Why I No Longer Need to be Told to Be an Empowered Woman

Yesterday morning the president of The White House Project came to talk to my school.  Before I get in to talking about the actual assembly, disclaimers need to be made...

• I am not anti-woman, but I am by no means a feminist.  
• I have seen way too many of these "be an empowered woman" assemblies for them to make me feel anything but cynical.
• I think this project does great work for women who need it.  The girls of Greenwich Academy do not need it.

Disclaimers accepted?  Good.  Let's move on. (profanity exists on occasion below)

I take serious issue with listening to women talk to girls about being empowered when they grow up.  Not only does it presuppose that we need empowering, but I really feel like it also, in a reverse psychology kind of way, tells us that we need to fight.  I believe in equality for everyone (in the modern era, I interpret "All men are created equal" to mean all people), but I am really tired of hearing that I need to be a conniving bitch to get that equality (and that the equality needs getting in the first place).  Additionally, I'm tired of being told that the only way for me to show that I am an empowered woman is for me to run for office or be in a position of leadership in the workplace.  I respect our speaker yesterday for mentioning that we need more women in academia, but I still feel like these speeches force me into visible positions in the world.  There is nothing wrong with being a stay-at-home mom, in fact it's incredibly difficult to be a mother.  I resent the fact that we are told that being a stay-at-home mom isn't good enough.  On the flip side, I remember a few years ago I saw a dance project about mothers.  The thesis of the project was that mothers can be anything but that "anything" was defined as various kinds of home makers.  That I don't agree with.

All in all I respect the message of the assembly: don't just say, do.  The White House Project proposes to bring women out from behind the scenes into the foreground.  I totally respect that.  However, I had a question about Ms. Dufu's anti-lobbying message.  She says that we shouldn't lobby for our rights, we should get ourselves elected so that we can get done what needs to get done on our political agendas.  So I ask her this:

• Have you ever run for anything?

Exactly.

(Communist) Party Rock Anthem

I believe it is an accepted fact that nothing productive is accomplished on the last day of a MUN conference.  And if it isn't it should be.

Sunday marked the last day of PMUNC 2011, and the Politburo of the USSR marked it well with an execution, an invasion, superlatives, dirty MUN puns, and "In Soviet Russia..." jokes.  Comrade Voroshilov was accused of and promptly executed for: "shaving off the wise, glorious facial hair of Comrade Stalin while he was in a wise, glorious, illustrious, and patriotic drunken stupor; telling the entire Leningrad district that he does in fact feel pretty; conspiring to slowly poison the committee with the sound of his voice; defacing the body of glorious Comrade Lenin in unspeakable ways; and replacing all the signs in the Moscow District that say CCCP with a crudely drawn CCCPenis".  We invaded ECOFIN and brought the same charges against them.  Superlatives were granted for "Most Likely to Go to Jail", "Most Likely to Be an Informant" (all of us; we're soviets), "Best Facial Hair", "Best Actual Communist", and "Best James Franco Look Alike".  To assuage your concerns, none of these were granted to me personally, but we all had a good time laughing about what a great time we had.  But my favorite part of Sunday was definitely the dirty MUN puns.  One of my friends has an axiom, "All jocks think about is sports; all nerds think about is sex" and no where is that more evident than at a Model UN Conference.  Admittedly, parliamentary procedure lends itself to dirty puns ("Motion to table the chair" or anything involving the word "caucus"), but what surprised me the first time I went to a MUN conference was how easily the United Nations itself lends itself to dirty jokes ("For a third world country, you're awfully developed" or anything involving the country "Djibouti").  Long story short, Model UN is awesome.

But on a serious note, I think Model UN is a quality exercise.  I not only enjoy myself while there, I enjoy doing the research for my committees.  Writing a position paper is an onerous exercise, but you are forced to learn about a new angle of historical or modern international relations.  And I find it interesting.  I really wish my delegation went to more of these events, because I would go to as many of them as I could.  If any of you reading know of any conferences that are still open for registration, please let me know in the comments, because I am currently trying to figure out if I can attend more as an independent delegate.  Even if it's for next year, I'd love to begin figuring things out!

