medicated for ADD or ADHD. A New York Times opinion piece validated a lot of my beliefs on this subject, Ritalin Gone Wrong. Qualms I had with this new era of medication were made far bigger after reading this article.

Among the striking facts in the article, I believe the most staggering number is this: over the past thirty years, ADD drug consumption has increased twentyfold.

Parents consider ADD drugs "absolutely essential to their children's functioning", and I don't think that's right. We are taught in health class that drugs are an unhealthy escape; an easy fix to the realities of the world. I know health class had illicit recreational drugs in mind, but doesn't the same logic work with ADD drugs? Isn't a pill you take that makes you focus better, perform better on the ACT, an easy fix?

To me, drugs should have a goal. "I have x problem and to help it, I will take x pill for x amount of time, and hopefully that will cure it." If it doesn't, my doctor should give me another option for treatment. I can't find a goal in ADD medication. Sure, a student "on" ritalin could see an increase in academic performance. But what happens when the pill's effects wear off? The student goes back to their real self, a self that a doctor told had a disorder and needed medication to treat it. A self with the same focusing issue as he had before, and will continue to have. And ritalin isn't fixing it.

Meta-Post 2012

2012-01-16T12:55:00.001-06:00

It has always been a weird feeling for me to look back at any work I've done, school-related or not. I always cringe at previously written papers or old Garageband recordings of me playing guitar. Reading past journal entries is always humiliating. I remember getting this feeling a few weeks ago looking over my Catcher in the Rye annotations. I thought I was in for a healthy dose of cringe when the Meta-Post assignment was given. I'm happy to report that looking over my blogs of first semester was far less cringe-y and much more interesting than I had expected.

It took me a few blog posts to understand exactly what I was expected to do, from a teacher's perspective. The absolute most important component of a successful and effective blog post is anchoring whatever you're trying to say to some media medium, whether that's an article, a video, a book, etc. While my very first blog, Otis, had a focused anchor in a music video, others did not. A blog I was proud of at the time, Winning, had no tie to a link of any kind. I remember Mr. Bolos drawing comparison to a blog without text (or maybe 'media' is a better word) evidence to a Seinfeldian musing. As an avid Seinfeld watcher (yes, still), this really hit home. Another noted problem I had with the Winning blog was shear wrong facts. People, take a second to fact-check. If I had, the blog would not have been written and I would've saved myself the embarrassment. My more recent blogs have substantial connections to text, including my most recent blog, The Social Studies.

Aside from drawing evidence from outside sources, a slight problem I dealt with and continue to have is staying focused. With a more formal piece of writing, like the ever-famous five paragraph essay, I've never found it a problem to stay focused. You write a thesis, you have your three points, and throughout your essay you neatly touch on every mentioned point. Simple. With blogs, I find myself starting with a focused purpose and three paragraphs later on a completely different topic. A prime example of this is my second post, Being Proud. In a single post, I manage to touch on the topics of a Walgreen's ad I found interesting, Into the Wild, Henry David Thoreau, the American life of ease, the opportunity America provides, the pursuit of happiness, and whatever I meant when I said "the majesty of America". All of these topics could have stood alone as their own blogs. I think it's easy to recognize the relation all of these topics have with each other, and how my mind jumped from idea to idea. This makes for very unfocused writing, and, in turn, unfocused reading. If one blog has seven subcategories, the reader doesn't know exactly what to focus on and probably, as a result, pays no special attention to any one point. Every blog should have an obvious focal point. This could mean that it's very short, as shown in my New York, New York post.

Blogging has been an interesting journey first semester. I don't think I do it enough, but that's another thing. It's fascinating to see what my peers are interested in, and reading a classmates blog is a perfect window to see their interests. Next semester I want to focus on branching out my sources, or joining arguments. Only once did I write a blog in response to something, and I thought it turned out. 'Til next time, bloggers!!

