More pictures from our pioneering adventure

Pictures galore from Thursday!

Hey, here they are. As promised, in all our grubby, muddy glory, the 50+ students of Excel 10 experiencing life on the windswept Nebraska plains like the Shimerdas and the Burdens. Well, it's not really Nebraska. It's behind the visitor's stands at the football stadium. We couldn't afford to take everybody to Nebraska.


Man, now that's a big piece of sod.


That looks good. Now all we need is another six feet and we're finished.








"Can you guys see if I got dirt on my ankle?"


"25 nails in 30 minutes? No problem! Gimme some more. I can handle it!"


This piece of sod reminds me of a kid I used to babysit.



If the guys won't use directions, I will.

Custer's Last Stand at the Wild West Shows

This week as you all know, we finished the movie The West. In the movie, there was a segment about Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Shows. The show traveled all over the world and showed what the Western United States was like. Of course there was a couple over exaggerations like how Buffalo Bill would always come and save the day or how wicked the Natives really were. But in the end it was a great show for the whole family. The grand finale of the show was called Custer’s death, where they showed how General George Custer was attacked and killed by Native Americans.

Many times, Custer’s widow was in the crowd watching as the reenactment of her husband's death was portrayed right in front of her eyes. Every time she saw the show she always commented that it was very lifelike, and she always came to see it when it came to town. In my opinion, this reaction to a loved one dying is very ironic and rather odd.

My question to you is what would be your reaction if you saw the reenactment of the death of a loved one in your family being shown to you directly in front of your eyes and on a stage?

Sam

Narrow casting and Acxiom

In my elective class, we talked about how campaigns play a huge effect on the election process.

For example, John Kerry used "narrow casting" to win votes. Narrow casting is sectioning out minority groups and interest groups and talking with that group, and having them vote for that candidate. Narrow casting I feel is probably why minority groups vote for the people they do. Do you think so?

Also there's a company out there (Acxiom) that has secret information about you in computers dealing with race to what kind of ice cream you like. Do you feel comfortable with database companies holding information about you and your family in their computers for other people use to persuade you? I don’t! I would feel like someone is stalking me. THAT’S CREEPY!

Josh F.

When will we have a minority president?

Today in Mr.Wickersham's class we discussed the ideal president. We discussed and thought of good qualities that a president should have. For example, they should be qualified/experienced, educated, intelligent/savvy, and selfless. To me, those four examples stand out the most. If you are lacking in any of these areas, it shows you're not yet ready to be in control. Do you agree or disagree?

One subtopic that we discussed dealt with minorities and the chance of them being elected as president. If you have all the same qualities as a white man and in some cases more why would it matter? They could be one of the smartest people of that time but because the way America is today it wouldn't be so easy. They would have a very difficult time proving their qualities to most people. Women, who are also classified as a minority, would struggle just as much as any other minority. Every person has the ability to succeed and if you are one of the few who go above and beyond, than I think America should give it a try. America should be more open to change, seeing the way that some presidents have acted in the past.

I believe there are others who could do much better and prove they are able to run the most powerful country in the world. One of the difficulties is, that if, and when, minorities are elected, will they be judged harder than a white man, which made those same mistakes? Is that fair? Will minorities ever have a chance? When you are able to vote, would you consider a minority that is better suited for presidency rather than their competition?

Don't Believe the Hype?

Nicole S. asks:

Today in class we talked about the book Huck Finn and our opinions on the book. Some didn't like it and others thought that it was a good book. I personally liked the book and I learned more about how things were back then. I do think that the book is overrated as far as the way that it used to be considered shocking. I feel that way because society has changed over time and the way that we have accepted new things. But I do also think that the book has lost some of its meaning. Some of the things that are said in the book like the "N" word aren't as offensive today as they used to be.

I liked Mark Twain's writing style and how he used dialect, but it was also annoying after a while. It made you think twice about what you were reading and how people actually talked back then. This book has many life lessons in it and can teach you alot of things about how society has evolved. So what do you think?

So what do you think of the book, Huck Finn?

So how does everyone feel about this book? I personally thought it was hard to get into. It started off very slow, but I thought as I read a little more and more it got better. I think that this is a very unrealistic book, what about you? It seems to me that no matter where Huck is, or whom he is with, he finds trouble.
My favorite part of the book was when Huck faked his own death to escape from his dad’s cabin. It showed us right away that Huck was clever. I never expected a boy like him to be that smart. It continued through out the story, Huck would come up with extremely clever plans. For example, after telling Mary Jane about the king and the Duke he came up with a very well thought out plan of how to escape.

I did not think I would like this book but I ended up enjoying it. Did you like it? Do you agree or disagree with me?

Elizabeth on Ideal Presidential Qualities

Today in Mr. Wickersham's elective class, "The Greatest Presidential Elections since 1860", we discussed what qualities we personally thought made a good president. We talked about what key characteristics we would look for if we were to vote, and what makes one candidate stand out from the others. As a class we made a list of what qualities were the most important to us. The list included: honesty, loyalty, being rich, handling pressured situations well, qualified, intelligent/savvy, patriotic, experienced, good looking, selfless, and has "no skeletons" in his/her closet. We then rated these qualities to find out which one is the most important to us and which one is the least important to us.

My number one quality was loyalty because I think that if you can't trust your president, and count on him staying true to the country and all the people in it then you are left with nothing. My least important quality was good looks. Although, I don't think that a lot of emphasis should be placed upon good looks, I do know that we are all human and probably not one of us could say that looks don't matter at all. But compared to all of the other qualities that I mentioned, I think good looks should come last. What's your opinion on this subject? Would you rate your qualities the same way that I did, or would yours be completely different?

Rule of Law: Should the President be held accountable?

Former president Bill Clinton lied to the American public when he denied accusations of having an affair. The president is the most important person in the world and has the most responsibility, and I do not think it is right that he did not get punished like a normal person would. Do you think that the president should be charged like any other citizen in America?

Phil S.

