"Stop and Smell the Roses"

While reading Ralph Waldo Emerson's "Self Reliance," I came across an interesting passage which parallels to a phenomenon occurring at New Trier: "But man postpones or remembers; he does not live in the present, but with reverted eye laments the past, or, heedless of the riches that surround him, stands on tiptoe to foresee the future. He cannot be happy and strong until he too lives with nature in the present, above time" (29). 

This concept of living in the present is very foreign New Trier students. We are constantly reliving our mistakes of the past or thinking about the future. New Trier's structure and expectations make it rather difficult not to. We feel the pressure to exceed at standardized tests like the ACT/SAT, make the best grades, and be the most "involved." All so we can get into a "good school." This makes it feel as if we are determining our future by what course of action we take in high school. Thus is it even possible to ultimately "live with nature in the present?" 

As we've been discussing in class, we must not take Emerson's arguments as literal claims, but rather except them as extremes to portray a message more effectively. We must do the same with the connotations of this passage. In Emerson's age, it was unthinkable to conceive that any human being could be as over scheduled and overachieving as our present generation is. Therefore, since Emerson was not writing for this generation as his audience, we must take his argument as more of a guideline than a rule. Of course it is not possible with the expectations and pressure put on us to live completely in the present. However it is important to realize our present. Despite our busy schedules, we must stop occasionally to "smell the roses." After all, "nothing can bring you peace but yourself"(38)-a claim which remains a universal truth to all generations. 

"If Something Can Go Wrong, It Usually Will"

It is easier now more than ever to stay in contact with friends and family across state, country, and even continental borders. This luxury of communication is made possible by a little invention known as the cell phone. Users are able to text, instant message, and speak directly to others through this mobile devise. 

However, according to Murphy's law: "if something can go wrong, it usually will." Over the past few years, studies have shown that long exposure to the electromagnetic signals in cell phones can lead to brain cancer. According to Dr. Debra Davis, the director of the world's first Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, "children's brains are the most vulnerable because their nervous systems are still developing at the time of exposure." Yet, kids are one of the fastest growing markets for cell phones. Although the direct correlation between cell phone usage and brain cancer has not been proven as a scientific fact yet, many of the studies seem undeniable. For example, there is a multinational study being done in Scandinavia and the United Kingdom which has shown a significant increase in gliomas-a type of brain cancer- in individuals who have had cell phones for over 10 years. 

Many don't want to believe the frightening evidence suggesting the severe health risks of cell phone usage because these mobile devises have become a part of our every day lives. However, we must look critically at the recent progression in communication, and analyze its effects. Although the study has not been proven factual yet, society cannot wait until there is definite proof before limiting exposure. For although Murphy's law may be seen as a cynical approach towards progress, studies showing the health risks of cell phones have proven that it is indeed a pragmatic assertion. 

The Modern Day Duel

A few weeks ago in class, Mrs. Logan said that the key to winning a debate is how one chooses to frame the question. This technique is evident as the presidential candidates seek to justify their stances on controversial issues such as taxes.

Senator Barack Obama has been criticized for taking a socialistic approach to his tax policy. Some consider Obama's plan of "redistributing the wealth" by placing higher taxes on the wealthy to compensate for lower/middle class families, as something closely simulating communism. This is how conservatives frame the issue of taxes: by comparing the opposing candidate's policy to a movement that is nationally recognized as a failure. Thus, the only "right" response seems to be fear of the liberal's plan, and support of the republican's.

However, Obama rebuts McCain's claim by bringing morality into the issue. He asserts that where he comes from, his policy is known as fairness. This frames the same issue in a different light, and thus those persuaded by his argument can conclude that Obama's policy is the only "right" choice for it is the virtuous thing to do.

Evidently, one claim can be supported with two very different warrants. Both arguments are convincing within the context of how they are framed. It will be very interesting to see tomorrow night which version of the argument the American people choose to believe.

There's No "ME" in Intrinsic but there is an "I"

At New Trier, we value students who are intrinsically motivated. It's a goal of our academic institute to impart this value onto its pupils early so they may practice this self-motivated learning  in future endeavors. However in other aspects of our lives aside from school, those who live intrinsically may easily be mistaken as selfish. For example, the girl down the street who has a lemonade sell to turn a small profit rather than to donate her earnings to charity, can be seen as greedy. Although a girl selling her neighbors a refreshment and a student who makes A's for their personal satisfaction are different, why may one be mistaken as self-absorbed where the other is deemed good? It is important to distinguish that one who is concentrated on succeeding for self-pertaining reasons rather than for external forces is technically selfish, but not in the common sense of the word. Those who live intrinsically are concerned with making their personal success, however often it is not without regard to others-as the definition of selfish states. It's important to have these intrinsic goals to ensure that what one is working towards is for their self benefit, and not just for external reasons. Therefore it's good to be a bit selfish sometimes and live intrinsically. After all there's not an "I" in intrinsic for nothing.