~Layne

p.s.-- Good luck to all on finals

"Nothing is as pressing as the one who's pressing would like you to believe"

-Conor Oberst

The Social Studies

2012-01-08T16:48:00.000-06:00

When everything I do at school is graded in some way or another, it's hard not to feel like I'm being boiled down to those numbers and those numbers only. Think for a minute of every single graded test, worksheet, essay, quiz you've had handed back to you since 5th grade. The stacks of paper would fill a room. It's an overwhelming feeling. Realize that every one of those papers was created (and assessed) by an instructor. That's a lot of people; that's just teachers. There's an ocean of administration behind the scenes of the U.S. education system debating, choosing, deciding everything imaginable school-related. This is a lot of people, and those people are spending a lot of time, a lot of thought, on education.

Why? I think a reasonable answer would be that the education system's goal is to create an informed populace, a next generation of leaders, thinkers, or, at least, informed voters.

In fact, my 'reasonable answer' was validated by the National Council for the Social Studies position statement: "The need for an informed citizenry was the very impetus for the creation of free public education in the United States. If the nation is to develop fully the readiness of its citizenry to carry forward its democratic traditions, it must support progress toward attainment of the vision of powerful social studies teaching and learning." I was so pleased to hear that this was what the National Council for the Social Studies thought to be the purpose of free public education.

I think it's interesting to note that NCSS defines Social Studies as "history, economics, geography, political science, sociology, anthropology, and psychology". I can't disagree with the fact that under the umbrella of the social studies, these are subcategories. It does seem a little checklist-y, or like an 'if...then' statement in science class. If you learn history, economics, geography, political science, sociology, anthropology, and psychology, then you will be an informed citizen, ready to vote for or become a leader. While I would argue that an informed American citizen has a knowledge of these subjects, I don't believe that having knowledge of these things means you are one.

The NCSS definition of Social Studies is sort of a microcosm of the larger education system. Standards-based education, as I understand it, is basically a checklist of concepts students will be taught in American free public schooling. From Kindergarten to the end of Senior year, the list slowly gets checked off until bam! The student is (supposedly) ready for the world. I take issue with this. My brain is not a checklist! There is no magic number of concepts my brain can house that once I hit it I'm suddenly ready for life's next 'step'. The standards-based education system, I feel, represents that thought-process.

Some of the most important things I've learned in school cannot be quantified. For example: the power of argument, or the ability to synthesize information, to make connections with independent information. Are those things on the list of concepts students need to know, with a checked or unchecked box to the left of it? How well am I able to effectively argue, how well do I synthesize the information I take in? Since these things definitely cannot be quantified, they must not be on the standards-based education checklist.

This is troubling, because argument, I believe, is the far more important than a hodgepodge working knowledge of history, economics, geography, etc. in a democracy. In a democracy, where the people are the government, isn't the ability to argue more valuable than a high school knowledge of anthropology? I would answer yes. The power to prove a point, in a democracy, is the most important thing an informed citizen can possess.

Do you agree? What does Standards-based education say about America's need to quantify?

New York, New York

2011-12-17T20:48:00.000-06:00

A passage out of The Town and The City by Jack Kerouac struck me this morning. The chapter, written in Kerouac's long-winded poetic way, talked about the city of New York, as the Martin family makes the transition from small-town Galloway, New Hampshire to a basement apartment in Brooklyn. Mrs. Martin cooks and broods over the new move while the Mr. and his teen son watch Manhatten become illuminated over the river.

At the end of a long description of the city, in narration, Kerouac states: "New York- the one place in all the roundaway world where everything is different from anywhere else, simply because it happens in New York" (350).

Having never been to the great New York City, I'm left with a lot to wonder about. Is it the sheer monstrosity of the city that makes it "different from anywhere else"? How does a city achieve different-from-anywhere-else status? What makes a city have that intangible dazzle to it that New York City so obviously possesses?

Re: Pet Lovers, Pathologized

2011-11-06T13:11:00.001-06:00

I was raised vegetarian. People normally associate vegetarianism with a focus on animal rights, and while I believe all life should be treated with respect, I remain vegetarian to stay conscious of the food I eat. The activities, traditions, and debates that go along with food have always been interesting to me. Certain holidays and events are marked by the food served. Thanksgiving, for example, is more or less based around the idea of a bountiful harvest, a grand meal. There are countless outspoken organizations, in rejection and support, that deal with animal rights. There are entire movies, well-made ones at that, that conquer the enigma of the American food machine. People hunt for food. People hunt for sport.