Heart vs. Head

In Mr. Barry’s class today, we discussed the difference of the heart versus the head.
We came to the conclusion that our brain gave us the more logical solution. Our brains came up with a reason, a pragmatic and sensible solution. On the other hand, our heart tells us our gut feeling, a more emotional feeling that just feels rights.

In Huckleberry Finn, Huck learns that following your heart rather than following the norm of society can be the better choice. Huck has to make a decision, whether he should turn Jim into the slave-hunters and follow what society would have done or whether he should lie and follow his heart in order to save Jim. When Huck arrives at this predicament, he makes the decision to follow his heart and lie to free an escaped slave. His youthful innocence and gut feeling allowed him to make this decision. Although Huck knows that what he is doing is illegal and goes against what he has been raised to do, it only feels right.

All of us have been in similar situations to Huck, and have had to choose whether to follow our hearts or our heads. Give a time in which you were put into a similar situation and tell how you dealt with it. Whether you followed your head and went with the rules or followed your heart and went with your feelings.

Brian K.

Was John Brown's approach the right way to go?

In the early 1600’s through the start of the Civil War 500,000 slaves were brought in America from Africa. Eleven million people were taken from their home from Africa stowed on ships and over ten million died on the 4-month journey to America. From the time of the first slaves, America history was tangled in violence-the violence done to these slaves. The Missouri Compromise decided whether or not the Louisiana Territory was a slave or free state. If the state was above 36’30’’ it was considered a free state, and if the state was below 36’30’’ it was consider a slave state. John Brown a white man, was one of the only people in America to attempt to abolish slavery. He killed as many white slave owners as he could. Brown had a plan to arm the slaves to rebel against their owners. Brown was captured during the attempt to steal their weapons, but this did not stop him from attaining his goal. When he was in jail Brown became a celebrity. His letters about freeing the slaves were published, and if they were not freed he predicted there would be a Civil War. After six weeks in jail, John Brown was hanged. The Union army formed soon after Brown died and fulfilled Brown’s prophecy of our country’s struggle for a slave-free state if the slaves were not freed.

Do you agree with Brown’s violent approach to the abolishing of slavery?

JJ asks: Democrat, Republican, or neither?

In class on Tuesday, Mr. Wickersham's class we talked about what separates America. And one of those subtopics was the presidential parties and how half the people in the nation are Democrats and the other half are Republicans. I think that it separates our nation so much. There are many people that get in arguments about who should lead our country. People that are Democrats think that George Bush is a loser, like my mom, and I think that this is a bad thing.
There was just a poll in the Jewish News that asked: What political party is friendlier to Israel? My mom, the Democrat, asked my dad, the Republican, this poll. My dad replied about ten seconds later, “high sixty percent, Democrat.” The real answer was 22% Democrat, 65% Republican and 13% neither. I was just wondering if you talk to your parents about what political party they choose, and if you do, what political party are they in and what you think about their decision.

JJ

Are we a House Divided today on abortion?

In class, September 5, 2006, we talked about Abe Lincoln’s “A House Divided” speech. Lincoln was saying that a government/country divided because of slavery will crash and fall. I agree it would have been total chaos because there would have been arguments (like the Dred Scott case) over where/when slaves are free or not. A man’s freedom is such a basic issue that a country has to have one solid opinion on the topic. Do you think a country could survive with two different views on this issue???

There were many ways the slavery conflict could have been solved. Breaking into two different countries almost like we did with the civil war would have been an option. In my opinion, this option would not have solved the problem because the two governments would have fought over territory. What do you think another option could have been to solve this problem???

When we talked about the speech, some divisions came up that were similar to slavery vs. freedom. Abortion was one of them. There are many arguments on both sides of the abortion issue. There is the need to define when to draw the line saying what is living and what is not (for ex. some groups say that a fetus at 5 weeks is not a living thing and 6 weeks is). There is also the thought that a person is a person and it can’t be killed. My opinion is that there should be the option of abortion for minors, rape victims, and for any one else no later than the first nine weeks of the first trimester BEFORE the fetus has a heartbeat. What are your thoughts on the abortion issue?

Andrew S

Lisa's thoughts on the House Divided speech

I personally think that when Lincoln wrote his speech, even though it seemed like he was against slavery, I don't think thats how it was intended. I think that he wanted to either have slavery in all the states, or in none. His thoughts were not about what was best for the African Americans, but about what would divide his country and goverment. He knew that if only half the states had slavery, there would be more controversy in the government. Lincoln knew he either had to have all states be under slavery or none, or else his goverment would be split up and weaker. What do you think: did he write the speech for the better of the slaves, or for a unified government?

Lisa R.

Editor's note: I forgot to mention in the talk about the Civil War today that Lincoln was much more an anti-slavery person than an abolitionist like John Brown. However, many people today (and many Southerners back then) think of Lincoln as an abolitionist. Mr. W.

Welcome to the blog!

Hey new Excel 10 students!

This is Mr. Wickersham, one of your Excel teachers. We're excited about the upcoming school year and hope you are too. Ms. Zimmerman and I have sent you that letter to get you thinking about reading and writing before you get started in school on Tuesday, Sept. 5. You must post on this website before class begins on Tuesday, because this is your first assignment.

First, tell us about a book you have read this summer.
1. Give us the title and author;
2. Next, provide a short paragraph summarizing the book;
3. Pull a meaningful quote out of the book and explain why it's important to the story;
4. Who do you think is the intended audience for this book and why?;
5. On a scale of 1 -5 (one being awful, five being terrific), what would you rate this book and why?