Solving the Korean War

Saturday's PMUNC sessions involved settling our second major question: Soviet Involvement in the Korean War.  Admittedly the people on my committee were less interesting in this question than in the German Division question, but I think the Korean Conflict turned out to be quite interesting.
We began the session in October 1950 as the UN coalition forces bear down on the Yalu River.  These UN Coalition forces (from our perspective) threaten the sovereignty of two communist nations (North Korea and China) and have demonstrated capitalist imperialism by over reaching their assigned mission by making incursions into North Korea instead of simply defending South Korea.  To be honest, I'm beginning to think the historical committees are designed to make the delegates appreciate what good decisions were made in the past; as our crises played out, we found ourselves adhering more and more to the course of the actual conflict.  Of course we weren't perfectly historically accurate, but we came pretty damn close.  We began by resolving to send overt humanitarian aid and covert military aid to both the Chinese and North Korean armies and asserting the rights of Communist Nations (simply put, they have the right to exist and other communist nations have the right to defend them).  Then one of our planes got shot down.  A few press releases later, we get word that the Americans are positioning nuclear warheads in the Yellow Sea to bomb China and North Korea and the Chinese forces have simply attacked the Americans (sorry, UN coalition forces) without any directive from Moscow or even close to enough equipment.  We drafted some more press releases, positioned our troops in Eastern Russia in the event of an attack on our sovereign territory (that was a directive I sponsored with the delegate who played Marshal Zhukov) and drafted a peace treaty between the Americans and the Chinese.  Long story short, we narrowly avoided nuclear war.  We also drafted what would have been a precursor to the Warsaw Pact if it had happened in real time.  The document created an economic union between soviet nations and created a mutual defence clause.  This all happened in the space of seven hours.  If that's not enough reason to put Model UN kids in charge of the real world, I don't know what is.

All in all, I had a great time at this conference.  I was originally unsure about it (and by unsure I mean less than excited), but it really turned out to be a great time.  As we say on committee: "Long Live Brosef Stalin, wise, illustrious, glorious, and patriotic leader of the Broviet Union!"

Welcome to PMUNC

As of last night, I am Nikolai Bulganin on the Politburo of the USSR, 1945. Why? you may ask. Because I am a member of the Greenwich Academy delegation at the Princeton Model UN Conference. Just when you thought I couldn't get any nerdier, you find out I'm a Model Government kid. In my defense, I am no where near as intense as some of the other kids. I thought my binder was good, but some kids have 3 1/2 inch binders that legitimately don't close.  But enough about Model Government kids, lets talk about historical international relations!
My committee this year is the Politburo of the USSR, so all the delegates are different members of the main policy making body of the  Soviet Union.  I'm pretty sure the only downside of being on this committee is having to memorize multisylabic russian names.  As of our fourth committee meeting we have resolved our first crisis topic: policy making regarding post-Nazi Germany at the Yalta Conference. One thing that's really cool about historical committees is the ability to correct the mistakes of the past. Of course that's not to say that we have, but having the knowledge that we can is really cool.  I think my committee this year strikes an interesting balance between historical accuracy and fantasy.  We all represent different soviet Russians and we (for the most part) portray them with historical accuracy, but we have to respond to fictional crises.  Today, we were threatened by an Allied that to invade the motherland (which was later discovered to be a bluff) and a Japanese attack on Soviet territory near Vladivostok. Both were dealt with quickly and efficiently. So efficiently that we had time to draft and pass a treaty regarding the division and governance/management of postwar Germany as well a the extraction of reparations from German territories.  In the midst of all this directive passing, three of our number were sent to the gulag and two executed.  It's been a busy day.  Personally, I'm very impressed and happy with our plan for reparations; I think it's comprehensive and effective. I have some reservations regarding the way our treaty divided up Germany, but that's mostly because the plan I sponsored with Korotchenko which comprehensively went through Germany province by province and divided it between the Allied powers didn't get passed. I think the one we did pass is too general.
All in all, I'm really happy with what has gone down already in my committee.  I'll do my best to keep y'all updated, but I'm currently blogging from my phone because I'm too cheap to pay for internet.  Tomorrow we begin our next topic: how to handle Soviet involvement in the Korean conflict. Can't wait!

Venus in Fur

I do not generally make it a habit of buying scripts or books for the productions I see.  Those who know me know that I collect posters as visual reminders of these productions (unless they're really bad), but scripts are another thing.  I buy scripts when I think I have missed something in the sheer density, intensity, and rapture of seeing a production.  David Ives' Venus in Fur is one of those productions.
It's described as "A Power Play" and I think that is one of the most perfectly accurate descriptions of a show I have ever read.  It centers on the audition interaction of Vanda and Thomas as she auditions for the female part in his adaptation of Sader-Masoch's Venus in Furs.  The book itself is also hard to describe, but suffice it to say that the term "Sado-Masochism" comes from this author's name.  Of course that statement suggests that the play (and the play-within-the-play) is SM porn, as the character Vanda suggests.  It's not. It's so much more than that.  The only way to describe it it's as a power play, a play about power. 
I don't really want to say any more than that because, in my mind, part of the joy of the show it not knowing what to expect; but I will direct you to "Did He Like It?" . It says everything I want to.

