No TV???

When the Chicago area was inundated with rain one weekend months ago, our roof leaked and water dripped onto our TV, ruining it. Since then, we have gone without television in our house. I know what you may be thinking--how are we able to live??? But I've found that the essential things I want from TV can be gotten in other ways--I get news from the web, I catch episodes of my favorite shows online and rent DVDs, I listen to Bears games on WBBM. I've found that much of what I used to watch on TV I hardly miss, and I often wonder how I ever had time to watch so much TV. Much of what Thoreau suggests in Walden seems like it couldn't possibly work, but what if we tried it? How much of what we consider "essential" would become irrelevant?

Do we embrace simplicity at NT?

In class today we’ll map out a “typical” New Trier student’s day in order to explore the question posed in the title of this blog post. As you read Thoreau the next week or so, look closely at his ideas on simplifying life and getting in touch with the true necessities and juxtapose his ideas against your typical day at school. Do any of his thoughts resonate with you?

You may also want to set up a time (middle of the day, perhaps?) to complete one of your Transcendentalism maxims so you can accurately evaluate HDT’s ideas in light of how they apply to your life in a typical school day.

And lastly, here’s a Times article on Americans trying to simplify their lives: New York Times.

Can you see yourselves doing this someday?

Emeeeeeeerson Reading Progress?

Now that you've spent some time doing some "deep reading" with Emerson, what are your thoughts on this type of heavy, dense reading? Does it feel extra difficult in light of Nicholas Carr's assertion that digital texts make it more difficult for us to appreciate long, sustained reading? (Carr is the guy who wrote the article, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" Remember him?)

One way to make sense of difficult texts is to share your thoughts on reading strategies. In the next week, post a quick comment to this blog post, a thought on a reading strategy you've found useful for reading R.W.E.

Keep being deep readers, folks. (By the way, is Emerson even reading the book in this picture? Maybe he's in a transcendental state...)

"I have no expectation that any man will read history aright..."

Remember this quote above? It should look familiar (it is, after all, on our blog). Here it is again in full:

I have no expectation that any man will read history aright, who thinks that what was done in a remote age, by men whose names have resounded far, has any deeper sense than what he is doing to-day.

As you all know by now, something happened last night that will resound through history books for the rest of your lives. And as Emerson argues in the quote above, what happened yesterday is history, and you all lived it.

And it's appropriate we celebrate both candidates by giving Senator McCain the stage, too. McCain delivered a magnanimous concession speech in which he identified the historic nature of the recent election. In case you missed it, here it is:

Senator McCain

Tuesday Night Preparation

Early this week we'll continue our discussion of the election by having you visit the New York Times interactive Electoral College map. Here's the link:

Map

The nice thing about the map is if you click on the link titled "Your map" you'll be able to change which states vote red or blue and see the results in Electoral College votes. This website helps illustrate how the process works (a nice connection to the Constitution) and it will also help you anticipate what you should look for as you watch the results Tuesday night. Have fun!

We're all really "red"-blooded Americans after all...

I couldn't believe how many connections there were to our class in Jon Meacham's latest article in Newsweek. He basically argues that America is generally conservative (right of center, to be precise), and that even if the Democrats win BIG, Obama will more effective if he is pragmatic and recognizes that Americans are basically more conservative than liberal. This is especially ironic to me given that Obama has cast himself as the candidate of hope and idealism. But perhaps that's how our political system has been set up from the Revolutionary era... we want to bring someone into power who inspires us and casts a grandiose vision (Declaration of Independence), but then we want a government that can actually get some things done without going too far and taking us out of our comfort zones (Constitution).

The other interesting thing was his agreement with my own observations in class the other day, namely that Americans have this weird love-hate relationship with government and taxes. Perhaps because our Revolution was so steeped in taxation issues, we say "taxes" as if we're referring to STDs. Yet we expect the state to fulfill certain obligations, like war, education, disaster relief, rescuing investment banks... depending on your personal views of what's important. I love Meacham's characterization: "The American relationship with government is so fraught with hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance that it is difficult to discuss with any degree of rationality." Just wait til we get to the Constitution...

An Ideal or Pragmatic Approach?

A hot topic on the campaign trail has been the issue of how to handle ending the war in Iraq, and each candidate seems to take either a pragmatic or ideal position on the issue.

Senator McCain has argued that we should not leave Iraq until we have secured "victory," while Senator Obama has argued that getting involved in Iraq was a mistake all along and that we need to withdraw in a "responsible manner."

One could argue that McCain's answer is an idealist's approach to the issue (victory!) while Obama concedes that mistakes were made and that while we might not be seen as winners, we still need to leave for very good reasons.

But this is just one instance where we see these values (idealism and pragmatism) clash. Where else do you see this conflict in American culture?