In order to comment on the blog, either press comment or post a comment at the bottom of the blog. Then, a new page will appear and on the right hand side of the page, you'll have a box in which to type your assignment under Leave your comment. You do not have to sign in or create an account, but just put your first name with the first initial of your last name (i.e. Geoff W.) at the bottom of the page. (Once we get to know everybody, you won't need to leave the initial of your last name except for the 4 Joshes, 2 Stephanies, 2 Matthews, 2 Seans, 2 Jordans, and 2 Nicoles that we have. There are 61 students in the class). We only use first names for privacy reasons. After you are finished typing your assignment, scroll down the screen to where you'll see a word verification box. It will look something like YYPKW in wavy letters. You need to do this to make sure that you're not a computer program trying to post spam on the website. Then press preview and change if you want to, or press publish.

You will not see your post on the screen right away, because either myself or Ms. Zimmerman have to approve the post before it goes on the website. If you don't see your reply posted within a few days, try it again.

Thanks. We look forward to working with you.

Mr. Wickersham and Ms. Zimmerman

Summer Reading

Hey folks, I've been doing lots of summer reading so far. Some of my reading has been research for the introduction and first chapter of my book, and other reading has just been for fun.

For fun:
The Tenth City by Patrick Carman - this is the third book of a trilogy that follows 13 year old Alexa Daley who lives in the land of Elyon. She's been given a special gift (the ability to speak to animals) and that gift helps her find out what's behind the walls of her city in the first book, and then fight a great evil in the second book. In this book, she has to help vanquish this evil for good before it destroys everything and everyone she loves.

Artemis Fowl: The Opal Deception - This is the fourth book in a series about a 14 year old boy from Ireland, Artemis Fowl II, who is a genius but also a criminal mastermind. In the past three books, he has discovered that there is a whole civilzation of fairies, dwarves, trolls, and other magical creatures hiding under the ground away from human sight. Their technology is at least 100 years ahead of human tech, and Artemis tries to exploit that tech in the past couple of books. In this book, a villain from book 2, Opal Koboi, an insane genius, escapes from her cell and enacts a series of revenge plots on Artemis and the other fairies that put her in jail. The events in this book are a twist b/c it takes the characters in a different direction than the past three books. I really enjoy this series b/c of its attention to detail and fleshed-out characters.

For School:
The Seekers by Daniel Boorstin - Boorstin is a great historian who has written several books on American history, but he's also written a few books on how mankind has discovered, created, and sought knowledge. The series, The Discoverers, The Creators and The Seekers examine some of the greatest thinkers, scientists and philosophers in human history. I'm only about 12 chapters into this book but it's pretty interesting, and it's taking me back to my college classes on Plato's Republic and some of the concepts I really didn't like about his book - for instance, his idea of strict hierarchy of social classes. It's like an old caste system. Plus, his best form of government is an aristocracy, and democracy rates pretty low on Plato's list. So, you're wondering why I'm doing this? Well, starting in a couple of years, we'll have to start teaching a World History class, and I'm expanding my knowledge for that class whenever that may come about.



Give me your feedback. What are you reading? Anything good?
Any good movies? I finally saw the X-Men and it was better than I had anticipated! Very intense.

Countdown to Order of the Phoenix

It's over a year away - next summer - but I figured I'd throw this on here for those of you who are Harry Potter fans. Enjoy!

Summer Opportunity for Girls! Sorry, guys.

Dear Am. Promise team,
There is a fabulous opportunity for girls, ages 15-18, to attend a Science,Engineering, and Technology summer camp, hosted by OCC and OU. July 30 - August 5,2006. Some openings have become available for this once in a lifetime opportunity, and I know you have the girls who could benefit! Girls will be housed at dorms @ O.U., and spend each day working on a muiltiple of interesting hand-ons activities and skills, work in teams, and have mentors and coaches throughout.
Both technical and interpersonal skills will be covered in a multiple of workshops and activities. This is sponsored by the Society of Manufacturing Engineering,OCC, OU, and Oakland Schools, and will only cost $50!
Please send your interest inquiry to Marikay Clancey, at OCC, 248.232.4210, mlclanc2@oaklandcc.edu.

I put the application on the Excel website at my address: http://www.birmingham.k12.mi.us/Schools/High+Schools/Groves/Social+Studies/gw02bps/Excel+10.htm

Good luck, and have a great summer, everybody.

The National Debt

It's at $8.4 trillion and counting. All of it is owed to the American public. The question is, who will have to repay it and how much will it cost?


Visit the U.S. National Debt Clock

The amount is just too staggering to comprehend.

Matt's Thoughts on Abortion - Roe vs. Wade

So, today we talked about woman's rights and the topic of abortion came up. Many people have different views about what exactly is right and what is wrong. Me personally, I believe that if the woman is either too young, too poor and can't raise a child, or for some good reason can't have the baby, they can get an abortion within the first 2 months while the fetus hasn't developed yet or really is a "baby". This, in my mind would be much better than having a baby being born from someone under 18 with no help and having a kid try to grow up in such bad conditions. But that's just me.

What are your thoughts on the topic?

First off are u for or against abortions?
If yes when is it right to have them and under what conditions?
If not what are your reasonings?

Who stays at home? Mom or Dad?

Mike asks,

How come the men in today's time are supposed to be the ones to bring home the money and support the family? It is very stereotypical that the men go to work in the morning and come home late and do the same thing day after day while the woman stays home and raises the family. How come it can't flip flop? Would America change?

I think that the woman could go work and the guy could stay home or the other way around. I don't really care at all. But, I believe that the woman should still help support the family instead of raising it. Plus, the kids could be raised with a little manhood instead of all womanhood during the day. I'm not trying to be sexist at all but I know a few guys are thinking the same thing. What do you think?

Editor's note: For a contextual frame of reference, we were talking about the women's movement in class this week and discussed women's changing roles in both the house and the workplace.

What did the President know and when did he know it?

When we were watching the Nixon video on Watergate, I was wondering, do you think Nixon really did it? The problem is, is that there is enough evidence for both yes and no (even though to me Nixon knew).

For yes, you could say that the “plumbers” were sent by Nixon’s administration, how could he have no known?

For no, Nixon’s campaign people could have taken a step further than Nixon wanted and acted without his knowledge. What do you think? Do you think Nixon knew what was going on or that he had no idea?