On Being a Hipster and Coherent Shakespeare

I never thought I would say this, but I have genuinely liked a slightly abridged, American production of Shakespeare.  This past weekend I headed into Greenwich Village to see Fiasco Theater and Theater for a New Audience's production of Cymbeline and it was really good.

Of course, going into Greenwich Village, one cannot help but feel like a hipster.  The streets are lined with establishments of nonconformity.  And it turns out that hipsters travel in packs.  This I did not know. But lo and behold, I saw packs of 20-somethings cultivating their looks of disdain at the likes of you and I and their carefully chosen ensembles, designed to look like they were not quite so carefully chosen.  But I really can't mock.  I'm something of a hipster myself.  In any event, I had a delicious (probably fair trade and organic) lunch at a tiny little cafe and headed off to the Barrow Street Theater.
This Cymbeline will probably be the only Cymbeline I ever see.  It is very rarely produced and probably, rightly so.  It's called a problem play with good reason.  Every trope that Shakespeare ever used or created is in this show.  And that's not a criticism; Shakespeare was a great writer and knew how to use them properly.  However the plot of Cymbeline is so complicated that it is even a bit of a headache for the most dedicated of Shakespeare fans. Which is why I'm kind of glad they abridged this.  Which is not to say it was any shorter than your average Shakespeare fare, the Fiasco Theater company simply, judiciously took out some of the less relevant side plots.  This rendered the play far more enjoyable and much easier to understand.  Nor did they try to set it too complicatedly.  The set consisted of a sheet, two boxes, and a trunk, and it was perfectly done.  This minimalist staging framed the show without overwhelming it or rendering it incomprehensible as many productions seem to do.  They also set music to the show, which is something I greatly believe in.  I'm not calling for musical versions of every Shakespeare drama - that would be ridiculous, excessive, and silly - but they were originally performed with music incorporated into the transitions and when modern companies do it right I think it adds a lot to the performance.  It really was a wonderfully comprehensible production of an incredibly complicated play and I really encourage y'all to get tickets.

If I haven't sold you, let Ben Brantley of The New York Times help.  There are two reviews there; one is from the original production from earlier this year and the other is for the one that's currently on.  They're the same production, just in different locations

By Providence, I Find Myself in Providence

Continuing my saga of college visits, this weekend I found myself on the campus of Brown University.  Beyond that, I find myself lacking for words.  The thing is, and it pains me to say this, I didn't really like it.  Some of that may have something to do with the fact that I had the weirdest campus tour ever (more on that later), but I generally didn't get good vibes from the campus.  And it feels awful to say that because I really wanted to like the campus.  Brown has a really good Religious Studies program, and that is something that I am definitely interested in studying (my plan is a double major in RS and IR, and then go into international law if that makes any sense) so I was really hoping to like it. In any event, the campus itself was a little odd.  The students seemed all too focused; people didn't say "Hi!" to each other the way I've seen on other campuses.  It really gave the campus a cold, forbidding feel.  The architecture itself was odd too.  Most campus have one or two requisite modern monstrosities, but, generally speaking, they have a kind of look to which even new buildings conform in the general sense.  This is not so at Brown.  I wish I had pictures because all this would make so much more sense with them, but Brown's campus does not have a contiguous look and it lends a disconcerting sense of being lost to waking through the campus.  It's hard to tell where the campus begins and ends because it looks like a random collection of buildings.  I suppose it fits in with Providence the city, but it doesn't feel unified.

The campus tour matched this disconcerting sense of being lost too.  Our tour guide almost didn't seem to go to Brown.  Most tour guides will intersperse the fact based portion of their tour with personal anecdotes to make the tour seem interesting and to lend a sense of what it's actually like to attend their university.  Our guide did none of that.  Sure he threw in some interesting stories about the history of Brown, but I didn't here him tell one story about his personal experience attending his university.  He seemed apathetic and like he too was visiting the campus.  Additionally, he managed to go through the entire tour without mentioning athletics or student social life more than to acknowledge their mere existence.  Now I am by no means an athlete (in spring and fall I dance and in winter I am the captain of the Brunswick Girls Fencing team of which I am the only member), but I still like hearing about the existence of that kind of stuff.  I'm not going to join a team, but I plan on attending games to support my school.  And of course, there must have been other people on that tour who would be interested in playing sports.  Likewise, based on that tour, I have no idea what the social life of the average student is like.  I'm not talking about parties (although that would be good to know about), just basic social interactions.  I know I need a college where there is an active social scene on campus, i.e. the student body doesn't disperse into the city to entertain itself, otherwise I won't make friends.  And I'd like to make friends.  All of this is really tied into the fact that I don't think our tour guide used a single "I statement" in the entire tour, but I think the thing about the athletics and the social scene is especially weird.