I was happy to read an article on the NY Times web forum, The Stone, that touched on a variety of subjects, all relating to animals. Kelly Oliver's Pet Lovers, Pathologized raised an interesting point about the relationship between U.S. politicians, food and hunting.

"In the United States, we often see our political leaders hunting... which seems to demonstrate their manly fortitude and bloodlust- qualities intended to persuade us that they can keep us safe."

This is really troubling to me. Is the common American so superficial and effectively unintelligent that they equate hunting, an old pastime steeped in tradition, with a believable sense of national security? I surely hope not, and always trying to live in an optimists' light, I don't think so. It does make me wonder, however. To what extent should voters take into account a candidate's personal life?

Further along in the article Ms. Oliver brings up the fact that "Obama is known to enjoy his burgers, a fact that has helped counter his image as a green-tea drinking elitist". I crack this up to be Obama's opposition taking whatever shot they can at his policy or character. It does seem backwards, though, that a politician has to worry about the connotation his food (or tea choice) gives off. I think this could be America's need to simplify. If the policy and government minutia become too much, a politician's charisma, charm, or even eating habits could hold weight in an election.

Thoughts?

Erasure

2011-10-26T21:45:00.000-05:00

Under this block of text is a poem in three parts. All parts are "erasure" poems, poems sculpted from a larger group of words. In this case, the larger group of words is a transcript of an interview I conducted a few weeks ago. I used the word sculpt, and that's exactly what it is. It's as if a page of the transcript is a block of marble; I chisel away at it, deleting most words, handpicking words I want. The idea of the erasure poem seemed stupid in the starting-out. These are not my words, this is not my poetry. But it is. Every work of text is just a choosing and ordering of the dictionary. So more or less, writing is really more an act of choosing than anything. These are my choices.

Coming Up

I~

Drawn sacrifice
Auto-immune

Simple,
Thankfully,
Clearly
There's three of us now

Even blood, you run out

Friends, rapidly
Constantly hungry
Zombie man can't read

II~

I thought I was the walking dead!
Call me the hospital,
ignorant,
cheap,
free drink,
ecstatic
I'm doing better now
Big whoop
You know?
Jeez.

III~

I had wasted the final straw
the mutual pursuit
the knowing people

I'd break your heart, I've got a reservation

There's a lot of you.

***

A Thank-You Note

2011-10-07T15:17:00.000-05:00

I write this with the death of Steve Jobs in the front of my head. Since the news of his death, I can't seem to look at my beloved desktop computer and the two iPods that are so near and dear to me the same way. This post is a thank you, a memorium, and a recognition of the majesty of Apple and its core, Steve Jobs.

I got the first white, slender iPod nano for Christmas in 5th grade. I remember vividly taking it out of the house the monday after Winter Vacation, walking to the bus stop with the sludgy tunes of Nirvana ringing in my ears. It was a very popular Christmas for the iPod that year.

I'm not going to say the iPod got me into music. I knew music was my "thing" long before the gift of the iPod, but you could definitely say the device plunged me deeper into the world of music. The iPod made it possible to quite literally put a soundtrack to my life in a way I for sure never knew before. Music was always such an event. I'd sit down with a cd, put in the player and listen to it. An event. In a way, the iPod took that factor of music out. I have 4,000 songs in my pocket, I can listen to them whenever I want. Listening to Dark Side one minute, the new Girls the next. In my room, on the busstop, in the hallway. Making school life tolerable. Made possible by Mr. Jobs.

All the iPod is is a music player. Before all this video and application business, the iPod was for music and music only. There had been music players before, the iPod was simply the device I, like millions of other Americans, latched onto. I've been through 4 iPods, two of which still exist and sustain daily use. The iPod is without a doubt my favorite "toy". So it was a personal thing for me when Steve Jobs died. Yeah, he didn't invent music. There are countless mediums through which you can enjoy music. A record player, a boom box, a concert, an instrument, a surround sound system. Steve Jobs invented my favorite medium. For that I am forever grateful.

