Swimming Upstream

Our recent discussions on race reminded me of an article in Sports Illustrated that I read over the summer. I thought it was relevant for two reasons. First, it addresses the fact that often when people say a race is naturally bad at something it's usually due to social, rather than physiological factors:

As African-American participation in swimming continued to lag, some came up with explanations for the inability of most blacks to swim. One popular hypothesis—which has since been discredited—proffered by Ohio University's zoology department in a 1969 study titled "The Negro and Learning to Swim," was that blacks weren't as buoyant as whites. Among the reasons cited for this were blacks' purportedly lower lung capacity, heavier bones and poor physiological response to cold. (Dodgers vice president Al Campanis repeated the buoyancy theory in his notorious Nightline appearance in 1987.)

On the other hand it provided a very specific example that affirms Barack Obama's statement that, "so many of the disparities that exist between the African-American community and the larger American community today can be traced directly to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow." The fact that African-Americans represent a tiny minority in competitive swimming, while black kids have three times the chance of drowning than white ones is not a result of biological ineptitude, but is instead a remanent of white-only pools. When I think of the places I most often swim in pools (at country clubs, resorts, etc.) it's obviously why economical disadvantaged black families would have a hard time teaching their kids to swim.

'Made with Organic Oats and Soybeans' (And a Bit of Philosophy)

I really enjoyed this week's discussion that arose out of talking about Chicago's grid system. I think a lot of people in the class, myself included, believed that the layout of our sidewalks, roads, and other infrastructure reflected a linear philosophy held by American society. By linear I mean that the common belief in America is that the most efficient and time-effective way is the best. With this in mind I was enjoying a hurried and rather unbalanced breakfast the other day, consisting solely of a "Crunchy Peanut Butter" Clif energy bar. I've come to overlook Clif's dogfood-esque taste and lack of desirable texture for the entertaining anecdotes printed on the back of the bar's wrapper written by Clif's founder and owner, identified there only as "Gary". However, the one I read that morning on my way out the door was especially interesting in light of our discussion:

For me, European bike trips have never been about riding from point A to point B. My buddies and I far prefer the explorative method of riding. Rather than being blown off the bigger red roads by the noise and dust of passing semis, we seek out the serenity and quiet of remote alpine valleys on the smaller white roads - views of massive rock faces and glaciers at every turn. We've carried road bikes on our shoulders over high mountain passes, slid down vast glaciers along side our bicycles, and stumbled upon more quaint villages than I can count. As with our cycling epics, it is the winding road - not the destination - that drives Clif Bar. It's a simpler, more rewarding style of riding - and doing business. From our people, to our products, to our planet, it is on the smaller white road that we choose to travel.

Gary is saying more or less the same thing that Mr. O'Connor did about linear philosophies. What is interesting to me is that we can assume Gary's primary concern is selling Clif bars. Clif's logo is a man climbing an actual cliff with several mountains in the background. It seems to me that Gary and the rest of the Clif company are marketing their energy bars away from mainstream society to the Jon Krakauers and Chris McCandlesses of the world; the wanderers, critical of the status quo. Of course the great irony of this whole story is that while pondering all this I was in the midst of eating the Clif bar as quickly as possible rushing out my door to catch the bus, determinedly trying to get from Point A to Point B is as straight of a line as possible, with no thought for valleys or glaciers.

9/11 and the Redemptive Curve

In class this week we talked a lot about the Redemptive Curve, identified by Dan McAdams as the definitive American story model. This graph begins with a fairly well off person whose life falls to decadence only to swing into a meteoric rise landing them in a better position than they began in. I was thinking of that when I found this opinion column on the New York Times website. The article's author, Tom Sorell, criticizes the natural human response of "returning to normal" after suffering a tragedy. Sorell focuses on 9/11 and its aftermath. Sorell states that he believes that after 9/11, and any emergency for that matter, that it is imperative to avoid the urge to try to simply return everything to normal to show resiliency. Rather, he argues, we should look to change our way of thinking and living to better our lives. To me this represented the crucial moment in the Redemptive Curve, an event so extreme that it causes the protagonist to realize he/she has hit rock bottom and needs the begin the climb back up.
Naturally the question that follows is this: did America make a change for the better or simply return to normal after 9/11? In my opinion the answer is simple. The Patriot Act, an unnecessary war, and discrimination against Muslims in the US all followed the attack that day. In my mind, the attacks on the World Trade Center didn't mark a turning point for the US, in fact they may have accelerated this country's decline. And almost 10 years after 9/11, I have to ask: if that didn't stop it what will?

Million Dollar Idea?

In these first couple weeks of AS it seems a lot our discussions have revolved around the idea of intellectual property. First, Mr. O'Conner rallied against the tried and true, "do your own work," rule in favor of a classroom which relies on collaboration. Mr. Bolos, on the other hand, led an interesting discussion on the privatization of the Internet through Apple's app system. Thinking about these two discussions I had to ask myself, does putting a price-tag on ideas threaten the right to information?
Take for instance the controversy over Myriad Genetics patenting a section of the human genome (Judge Invalidates Human Genome Patent). Myriad is a company that creates and sells breast cancer test kits. If their proposed patent had been validated it would have given them and only them the right to do research and testing with these genes. The ruling in my opinion was the fair one, and Myriad's claim seemed to me obviously ridiculous. But even in failure the patent sets precedent, it challenges the difference between common knowledge and private intellectual property. It conjures up all sorts of terrifying hypothetical scenarios. What if I had to pay Jon Krakauer each time I quoted from Into the Wild? What if the Neo-Nazi movement could buy the rights to the history of the Holocaust? Or if the Suns could patent the pick and roll?
In my opinion ideas and information ought to be as accessible as possible. Ideas, after all, are meant to be shared. Patents and copyrights are meant to defend against theft of intellectual property, not to be used to restrict knowledge and take down the competition, like in Myriad's case. As a full-time student and a part of the Internet addicted generation I depend upon free, accessible, and up-to-date information, and I believe in my right to educate myself free of charge