All in all, I can't recommend Brown for myself.  Even setting aside the weird tour, it was objectively a little strange and just not for me.  But I have heard wonderful things about Brown from other people, so you really should go check it out for yourself.

Welcome to the Philosophy Club!

Wednesday the 28th saw the first proper meeting of the Brunswick/GA Philosophy club and it was certainly interesting.

We started out with discussing whether the mind is separate from the body, which is an interesting idea from the perspective that it, unlike many philosophical questions, seems to have an easy answer.  Yes; the brain is connected to the rest of the body.  Our biological functions wouldn't work otherwise.  But that's the brain.  What about the mind?  That's the interesting question.  Of course you have to pose the question: what is the mind?  For our purposes, we defined the mind to be the sum of our perceptions and higher cognitive though.  Our emotions and what we see.  Descartes would posit that they are separate.  This speaks to the ideal that we have a soul which is not a physical part of our "biological" body.  He distinguished the soul as the seat of self awareness and consciousness and the brain as the seat of intelligence.  The Mechanist point of view posits that the mind and the body are one, contiguous thing with consciousness and intelligence existing together in the brain.  For the Mechanist position, one member of the club brought up a scientific experiment by which scientists connected a subject's brain to a neuroimaging device which allows them to see a rough outline of anything the subject looks at constantly in another room.  This experiment speaks to the idea that the brain and the mind are one; there must be electrical impulse to render for the image to be present.  This image of perception is not a concrete part of a person's intelligence, which indicates that perception, or the mind, coexists with the brain.  If you can create images of the "soul" from measuring the impulses of the brain, they must be in someway connected.

As our hour of discussion went on, our talk of perception and understanding led one of our number to bring up the idea of theodicy.  One of the more common metaphors for the theodicy idea is that of the stool.  I found this image which explains the idea pretty well:

Photo Credit: http://unreasonablefaith.com/2011/07/02/theodicy-and-the-three-legged-stool/

According to this idea, humanity is presented with three options regarding the nature of any conceivable god:

• Break the benevolence leg: God is kind of a dick
• Break the omnipotence leg: God can't control everything simply because He does not have the power to
• Break the omniscience leg: God has other things on his mind

This seems to be the only way to justify the existence of God in a world with suffering.  Central to the idea is: If there are atheists in the world, God must be imperfect; and if God is imperfect He can't really be "God" with the understanding that "God" is defined to be the most supreme, perfect being in all the universe.  This is not to say that a specific god can't be imperfect (look at the Greek Pantheon, that's about the most imperfect bunch of people out there), but the general idea of "God" implies a certain amount of perfection.  "God" really has to be benevolent because all of our morals are derived from Him, which really leaves us with the idea that god is either not all powerful or not all knowing.  Which would you rather it be?

Trying to Learn a British Accent...

...is way harder than I thought.  Or more boring.  I can't decide which.  Who knew that it was so tiring for your lip muscles?  David Allen Stern Ph.D. is teaching me and I have to say it's really jarring when he switches between an English and an American accent.  I honestly can't tell if he's American or British, he's that good at both.  Although I'm pretty sure he's British; but that assessment is based entirely on the fact that his American Accent sounds a little bit too generic and the fact that he started in a British accent.  So I might be a little bit biased on this one.

Anyway rehearsals are getting off to a great start.  I think we have the groping down (almost all of the stage directions tell us to "grope" our way across the stage) and our pacing is slowly working it's way to awesome.  According to the schedule, we need to be off book by then end of next week so that should help a lot.  The show is way raunchier than I thought it was from the sides.  As our director says "There's a lot of smooching".  Demonstrative of the craziness of this play: I play a middle-aged spinster and my chest gets grabbed at one point.  As I say, it's pretty crazy.  I seriously question what scene our director will see fit to preform for Preview, since he usually chooses one of the more suggestive scenes in order to attract the teenage boy demographic.

The set hasn't been begun quite yet (although apparently we'll be able to play around on it in the black box a week from monday) but it looks pretty interesting.  It's supposed to be an apartment with the bedroom on the higher level, an offstage studio/gallery, and a sitting room where most of the action takes place.  It'll be mostly my Stage Design class that builds most of this thing, so I'm really interested to find out how we'll be executing this crazy dream of our director.