Dan

"When the President does it, that means it's not illegal"

"When the President does it, that means it's not illegal. If the President approves something because of a threat to internal peace and order, of significant magnitude, then the President's decision, in that instance...enables those who carry [the President's order] out to carry it out without violating the law. " - Richard M. Nixon

During all of the Vietnam protests, President Nixon became convinced that there was a foreign power/country/enterprise directing these American kids, so he wanted to find out who and how these directives were getting done. He signed an Executive Order that allowed the intelligence agencies to spy on Americans in the hopes of finding that foreign element that funded subversive groups that were planning protests and other crazy things. The FBI could tap more phones, open mail, and break into homes and offices w/o warrants. These powers were later curtailed by Congress in the mid 70s, but then expanded again recently in the name of securing the nation from another terrorist attack called the Patriot Act.

"Did Erlichmann inform me that these two men were going to California? He may well have. And if he had, I would have said, 'Go right ahead'." - Nixon, in reference to Gordon Liddy and Howard Hunt going to California to break into Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office.

So, give me your comments on Nixon's statements.
Or, comment on any similarities to today's events in the war on terror.

Check out this website on Watergate: http://watergate.info/

Mr. W.

Nixon's "Myths of Vietnam"

You've recently read or heard summaries of the first chapter from former President Nixon's book, No More Vietnams. The title of the chapter was entitled "The Myths of Vietnam" and in it he presents the four defining myths of the war. My questions for you are as follows:

1. Do you agree with President Nixon that a foreign policy with the "willingness to use power to defend national interests" is something for which the U.S. should strive? Why or why not? In other words, Nixon feels that the U.S. should be willing to use its armed forces when necessary instead of just relying on sanctions, diplomacy, the United Nations, etc.

2. Nixon said, "In the end, Vietnam was lost on the political front in the U.S., not on the battlefront in Southeast Asia." Give at least one example from what we've studied that can prove this statement false, and then provide another statement that can show how Nixon's assertion is true.

3. Under "Myth #2: The Vietnam War was unwinnable", Nixon states that "when we signed the Paris Peace agreements in 1973, we had won the war. We then proceeded to lose the peace." He blames Congress for not providing enough military aid to support the South Vietnamese government after the U.S. military had left in January 1973. His rationale was that the Soviet Union was supporting North Vietnam, we should support South Vietnam even if we're not fighting the war. Please comment on his initial statement about winning the war (keeping in mind the original reasons why we were there in the first place), and then tell me if Congress did the right thing by cutting off aid to SV between 1973 and 1975 when South Vietnam fell (remembering the details from chaos that ensued and mentioned in this chapter).

Pick two of these questions to answer in thoughtful paragraphs using examples from your notes, videos, and readings.

Returning Vietnam Vets

In class recently we have been discussing the veterans of the Vietnam War. One thing I learned was that when they came home, some Americans were extremely crude to the soldiers, few would even spit on them. Personally, I think that's disgusting and completely inappropriate. Just because you might have disagreed with the war does not give you privileges to disrespect your fellow Americans.

We also learned about the effects that the war left on these soldiers such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and shell shock. I wonder what I would have done if someone I loved left for the war and came back a completely different person.

What are your thoughts?
-How would you react?
-How would you help them deal with something that nobody else can really understand?
-How would you have dealt with the veterans if you disagreed with them going there?

Maddie

Emily on If I Die in a Combat Zone

So we got a new book to read last week, for those of you who haven't noticed, and to me I think that it is a REALLY bad book. I know, we haven't gotten far in the book yet, so it may get better, but just from reading the first few chapters, it is really confusing.

It's confusing because all it is is these soliders in battle thoughout the Vietnam war. It also is kind of disturbing. It gives off the f- bomb a lot which is totally uncalled for and it also has some really nasty images. I know that it is a book about the war, and it's supposed to be all bloody and nasty, but I think it overdoes it. It's just another book about some soldiers and their journey thoughout a war.

So as you can see, I don't find this book very exciting. So I want to know if anyone agrees with me, or if i'm thinking about it way too much.
Thanks, Emily

Was it all about RUBBER?

This week we talked about the war in Vietnam. We talked about it's parralellism to the Revolutionary war, and how they had communist aid. We talked about how even with a 10:1 death ratio in our favor, the VC still thought they were winners. But I don't care about any of that, I don't even get why we were there in the first place.


What does Vietnam have that we need? Rubber? If you can get a car to run on Rubber then by all means take over Vietnam, but CARS don't run on rubber!!! All those who agree with me, good job, and all those who disagree...I don't like you.

Alex S.

Maggie on the Draft

Today in class we talked about the draft and what we would do if we were in it at that time. Everyone brought up valid points, but I think that I would probably run away. I have my whole life to live, and I wouldn't want to compromise it for a war without a real point. I do think that I would be a protester of the [Vietnam] war because I don't believe in it and I think I would feel the same way then too. What do you guys think?

So my questions are;
1. What would you do about the draft?
2. Do you think that you would be one of the people protesting at the colleges even though it could be dangerous when the National Guard comes in?

-Maggie

Holden Caulfield vs. Forrest Gump

Holden Caulfield v. Forrest Gump

This week when we watched Forrest Gump, I noticed that Forrest pretty much just went with the flow. He always just did what he was told and luck came to him. Then, when I thought about Holden Caulfield in Catcher in the Rye, it seemed as if they were total opposites. Holden was a rebel and really didn't have any luck. His family was messed up, he always got kicked out of school, and he somehow always managed to get himself into a fight. However, in the end of Catcher, Holden finds his 'happy place' with his sister when he sits in the rain watching his sister on the carousel. Forrest also finds his 'happy place' when he lets Forrest Jr. off to school for the first time. I found it ironic that both of them only felt complete when they went against how they had acted all other times. Like everyone expected Forrest to be immature so he never was faced with mature decisions, but he finally grew up when he let his son go off to school. And with Holden he was always expected to be mature because he was always sent off to boarding school but when he finally let himself go and was able to be a kid for once he found himself happy. Do you guys thing they're more alike or more opposite?