WINNING

2011-09-29T11:10:00.002-05:00

In American Studies today the class discussed the former Mayor Daley, and in doing so I learned something about 1960-speak vs. 2000s-speak. I forget who, but one of our team teachers mentioned that "back in the day" no one ran for office, they stood for office. From what I understand, in Daley's time, no one would ever use the term 'run' in the sense we're talking about, much like no one would use the term 'stand' in present times. Same meaning, and in my opinion, MUCH different connotation.

Thinking about it, it definitely fits to use the word 'stand'. It rolls weirdly off the tongue, but only because I'm so used to saying "ran for office". Never in conversation have I said or heard someone else say "Oh, yeah, he stood for office last year". It just rings weird in my modern ears. The word 'stand' connotes representation, standing for something. Which makes sense. People vote for an individual who they believe will represent their views and stand for their values, and act accordingly in office. One votes for an official in hope they will stand up for what is right in their minds. It's simple. A conservative person will vote the conservative ballot, in hope that their views will be heard and taken into account in office. Same for an individual on the left.

I can't seem to find any blatant political connotation in the word 'run'. In fact, unlike 'stand', 'run' only has one meaning: to move quickly; to move the legs rapidly. Sometimes we run to escape danger. Sometimes we run to get from point A to point B quicker. And sometimes we run in a race. And why would we run in a race? To win. The loudest connotation I find with the word 'run' is winning, to beat someone else, for personal or group-based gain, pride, etc. It seems backwards that a word with heavy undertones of winning is used in such a supposedly democratic process, a process Americans find extremely important, even holy.

Of course, the word 'race' is also thrown around a lot in elections. The Presidential Race. Why would we call it that? Is it a competition for who wins? The person who doesn't get elected, is he a loser? Isn't the presidential election process put in place so the citizens of the United States have choice over who runs their country, not to see which candidate is more popular? The person that gets the vote doesn't win, he's put in charge of his country. He's expected to represent, to stand up for, his beloved country.

This change in language, from the 60's stand to the modern run, leaves me with some questions. Is America fixated on winning? Why would we substitute a word like run, one with heavy winning and competition connotation, for the word stand, a word that makes perfect sense in the context it's used?

In the midst of our federal government's disfunction, I can't help but wonder if the politicians and officials have lost the point of their purpose. Our United States democracy is put in place so the citizens' voices are heard, the people trying to enjoy the majesty of America. It seems now that the politicians have forgotten this, or else are too wrapped up in their sense of winning for their respective party. Both politically aware citizens and government officials alike must remember that our democracy in set in place for the people's choice, not an outlet for another way to win at something.

So I ask you, why do we feel the need to win? What's so important about being the best, being the most right?