All in all, the play is shaping up to be really interesting.  I will definitely keep y'all posted as the process develops!

Art Makes You Feel Smart

I thought "The Summer Look" was a dumb idea.  Boy was I wrong.  This summer my school sent out color photocopies of Giovanni Arnolfini and his Wife and Portrait of Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier and his Wife for us to look at and ponder over the months we were not in school.  I thought this would be stupid, but the assembly in which we went over the significance of the paintings made me feel really cool.  

This is Arnolfini and his wife painted by Jan van Eyek, cool because they were painted in the early renaissance when it was still basically only the church that commissioned artwork.  Yeah, they had themselves painted before it was cool; the rest of you are just sheeple following the trend.  In any event there are some really cool little insets that you can see if you have a really high resolution version of the painting (or are looking at the original in The National Gallery), so for now you'll have to trust me on their existence.  For example the mirror in the back.  Not only is it a symbol of wealth but it also shows a perfect reflection of the characters we can see as well as the reflection of the painter and another man which really brings the viewer into the painting.  Just above that is the signature of the artist and some somewhat undetermined Latin.  It either says "Jan van Eyek was this man/one" or "Jan van Eyek was here" and it's really interesting to discuss the implications of both.  For a while art historians thought the work was a kind of self portrait, but now the popular opinion is swinging more toward the idea that the painter signed his work in the manner of bathroom wall graffiti.  
But of course I would be remiss if I were to exclude the fun with symbolism portion of art analysis.  Let's start from the top.  If you look closely at the chandelier you can see one lit candle.  It's clear that from a lighting perspective this room does not need any help; light floods through the window on the left.  If you look at the chandelier itself, it is a symbol of their wealth.  But there's more.  Some art historians have interpreted the single lit candle as signifying the presence of God (when I had to interpret it on the spot I suggested that it represented the Advent, which in retrospect is a bit of a stretch) meaning that God has approved of and blessed this event (what that event actually is I'll get to later).  The placement of the figures is also telling.  The woman, on the right, is closer to the bed and a broom, associating her with domestic duties.  The man, on the left, is closer to the window and his patten clogs (those crazy shoes in the bottom left would have gone on over his indoor shoes called poulaines whose tips were often so long they had to be held up by strings) indicating that he is a man of the world and has been outside.  Finally the little dog: adorable and a symbol of loyalty!  It's placement between the two figures indicates that there is loyalty between the man and wife.  
So what's going on in this painting?  For a while this was referred to as the "Arnolfini Wedding", indicating the idea that these two were in the process of getting married.  Now popular opinion is swinging away from that idea.  After all, why would they be getting married in a bedroom?  The most current idea is that this painting portrays Arnolfini granting his wife power of attorney.  Exciting, I know.

The second painting is a little closer to home (it's located in the Met) and is entitled Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier and His Wife. As the title indicates, the painting depicts Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier (1743–1794) and His Wife (Marie-Anne-Pierrette Paulze, 1758–1836).  Lavoisier is known as the founder of modern chemistry, not only is this a gorgeous painting but seriously significant to the history of science.     He is depicted here looking scientific in a room that is clearly not a lab.  It has been hypothesised that he is depicted penning one of his many scientific treatises, which is supported by the presence of his wife and his wife's folio on the right (she illustrated many of his publications).  This portrait, like Arnolfini up there, is a rarity for its time.  It was still uncommon for private citizens in France to commission full length portraits like this one; it was usually only royalty who commissioned such works.  Unfortunately, Lavoisier met an untimely demise at the guillotine during the French Revolution because he was a tax collector as well as a scientist and therefore a royalist.  This fact makes the painting all the more interesting to me.  Because, you see, David, the painter is very well known for this work:

His depiction of the Tennis Court Oath which created the French National Assembly after the members of the French Parliament of the Third Estate were locked out of the main Parliamentary room.  David was named a deputy of the National Convention in 1792.  So the same artist that painted the turning point in the French Revolution also painted one of the more famous royalists of the period.


Doesn't art make you feel smart!

Auditioning

This fall the Brunswick play is called "The Black Comedy" and I'm trying out.  It's been a while since I've done a school play, so this is a little weird, but I'm pretty excited about the whole thing.  I'm trying to keep things low key because I know I'll be involved in some capacity because of Stage Tech, but it would be really cool to get back on stage (I'm not going to jinx myself by expressing too much hope).   I have gotten a call back to read for the character of Miss Furnival, so I'm pretty excited about that.  I will most certainly keep you all updated on the cast and the show up until opening night.