-Madi

What would you do?

AJ asks,

In class the other day we watched a video on the civil rights movement in Birmingham, Alabama. This was unlike other videos in which it didn't give most of the praise to Martin Luther King Jr. but intsead to the children of Birmingham. It showed D-Day in which all the students left school and went on a march to the 16th Street Baptist Church. They continued to go back and do civil marches and cause interruption in the white streets. They eventually had dogs and fire hoses sprayed at them yet they continued to go back.

My question to the class is that if you were a black teenager in this time period living in Birmingham, Alabama would you have participated in these stands and marches against the white police? Would you have risked getting kicked out of school, getting in trouble with your parents and going to jail? Would you have been brave enough to stand in there when dogs are being brought in and the hoses are being brought out?

Stuff over break

Couple of things to do over break:
1. Kennedy blog - after doing the "Several Ways to Look at JFK" exercise (based on the book, Forty Ways to Look at JFK by Gretchen Rubin), complete the blog by answering the 2 questions. Due April 27.

2. Read Ch. 1 -5 in The Secret Life of Bees.

3. Extra Credit: Watch The Armenian Genocide, a PBS documentary, on Monday, April 17 at 10 p.m. (and at 3:30 a.m.).
- minimum 1 page summary of the show
- minimum 1 page make connections to Darfur, Night, Rwanda
20 pts. max.

Due April 29.

Men - bashing? Nick doesn't think so.

I’ve been thinking about the whole “how men are portrayed in the media” thing, and I don’t think that men are portrayed as bad as a lot of people think. Even though there is still that “tough guy” image that is seen in almost every movie and on many TV shows, there are plenty of regular men in the media as well. For example, even though real, masculine men aren’t supposed to cook, one of my favorite TV shows is Iron Chef—a show in which top chefs (usually men) duke it out in a kitchen, trying to defeat an Iron Chef. Also, Emeril is pretty popular (although I don’t watch him myself), and isn’t considered to be any less of a man because of his mad cooking skills.

Next, that guy on Extreme Home Makeover cries almost every show but is still respected by many people and is considered more of a man because of the things he does to help people.

There’s lots more examples of these media men who don’t fit the masculine figure that we talked about in class, but I think that there should be more so that the view of men in the media can change and young boys have more to look up to than just tough guys.

Catcher isn't all that

The book, The Catcher in the Rye, to me wasn’t that good of a book. I felt like all Holden did was explain and show how depressed he was. I think the biggest part of his depressed state was not only that Allie died, but so did his childhood. Through out the book you can tell his desperate acts of childhood. But as the book went on in Holden’s life it reveals that he actually started to get better and realized everyone has to grow up. Despite the fact that in the end Holden gets better, the book it self to me was boring. If I wanted to see or hear about depressed people I can just walk around in Groves. So then here are some questions I was wondering.

How did you feel about the book? Good or Bad?

Did you think the book was interesting or boring? Why?

Doug's questions about the Zapruder tape

All right, today we learned about the Zapruder Film in class and it was highly controversial. We all learned about how he was filming JFK as he was riding down a street in Texas. He also got on the tape the assassination of JFK. We were undecided today in class whether or not the film should have been distributed so that the American people could view it. I personally think that it should have never been shown to anyone other than the police force looking into his death. Why would the American people want to watch as their president’s brains got blown out? So I ask you:
1. Was it a violation of the Kennedy’s privacy? Would his wife and children want to watch it and would they want other people to see it?
2. Was it right of the Zapruder family to sell copies to a television company, in exchange of lots of money, who showed it on air?
3. If you were in Zapruder’s shoes would you keep the tape and just show the FBI or would you unleash it to the public? Why?

A link to the history of the Zapruder film: http://www.jfk.org/Research/Zapruder/Zapruder_Film_Chrono.htm
The film ownership still resides within the National Archives but the Zapruder family was compensated with $16 million dollars by the gov't. for the confiscation of the film.

Zapruder film: historical artifact, exploitation, or private moment?

In my opinion, I think that the JFK assasination tape should be sold because he was our President and it affects the people as well as his family. Part of becoming the president is dealing with all the public attention and when something happens of course the public is going to find out and want to know what happened. For example the press and people were in Clinton's business when he supposidly cheated with Monica. In my opinion, I think that it should be shared with the people because he was our president. What do you think about it?

Bob

Editor's Note: This is in regards to our conversation about the Abraham Zapruder film, the infamous JFK assassination video tape that has been available for purchase since 1998.

Different Views of President Kennedy

After reading and listening to the different views of President Kennedy's life as seen through different biographers' eyes, it's time for your opinion/assessment.

John Kennedy's biographers are usually broken into two groups: one group works to reinforce the image of Kennedy as icon, as the ideal president. They tend to gloss over the difficult stuff in his life with the idea that it's not important to know that kind of info about him. These biographers also stress his good qualities and downplay his bad qualities.

The second group of biographers are iconoclasts; they are trying to poke holes in the JFK myth by finding evidence to refute many of the cherished (and false) stories about the Kennedy family, clan, and presidency. These biographers are like realist authors - they give you the gritty details of a person's life; the fact that this person was the president doesn't seem to phase them.

The American people have consistently voted JFK (along with Lincoln) as their greatest American President, yet historians have given him the title "Most Overrated" in American Heritage magazine. When looking at his Congressional record, he didn't do much. Almost the same thing can be said for his Presidential record; how significant were the Peace Corps and the race to the moon in the long run?

Your job: answer the following questions

1. Share your assessment of the man and his job as president. Explain your reasoning.
2. Where should biographers draw the line on their subjects? How much is too much and how little is too little? It really boils down to what the main job of a biographer is.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page Great link to a tribute website to a JFK archivist, Mary Ferrell.

Invasion of Privacy? Not Really.