Thanks for reading
~Layne

Being Proud

2011-09-18T15:07:00.000-05:00

Note: It's interesting how AS has sort of bled into my life. I've been fortunate enough to have english classes Freshman and Sophomore year that I thoroughly enjoyed, but never has a class transcended, I guess you could say, the mental barrier between my "real life" and school. What the class discusses, what media mediums we hear and see, shapes my day's (and ultimately week's) thoughts. I haven't had a class do that. With this whole ongoing blog assignment, I'm forced to be on the look-out constantly for blog post ideas. While I'm already blogging less volume than I'd hoped, American Studies has turned into a lens from which I view everything through. An ad I see on television, a cover of a magazine, or a new 'development' in politics are all evaluated through this eye that is American Studies. And that's how it should be. School's job is to turn kids into thinkers, tough evaluators, equipped with the ability to shape tomorrow's America (how frightening). American Studies, three weeks into school, has begun to succeed in its duty. It hasn't changed what I think, it's changed how I think, my thought process, how I come to conclusions. That's awesome.
***
So I was on Facebook earlier today, and an ad for Walgreen's caught my attention. Apparently Walgreen's has a system where one can order groceries online and pick them up in the store. Ladies and gentlemen, we finally can obtain daily groceries without having to actually look for them! And the internet cuts out having to deal with horrible things like standing in line for 3 minutes or making small talk with other shoppers/employees! Shopping for nourishment for me and my family is now much less of a task, a to-do. How easy. Thank you Walgreen's.
Earlier in the week we read and discussed a chapter of Walden by Henry David Thoreau, pulling out bits of Thoreau's language that mirrored American and/or McCandless' values. Often I felt that the values found fell under both categories, but meant much different things in the context they were in. The idea of "living life to the fullest" is a good example. This phrase was scrawled under both columns. In America's sense, the meaning of living life to the fullest is obvious: pursuit of happiness, growth, wealth. In McCandless' world, living life to the fullest takes on a broader, maybe more abstract meaning. He seeks and journeys to live in the perfect image of himself; live his life to the fullest for the sake of living his life to the fullest, not for the empty validation of growth or power. This seems quintessentially American. McCandless pursued whatever he pursued for Self, for the idea of living his dream and for his own happiness.
Another value was ease. Thoreau goes into detail about being able to "...live, for an hour, a summer and a winter life"(Thoreau, 60). I simply interpret HDT's prose as a life of ease, to sit and think, watch the seasons come and go. A Thoreauian life of ease and a more stereotypical (for lack of a better word), "modern" American life of ease butt heads. This "stereotypical" American ease matches with the offer from our friends at Walgreen's, not an overall life of simplicity and calm. And out of this observation I ask, What is truly easy? Is it a connected yet speedy life of texting and housemaids and internet delivery groceries that supposedly make room for the things that 'count' in life, like success and ambition and growth? Or is it a life without unnecessary mental baggage, a life with time to sit and Live?
It's whatever you make America out to be. If the beauty and glory of America is a true pursuit of individual happiness, a life of ease turns more on Thoreau's side. One is able to live and be free, test out lives of isolation and nature, and only made possible by the hand of America granting this opportunity. If America is an everything-powerhouse of competition and winning, ambition and success, where going grocery shopping takes too much time out of the day (that's already too short), a life of ease goes to Walgreens' side.
The true majesty of America is that all of the above is true. Whether or not my goal is to find inner Self in the woods or make as much money as possible, I'm still just as American. This is the krux of America, America boiled down. And all the greed and money obsession I complain about doesn't matter when I think of America like this because when I think of America in this sense I am sure in a way I'm not normally sure of things that I am proud to be an American.

OTIS

2011-09-05T22:17:00.002-05:00

Hello there! Layne here. Allow me to give a few words of introduction. I have always toyed with the idea of having a blog. With small creative ideas taking shape and gaining confidence as a result, I thought it'd be useful to have a more public outlet than a dog-eared Moleskin for my ideas. Another perk, I thought, of running a blog, is the slight chance of being somehow noticed or critiqued.

My vague and tentative plans for a blog were shoved into full swing as my Junior year started. This blog was created under the direct orders of my American Studies teachers. If all goes as planned and I have as steady a creative flow as I think I do, regular attendees of WhatAnOddFuture can expect semi-thoughtful compositions such as the one I'm about to churn out now in addition to anything else I see fit to post.

I don't follow pop music as much as I'd like to. It's not that I particularly enjoy popular music groups, I just like to be aware, be "in the know", of what ultra famous rappers and other assorted musicians are doing with their respective projects. In my most recent search of what's hot in pop I came across the music video I have linked above.

I'll start out by declaring that I like this song. For what it is. I can’t enjoy this song on as many levels as Icould a select Bowie tune, but I realize this isn't “that type” of song.Nevertheless, music is music and always makes a statement. I noticed an outward and subliminal emphasison consumerism and material “things” (cars, watches, clothing) on the set ofthe music video and in the lyrics of the song. “New watch alert, Hublot’s/ Or the bigface Rollie I got twoof those” (Jay-Z) With a music video where an American flag is in a good chunkof the run-time, one can’t help but wonder what the relationship is betweenthese empty, money-centric consumerist/materialistic values and the UnitedStates as a whole.

Jay-Z and Kanye West are household pop-culturefigures and there’s no doubt Americans will remember them for decades tocome. In the late-60’s Americanbands sung of peace and love and as a result it’s easy to associate peace andlove with those times. Will mychildren associate my teen years with the ideals of owning multiple expensivewatches or destroying a six-figure sports car?