The show looks really funny.  It's about British people and a black out with a reversed lighting scheme and.... just read the Wikipedia Article.  That's where the director got the character descriptions, so it's good enough for me.  I'll be sure to keep y'all apprised of the theatrical goings on in my life (and there will be many throughout the year) as the year picks up.

All in all it's been a pretty boring week for me.  I'll update as things get interesting as the year progresses, but right now there's not much going on.

I'll see you all around the Interweb!

Man and Boy

This Saturday my parents and I seized upon the opportunity to see Frank Langella in Man and Boy on Broadway. I know I'm blogging late, get used to it.

This play looks at the complex relationship between a corrupt financier and his estranged son who still worships him even though he won't admit it.  And man o man is the dad a jerk.  He actually uses his son as a lure to get a closeted rival to agree to a merger from which he plans to steal $6 million.  Yeah, he's a real nice guy.  But the thing is the play isn't really about that.  Which is remarkable for a play written in the early 1960s that features the casual acknowledgement of homosexuality.  It's really about what it means to grow up and the relationship between a son and a father.  Lets just say this isn't really the healthiest of father/son relationships.  At one point Gregor Antonescu (the father) tells his son's girlfriend that the most important words are about truth and falsehood and - at it's heart - his relationships with his son and to a lesser extent his bodyguard/right-hand-man revolve around the difference between sharing everything and nothing.  His relationships hinge not on love, he actually finds the love of a son dangerous to his way of life, but on his truthfulness.  All in all it was a really interesting and fantastically acted play that was remarkably topical for a play written in 1961 and set in 1930.  Stepping away from my more literary analysis, the plot is very reminiscent of the Bernie Madoff scandal.

It's worth saying that the set is really cool too.  It's set in a basement apartment in the Village and it is really realistically set.  It's built really well and it really enhances the theater-going experience.  One interesting choice the director made was to have some of the actors walk back and forth on a raised platform meant to simulate the sidewalk to create the impression that the actors were really in a city with people going about their business as a financial empire imploded beneath them.  I thought it was a really nice, subtle touch.

So all in all, I would really recommend the show to you. I think it's still in previews or at least hasn't been reviewed yet, otherwise I would share with you the views of the New York Times theater reviewers; but sadly that is not to be the case.  When the review comes out I'll post it in the comments.

An Epic Journey to Middletown CT

This afternoon GA took us on our "first college visit" to Wesleyan in Middletown CT.  I put quotes around "first college visit" because for many of my classmates it was at least their 10th.  I feel a little behind the group having only visited two so far.  For Dartmouth, it was love at first sight.  For Wesleyan, it was most certainly not.  Which is not to say it was a bad school, it's not; it's just definitely not for me.  To me the atmosphere seemed dead.  The buildings either looked like they were rotting or like they were tombs.  We had our information session in the main, formal auditorium, and the thing was a soaring, concrete casket.  It was legitimately unfinished concrete on the inside.  I honestly don't want to live in a decaying seventies inspired housing block, I don't want to learn in a wilting colonial house, and I don't feel creatively inspired in an enormous, concrete coffin.

I did like their study abroad programs (they told one anecdote about a student who successfully petitioned the administration to give them funding to study abroad in Antarctica) but it did seem a bit like they were trying a bit too hard.  They bragged about their interlibrary loan program with Middlebury and another similar school whose name escapes me which I couldn't help comparing to the Ivy League interlibrary loan program which has so many volumes in it that if you tell a professor that you couldn't find a book you're statistically wrong.  Wesleyan is very strong in the sciences and music departments and those are two facts they very much like to talk about.  I found it straight up strange that my tour guide barely mentioned the humanities in depth.  I'm used to having to ask about the Religious Studies Department but I'm not used to having to ask about the Humanities in general.  Maybe it was just my tour guide, but I really thought it was strange.  In all honesty I didn't think my tour guide was that great.  He didn't walk and talk to the group; he really just led us to different talking points and he really stuck to those talking points, barely straying for funny anecdotes to endear us to the school.  The whole experience felt very perfunctory and staged and the school made a less than positive impression on me.

I never thought I would be applying to Wesleyan, and that thought has certainly been solidified for me.  I'm sure it was great for some of my classmates, but it's just not me.  Put it to you this way: it has a Division III athletics department and the Division III spirit leaks out of the athletic complex and permeates the campus.  There's a lot to be said for the Division I spirit.  Even for a non-Athlete like myself.