So last week we had a good point come up in class.
Are our teachers and school board becoming too involved in our after school activities and hang outs? By this I mean having meetings during x-block and such and showing to the rest of the teachers students MySpace and Face-Book pages at our school. From here they show some of the somewhat innapropriate pictures or links kids may have on there website. From here they contact the student and he or she must pay certain concequences. What do others think about this?
Should teachers be spying on kids to see what information they choose to display? I mean what there basically doing is just searching to get kids into trouble. This also relates with Bush and his recent wiretaps and the invasion of our privacy of the people. The Fourth Amendment declares that the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." I believe that even in a time when terrorists are at bay, Bush has no right to invade our privacy and tap phone lines, read your messages, or doing anything without a warrant or evidence to search threw your belongings. What do others feel about this and is our school doing somewhat the same?

~ Q

Editorial Reply: After consulting with administration, I wanted to make sure this post got put on the website to clear up some misconceptions about MySpace and Face-Book and the staff's alleged involvement. No one at Groves High School or in the district is searching these or any other similar kinds of websites to entrap kids using their own words and pictures. Some of the teachers and administrators were made aware of issues concerning MySpace and Face-Book when we read a few articles about some of the privacy issues and ramifications of posting private material in public spaces.

Here's one from USA Today, March 8, 2006.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/internetprivacy/2006-03-08-facebook-myspace_x.htm?POE=click-refer
Here's another one from the Free Press:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060306/NEWS05/603060326&template=printart

Teachers were made aware of these sites; they were not shown Groves' students sites, to the best of my knowledge. This is a raising awareness issue, not just for teachers, but for parents as well. Truthfully, we've got too much to do to be wasting our time trying to catch students online doing things they shouldn't be doing. It's my sincere hope that my students aren't doing anything they shouldn't. But it's their parents' job to keep an eye on them outside of school, not mine.

Thoughts on "Good Night and Good Luck"

Good Night, And Good Luck was not at all what I was expecting. Being an Oscar nominee, I thought it was going to be really good and interesting, but it's not the kind of movie that explains events that may be unfamiliar to some people. Towards the end, I was finally getting the idea of the whole movie and then it just ended. To really understand it, I think I would have to watch it again or maybe even two more times- not something I want to do. Another thing I didn't like about it was that it was black and white. I know they were just trying to make it look older so that people could get the feel of it, but for me, black and white movies are too distracting and take away from actually watching the movie. Color would have been much better.
Anyone agree or disagree?

~deenagh

Changing Ideas about the Hiroshima

Atomic Bomb

We have gone over many times in class the atomic bomb. In the beginning I thought it was a good idea. I felt that we needed to get back on Japan and teach them a lesson. However, after reading Hiroshima my views on the atomic bomb have definitely changed. I believe that there were other ways to end the war, and taking drastic measures is not the best way to end even the harshest situations. One thing that affected my view on the bomb is that it had a long-term effect on everyone who was hit. People still had lasting effects years and years later. Whether it was physical or mental the atomic bomb never quite left each Hibakusha. I was surprised to hear that even babies that weren’t born yet came out with many disabilities.
After reading Hiroshima, what were your views of the atomic bomb?
Would you have decided to drop it?
What other options would you do instead?

Murrow's quotes applied to today?

Choose three statements – one from each speech – and discuss how each of your statements can be applied to our world and the political or social situations today.

" No one familiar with the history of this country can deny that congressional committees are useful. It is necessary to investigate before legislating, but the line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one and the junior Senator from Wisconsin has stepped over it repeatedly. His primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind, as between the internal and the external threats of Communism. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine; and remember that we are not descended from fearful men. Not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular.

This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy's methods to keep silent, or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of a republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn't create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it — and rather successfully. Cassius was right. "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves." Good night, and good luck."

– See it Now broadcast, March 9 1954


If we confuse dissent with disloyalty — if we deny the right of the individual to be wrong, unpopular, eccentric or unorthodox — if we deny the essence of racial equality then hundreds of millions in Asia and Africa who are shopping about for a new allegiance will conclude that we are concerned to defend a myth and our present privileged status. Every act that denies or limits the freedom of the individual in this country costs us the . . . confidence of men and women who aspire to that freedom and independence of which we speak and for which our ancestors fought."

– Ford Fiftieth Anniversary Show, CBS and NBC, June 1953


“We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent. We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.

Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live. I invite your attention to the television schedules of all networks between the hours of 8 and 11 p.m., Eastern Time. Here you will find only fleeting and spasmodic reference to the fact that this nation is in mortal danger. There are, it is true, occasional informative programs presented in that intellectual ghetto on Sunday afternoons. But during the daily peak viewing periods, television in the main insulates us from the realities of the world in which we live. If this state of affairs continues, we may alter an advertising slogan to read: LOOK NOW, PAY LATER.

For surely we shall pay for using this most powerful instrument of communication to insulate the citizenry from the hard and demanding realities which must be faced if we are to survive. I mean the word survive literally. If there were to be a competition in indifference, or perhaps in insulation from reality, then Nero and his fiddle, Chamberlain and his umbrella, could not find a place on an early afternoon sustaining show. If Hollywood were to run out of Indians, the program schedules would be mangled beyond all recognition. Then some courageous soul with a small budget might be able to do a documentary telling what, in fact, we have done--and are still doing--to the Indians in this country. But that would be unpleasant. And we must at all costs shield the sensitive citizens from anything that is unpleasant.

I am entirely persuaded that the American public is more reasonable, restrained and more mature than most of our industry's program planners believe. Their fear of controversy is not warranted by the evidence. I have reason to know, as do many of you, that when the evidence on a controversial subject is fairly and calmly presented, the public recognizes it for what it is--an effort to illuminate rather than to agitate.

