Hurricane Sandy: What the Public Knows

Hurricane Sandy's predicted route, via
The Washington Post

Despite everything that has been going on this weekend, such as the World Series and the upcoming Presidential election, all anyone seems to be talking about is the upcoming Hurricane Sandy.

What was originally dubbed as a "Frankenstorm" by news sources is now attracting public attention, including newspapers and government officials. In today's Washington Post there were numerous articles about how there is "potential for widespread destruction and disruption for millions" of locals up and down the eastern coast of the United States. In one such article by Paul Schwartzman, Ann E. Marimow and Annie Gowen from The Washington Post, it is mentioned how several public officials, including Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, said "This is a serious, killer storm. People should hunker down and prepare for extended days of power outages and dangerous weather". In response to statements like this, the Washington Post finds that "hordes of anxious shoppers are crowding into supermarkets and supply stores", where no precaution is too small. Area schools have also been shut down through the early part of the new week for safety.

I find that this is a direct contrast to what we have been studying in class about how information is often kept from the public during 'perilous' times. Despite the connotation that we have been studying in class about 'perilous times' being during a war, the United States is in the middle of one, and is under threat of a serious (Category 2 hurricane) tropical storm. During WWI for example, the Committee on Public Information was set up in order to inform the American public of what they needed to know, and nothing more. While this group no longer exists today, I think the US is still wary of what information they make aware to the public and how it is interpreted. After all, allowing too much information about Hurricane Sandy, for example, could cause a mass panic and bad results that would take a long time to recover from.

America's Obsession with the New, and Fear of the Obsolete

The Madison Hotel, Phoenix via
Joshua Lott for The New York Times

The Madison Hotel,
demolished last week

In an age where everything is new and improved, faster the speed of light and gentrified to the point of perfection, the appreciation for old-fashioned life is fading. I read a New York Times article by Fernanda Santos (for the complete article, click here) talking about how even historic relics of America's past, such as Arizona's westward expansion compounds, are being threatened to be destroyed to make way for new and improved developments.

Today, in the age of the Internet, most things can be found online. Due to this, people all around the world can find information and news all at the click of a button. I think this new trend has led to a belief that if one can find it online, there is no point in going to see it with one's own eyes. For example in the context of the above article, if someone were to take a picture of the above tavern used centuries ago by American frontiersmen, then there would be no reason for it to remain standing. In fact, according to the article, in a city, "that prizes what is new, heaps of discarded history [are being crashed to the ground," The Madison Hotel stands in an area near to where the NBA team, the Phoenix Suns, play. Many old buildings in that neighborhood "were demolished to make way for the Sun's arena complex," and at one point, the Madison Hotel itself was at threat for being torn down and used for "extra parking space and two hotels". As you can see on the above right, it was torn down last week for the same reason. Does America value professional sports commercialism over preservation of the past?

Even homes by the world-renowned architect, Frank Lloyd Wright, have been on the chopping block. In exchange for the demolition of the house, "new homes were going to be built on the land". I happen to think that tearing down historic America is a disgrace to those who lived then. When Jim McPherson, the president of the Arizona Preservation Foundation, said, “How do you continue to tell a city’s story if the remnants of its past have all come down?” I think he got it right. What do you think?

Time Management in America

In the modern world of fast moving technology, transportation, and news, people everywhere, especially in America, find it hard to keep up. The clock seems to move faster than possible, and time goes by without looking back. Today, Americans confidently pack their schedules with item after item consistently, but why is it that there never seems to be enough time for it all?

You know the saying, 'time flies by when you're having fun?' I wonder if it still applies. In fact, in modern day America with such busy schedules, it seems that there is no time for fun, just work. In a June 2012 article for the New York Times, Indian correspondent Ariha Setalvad, writes that most educated, American young adults have, "a tendency to be overwhelmed [overworked] and carried away by a new lifestyle. [This] is not unusual." I think young people tend to think that time not spent doing work is unproductive, however sometimes one needs to pencil themselves into their schedule to relax. I find that one is more successful when they are more relaxed.

Another way to prevent stress buildup is to not overwork yourself and manage your time better. In fact, in some Latin America countries and Spain, locals take an afternoon siesta (time of rest) to relax. They take advantage of the time they have for each activity better and as a result, are successful in their own right. I wonder if Americans will ever adopt more tie management strategies into their day-to-day lives. I think it would help productivity in the long run; what do you think?

Gentrification and Word Choice in America

The English language has many words, some of which are vague such as the terms 'good' and 'bad'. The vaguer the word, the broader the scope of things they can describe. This can directly be applied to the classification of neighborhoods.  For example, when someone says that a neighborhood is 'good' or even 'a nice place', what do they really mean?

I guess this view is probably different around the country, but there is a distinct connotation in the minds of those who dwell on the North Shore of Chicago. Although it may be frank, many people define a good neighborhood as somewhere that has wealthy people and fancy homes. If one were to use direct logic, they could say 'good' people live there. But, in a 'nice' neighborhood do nice people really live there? This is not always the case at all.

On the flip side, I've often wondered what is means for a place to be considered a 'bad' neighborhood. While a bad neighborhood be poorer and not as well-maintained as others, it definitely does not contain 100% bad people.

Gentrification also plays a tricky role in this word war. When a city becomes gentrified, I don't think that it necessarily means that bad people and buildings are forced out with the influx of good, nice people, but I also wonder how people can really change (if at all) from being gentrified.

As seen in the image above from the American Gentrifier Magazine's December 2004 issue, some consider to gentrify is to force minority races out and whites in in order to make the neighborhood, 'nicer'. This debate and word war will plague America for a long time, especially since an African American president lives in the White House. What do you think?