American Jobs in a Global Market

I've just finished watching our President present to congress "The American Jobs Act" and it was certainly interesting. Towards the end I got the sense that President Obama was an exasperated father trying to tell his kids to stop fighting. Which is true, he is in a way Congress's dad. Overall, I thought it was really well structured as an appeal to the American in all of us and, as always, President Obama is an excellent speaker.

Anyway, out of his many messages (the one I think most often iterated being that congress should pass this bill now) the one I picked up on was his repeated stressing of the fact that this bill should be an amalgamation of programs supported by both Democrats and Republicans. But not, and this is in my words, by the crazy ones. The President supported cuts to superfluous spending, but not as the only way to solve our problems. He pitched his program as a balanced combination of spending cuts and tax reforms. What pains me is that he can't say outright that we need to raise taxes. Currently, our tax code is ridiculously favorable to the top tiers of citizens and corporations and that has to change. Jon Stewart does the math in this clip of the Daily Show and it really hits home for me. It genuinely angers me that any suggestion of raising taxes on the top 2% is perceived as class warfare, even if that suggestion comes from the top of the top 2%. But to return to the speech, I think the President handled the children of Congress very well. Even though he has to deal with some ridiculous partisanship, I think he clearly delivered his message without sounding too desperate (although his repetition of his plea to congress to "pass it now" seemed a bit sad). To the people that believe that we should just cut everything and give everyone their money back, he says "That's not the story of America" and he's right. It's not. And it shouldn't become the story either.

Another point he stressed was remaining competitive in the global market. It is the President's opinion (and mine) that we should remain competitive by making it easier for companies to hire Americans, by improving our infrastructure, by making our students more competitive in the global job market, and by making American goods more competitive as exports. If we drive Korean cars, why can't Koreans drive American cars? Of course the President says it better, but the point remains the same. He wants to see the three magic words "Made in America" on more goods in more countries. And we need to create jobs to do that. And to create jobs we need to get companies to start and stay in America. And to do that we can't become the new China. Obama spoke of aiming for the top not the bottom; we can't make ourselves competitive by reducing our environmental standards to nothing and our working conditions to those of the Gilded Age of Robber Barons. In my words, we can't become the new China.

Now I know for a fact that I can be a bit inflammatory when I start talking about politics, but I would welcome a debate in the comments. Get to it!

Across a Roebling Bridge

In order to strengthen our class bond (I think) the whole of the Junior class chartered a bus into Manhattan to go across the Brooklyn Bridge, a wonder of 19th century engineering.  Arthur Miller spoke very highly of it in a quote that I cannot find but that our tour guide read to us at the beginning of our walk.

We began our tour near the Woolworth Building and the Tweed Court House.  The Woolworth Building (top) was built in 1913 in the Gothic Style and is really quite pretty; it was the tallest building around for a while but not anymore.  The Tweed Court House was built in the 1870s for $13 million.  Hooray for Tammany Hall corruption!  Nearby is Park Row, famous for the fact that it is lined by the headquarters of the major newspapers of NYC.  At the time it was conveniently located near City Hall (still standing) for political dispatches and the neighborhood known as Five Points (now not slums) for easy access to scandals and murders, which as we all know are the stuff that really sell newspapers.

From there we proceeded to the Bridge itself, a wonder of technology.  I can't tell the full story here so I will recommend you read the chapter on building the bridge in David McCullough's Brave Companions because it really outlines how the bridge went up and the trials that the Roeblings faced.  You have to imagine an imposing Gothic structure rising 275 ft. above the East River and spanned 1300 ft. surrounded by buildings that were at maximum six stories to get the full impression of a truly elegant bridge.  The whole thing cost $15.5 million and about 36 people died building the thing including the man contracted to engineer the bridge: John A. Roebling.  He died surveying some land for one of the towers when his foot got caught between a boat and the pier and he got tetanus.  His job then passed to his son, Washington Roebling (aka "the Colonel"), who had been an engineer in the Union Army who, luckily, specialised in suspension bridges.  He was a very hands on leader, often going down into the caissons himself to inspect the work.  It is this practice that caused him to get the bends (then called caisson's disease) and consigned him to watch the construction from his Brooklyn Heights home.  He continued to lead the process through his wife who, by the end, became such an integral part of the process that she was granted the privilege of being the first person to walk across the newly completed bridge.  Even as a native New Yorker this was not a walk I had taken until now, but it is one I would recommend.  It was really cool to walk across the bridge, though I'm sure not as cool as it must have been for the first people to cross the bridge in the 1870s.  Until you get a chance to make the walk, please enjoy some pictures...