I do not advocate that we turn television into a 27-inch wailing wall, where longhairs constantly moan about the state of our culture and our defense. But I would just like to see it reflect occasionally the hard, unyielding realities of the world in which we live. I would like to see it done inside the existing framework, and I would like to see the doing of it redound to the credit of those who finance and program it. Measure the results by Nielsen, Trendex or Silex-it doesn't matter. The main thing is to try. The responsibility can be easily placed, in spite of all the mouthings about giving the public what it wants. It rests on big business, and on big television, and it rests at the top. Responsibility is not something that can be assigned or delegated. And it promises its own reward: good business and good television.

To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost.
This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful.

Speech at Radio-Television News Directors Association, Chicago, October 15, 1958.

The Legality of Wiretapping

I believe that tapping of our email and phone calls are necessary, but have gone way overboard. They most they should be able to do is have a search bar. They should just search words like; bomb, terrorist, and other terms having to do with acts of terrorism. They shouldn’t have the right to look in every single email in detail and “find” something else. Their searches need to be limited greatly. If they continue this it will become an even bigger problem, and with people talking about invasion of privacy and for just the people who don’t want the government snooping around their personal business. Listening to our calls shouldn’t happen unless the person is being suspected for something. Just peeking in on calls is wrong. They should have to have a reason or a warrant or anything that has legal permission instead of just being above the law. I think this needs to be stopped, and soon.

Do you think this is right? Or have they gone passed the line?
Is it possible to make this situation work? Or is it just not worth trying to stop them?

David

"We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home" - Edward R. Murrow

Thoughts on Intervention in Darfur

Hey everyone!

Recently we have been learning about Darfur. As we learned about it, it reminded me of Rwanda and the Holocaust. In these genocides, the American government (along with the UN and other countries) hasn't done anything to help until the very end. Even though Darfur hasn't asked for help doesn't mean that we shouldn't do anything anyway.

So my questions are,
1. Do you think that the government will do something about Darfur? And what?
2. What would the economic effects be, here at home along with the war in Iraq?

Leave your thoughts
Maggie

Questions on the Cold War?

This week in Excel, we are talking a lot about the Cold War and the arms race. First of all, I think this is the stupidest war ever, it shouldn't even be considered a war. There is no actual fighting going on, its all about whos got better stuff. It's very childish, what is the point of building all these nuclear weapons, other than pure intimidation. I think that the United States should have dropped a couple of its bombs on Russia, that would have spiced things up a bit...but otherwise, it's a pretty boring "war". I also think that Russia is just a bunch of copy cats. Couldn't they think of something a little more original instead of copying the Atomic bomb and the Hydrogen bomb? Bunch of wusses if you ask me... And I figure since other people ask questions in these posts, I should probably do a couple myself.

1. What do you think of the idea of dropping some bombs on Russia?
2. Do you think that the world needed the Hydrogen bomb, OR the Atomic bomb?
And Finally
3. Do you think that the Cold War should have even been considered a war?

Fish

Darfur Awareness Day

As a connection with the book, Night, that we read earlier this semester, we participated in our school's Darfur Awareness Day. The students worked together in pairs or in 3s to educate the students at Groves during a 45 minute session in between shortened 1st and 2nd hours. The session consisted of a 7 minute video from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Center on Darfur, Sudan and the genocide going on there. Then the Excel guys and gals provided the students with more info and led them through an activity used to test their hidden biases. It was hoped that by being aware of our own hidden biases, we might be able to understand ourselves a little better. Also, we can challenge our government to step up to the plate and get involved in stopping the genocide - if we realize what's holding us back from helping the Sudanese, maybe we can channel our energy in a more positive direction.

Recently, the U.S. Senate unanimously agreed that President Bush should act immediately to stop the genocide going on in Darfur. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/03/03/sudan.congress.reut/index.html?section=cnn_latest And in late February, President Bush stated that the U.S. and its allies need to take on a larger role for Darfur and hopefully end the genocide. He felt that the U.N. forces needed to be doubled and that a NATO force should also be deployed.
http://www.twincities.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/13902286.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_world

Places where you can speak out and make a difference are:
www.millionvoicesfordarfur.org and www.genocideintervention.net
Thanks.

Geoff Wickersham

What rights would you give up?

We all know of the right to assembly, the freedom of press, and freedom of speech. These are some of the rights we are all born with. But let's say that the United States suddenly becomes this strange form of government and we all had to give up two rights. What would you give up? I would give up the right to bear arms and not letting soldiers stay in my house. I would give up the right to bear arms because guns don't solve anything. Also, if no one had guns, I think the crime rates would go down too. I would give up the right to not let soldiers stay in our homes because I think we need to be more friendly and helpful. If the soldier doesn't have a place to stay, it is our duty as Americans to help one another out. So now I pose the question to you. What rights would you give up?

Mike

Editor's note: Mike's post is in response to a discussion we had comparing the McCarthy era and its hunt for Communists to today's post-9/11/01 era of heightened security, Patriot Acts, and Presidential wiretaps. I posed the same question to them, and Mike's put a little twist on it.

Also, congrats to the Groves' Boys Team for Three-peating this Saturday. Mike, AJ, Q, Alex, way to go, guys! http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060312/SPORTS05/603120328/1049

Hiroshima? Revenge?

Hey Excel... and happy birthday, Hannah, i'm one day older than you (my birthday was yesturday)!
Anyway...this week in class we watched the video Hiroshima and i'm going to post my reflections on it.
When the Japanese bombed us at Pearl Harbor, it was tragic and a lot of people died in terrible ways, so then we decide it time for revenge and we started making this humongous atomic bomb (actually 2 humongous bombs) which contains chemicals that burn into your skin. We dropped the first bomb in Hiroshima, and as we saw in the video this lady got her one leg burned off with the contaminated "rain drops," and people were burning everywhere. The US had so much hatred towards the Japanese that they did not realize that they were doing the same thing that the Japanese did to us but worse. The men in the US navy were talking about how they wanted to wipe out all of the Japanese. And the guy who was on the plane when the bomb was dropped said that he took a nap and had a sandwich afterwards, he was acting as if he just saved thousands of people insted of suffering them to death. I understand that they are so mad about Pearl Harbor and the deaths of so many Americans, but did the revenge have to be this bad? Do you think its human to kill all these people in this terrible way...and be happy about it?

neha

Your thoughts on Axis and Allies?