On a different, shorter note, Brooklyn was a centre of the Abolitionist Movement, which is pretty cool. The Plymouth Church of the Pilgrim especially.  This was the home of Henry Ward Beecher (brother of Harriet Beecher Stowe) who was an incendiary preacher who drew ferries full of people from Manhattan to hear him preach.  He was well known for holding slave auctions in which he did not sell men and women into bondage but into freedom.  With these auctions he would raise money to buy men and women out of slavery and use the leftover cash, if there was any, to set them up in a farm up north so that they could provide for themselves in the future.  


I snapped a couple pictures from around Brooklyn as well which are below.  Please enjoy!  Interestingly, the last picture is of Truman Capote's apartment (the one in which he lived as he wrote In Cold Blood and Breakfast at Tiffany's) so that's pretty awesome.

Back in Session

First off let me welcome both my new and returning readers to the blog, which I will be calling "Paradigm Shift" if I ever have to refer to it in a post for the sake of sanity.  I doubt it will happen, but there you go.  I'll try to update pretty regularly, but with my class schedule I may get a bit more irregular as the year goes on.  I will definitely update regarding anything earth shattering.

And speaking of earth shattering events, Wednesday marked the beginning of my Junior Year.  Cue panicked screams.  I am officially in 11th grade and will officially have to deal with all the added stress that comes with that.  As if Greenwich Academy wasn't stressful enough already!  The first day is always marked by the staccato shuffling of the student body into progressively smaller assemblies.  We begin with the "Welcome Back!" all school assembly, then the Upper School Assembly, then class meetings, then advisories.  There's a lot of herding involved.  After we have been sufficiently oriented to our new roles in the school, class orientation begins.  I've always thought this was an interesting process; every class meets for 20 minutes to go over the syllabi and the class structure and so that the students can meet their classmates.  So what better way to start off a new blog than with an overview of the beginning of my Junior Journey...

A Block - Theatrical Design and Stage Craft (AKA "Stage Tech"):  I finally have an art class on my calendar!  Although, and this is true to my nature, it is probably the most stressful art class in the course selection book.  Seriously, you should see my gmail calendar!   It is a frightening patchwork of show and concert schedules.  But I love Stage Tech and I wouldn't take any other art class.  I'm really excited to learn more about the most awesome yet most under appreciated side of theatre.

B Block - Pre-Calculus Accelerated:  I'll say it now, math is not my strong suit.  That said, I think math should be OK this year.  I know I have a great teacher (in all honesty, I have all great teachers) and I have a small class, which means that no one should get lost in the material.  So yeah.  Pre-Calc.  This should be... fun?

C Block - Free: thank god for the existence of a free period.  'Nuff said.

D Block - Physics: No honors.  This is my first time in non-honors science and I have to say I'm fine with the fact that I won't be killing myself in Honors Physics.  Admittedly there's only one guy in my class which is really strange for a Brunswick Class, but my teacher says that we'll probably get some more guys after they drop out of Honors.  He said that straight up on the first day.  I like this guy.  He also studied astrophysics in University, which is pretty awesome (especially since I wanted to be an astrophysicist in 5th grade).  I'm looking forward to this class.

E Block - English XI:  American Literature is the focus of this course and I can't say I'm that jazzed about the syllabus.  I have always much preferred European Literature and I'm not a fan of the structure of the class.  We are currently set out to read two major texts (The Scarlet Letter and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn) with excerpts and short works interspersed throughout.  In my opinion, we should read full texts.  In my last English class we got through a pretty significant number of works in the year by just blasting through them.  One might argue that you don't get as in depth when you blast through, but in my opinion that's just fine.  I love English, don't get me wrong; but when one's English teacher beats a book to death by over analysing the questionably real symbolism, it takes the joy out of reading great literature.  But I love English.  So I'll be fine.

F Block - AP Spanish Language: My Spanish teacher is a Mamet play; she's staccato and swears in class.  It'll most definitely take some getting used to, but it should work out.  She tends to switch back and forth between English and Spanish, which annoys me a bit (for God's sake it's AP!  Speak Spanish to us!) but I'm sure as the year goes on the ratio will tip more in the favor of Spanish.  All in all, I'm looking forward to this year.  The reading list looks fantastic and the syllabus also looks great.  Yay Spanish!

G Block - APUSH:  I'm not a fan of American History, but I am a fan of my History teacher.  He does some great projects and I know I'll love the class.  I have a great teacher and great classmates, so I am really looking forward to what I ought to be dreading.

So Junior year is looking awesome.  I have great classes and some great extracurriculars lined up (Dance, Fencing, Yoga, OPES, GSA, Econ Club, Model Government, Philosophy Club, and Stage Tech) so things are really looking up!

See you around the comments section!