Hey Excel! Here are my thoughts about the game "Axis and Allies." I really liked how we got to take a break from the norm, and play a game! at first i tought it was going to be a fun quick game.. SOOO WRONG! on the box it said it was for ages 8+!!! if i was playing this and i was 8, i would kill myself! i am still confused! I think if we play it a second time it will be easier. Even though i cuoldnt tell you the first thing about how to play this game, i still learned some stuff. I learned that there is a lot of stratagie involved in war.. even if it is just a game. If you make one little mistake, that can open the playing field for many attacks! I also learned that the BRITISH KICKED BUTT!

Aside from that...here is my question. What courntry do you think played the best and should be crowned the winner of the game? You cant say your country unless you REALLy think they played better then everyone else. I am putting my chips on the Soviet Union because they played very smart and with a great deal of intellegence.

Much love for EXCEL 10 '05/'06,

Joslyn on Being Black in America Back in the Day

Thoughts on Black Boy

On page 313, Wright talks about how he feels being black in the society
he is living in. It explains how blacks and whites, although have
different skin color, still have the same dreams, same thoughts, same
hopes and goals. He says that just because he his black, he has to hold
back his dreams, and hopes for something better. He says," Like any
other American, I dreamed of going to business and making money; I
dreamed of working for a firm that would allow me to advance until I
reached an important position;....Yet I knew-with the part of my mind
that whites had given me-that none of my dreams were possible."

When reading that, I had to stop for a second and try to imagine what he was
trying to say. I came to a final thought that made me upset, that just
because he was a different color he had to give up everything. To have
people put down people to the point where they cannot even believe in
themselves anymore is injustice. I will never know what he had to go
through, and how hurt he was by the fact, that he felt he could never
amount up to anything, but I tried to see the message he wanted to get
across, and it made me upset that people could be like that.

These are my thoughts on the topic, maybe you guys can tell me what you think?
Joslyn

What did FDR know? What did Bush know?

Hey Excelers...
I've got something for us to talk about.
As we enter the exciting world of World War II, there are some questions that seem to stand out to me. We threw around the thought that FDR might have known about Pearl Harbor before it happened. It is possible that he was waiting for something like this to happen for America to enter the World War. Before the date of December 7th, 1941 FDR had meetings with other Allied leaders and America was assisting them with war supplies.

We also talked about the similarities and differences to Pearl Harbor and September 11th. I have heard rumors that President Bush first found out about September 11th sometime in August. This is a similarity to Pearl Harbor, because maybe he was looking for a reason to start a war or terror. Do you think that there are other similarites and differences that maybe we missed in class? Let me know that your thinking....~Alyssa

Editor's note: President Bush received a Presidential Daily Briefing on August 6, 2001 entitled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in U.S." while at the Crawford ranch. He was briefed that Osama wanted to strike somewhere inside America but nothing specific was given. Bin Ladin has attempted to strike the U.S. in response to our missile attacks on his Afghani bases in 1998 (which were retaliatory strikes for two bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania). The foiled millenium bombing plot was Bin Ladin's first major attempt to strike inside the U.S.

Here's a link to the declassified PDB from 8-6-01. http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/80601pdb.pdf
Hopefully this will dispell any rumors.

Paris on Pearl Harbor

After watching the movie, Pearl Harbor, I thought that I would share mythoughts on it. I have never seen the movie Pearl Harbor before and I didn't really know what specifically happened at Pearl Harbor. I thought that the movie showed how organized the Japanese were and how hard itwas for the army to fight back. We talked about how America was in shock because we were playing defense instead of offense. Another factor that made it worse was that all of the ships and everything was in the same area. The movie did a good job in showing how many men were being killed and how crazy it was when they were being attacked.

Do you think that the war would have been different if the army hadn't put all of the ships and everything in the same place? Or if the American government had planned an attack before the bombing? For the first time watching this movie, I thought that it had a big impact on me and it helped me understand how horrible it was.
-Paris

Racism in Black Boy

We havent really talked about Black Boy that much in class so i thought i would give some of my opinions on the theme that Wright is trying toportray. I think the obvious theme that is talked about a lot is racism.The book is called Black Boy for a reason. The book just dosn't talk about racism as a belief but also as a problem in the community as well. Wright wrote this because he wanted to write about the world of blacks that was around him and make it into a character such as Richard to live through the effects of racism. Whites shut Richard down in the book because he's black, so it prevents him from acting normally around the whites that do treat him well. I think this is a huge resemblence of how our society is today in some ways. This is a very hard topic to talk about for some people but i think i does need to be thought out more of how racism was viewed in the book. So, these are some of my thoughts on the major theme that is expressed through Black Boy. Let me know what you guys think about this, or even how racism has had an effect similiar to what it was in Black Boy.

thanks-emily

Which would be worse in Night?

I thought that we brought up some really interesting topics about Night in class, but I was really interested to hear more. I really liked hearing your insight about how you guys thought you would have fared at Auschwitz. I know that I would not have survived very long. Seeing my family taken away from me would be so incredibly hard for me, that I would probably lose any will to live. Without my family, I wouldn't have anything to live for, and in a place like Auschwitz, one will die unless they have a clear goal to keep them going. What about you guys?
That ties in to another conversation we had: Which would be the worst: separation from family, lack of comfort, seeing death every day, or endless brutality/beatings? A lot of people were split between separation from family and seeing death every day. I was interested to hear what more people thought about it. I know that separation from family would be the worst for me, as I could cope with the other issues as long as I had a family to comfort me and to live for. However, being entirely alone in such a scary place would be far worse for me than seeing strangers die: I think I would become numb/indifferent to the death and the beatings after a period of time. What do you guys think???

-Ellie