It has been an interesting semester for blogging! To start off, I'd like to address the themes of my blogging. This semester I found myself writing a lot about fairness in one way or another and being fortunate. I wrote a blog about how overweight people are misrepresented, how African Americans are misrepresented, and how world disasters do not get the attention they deserve when it's all said and done. Twice I found myself comparing New Trier to inner city schools and writing about how lucky I am to go to New Trier: once about our unlimited library resources and once comparing cafeterias.
My posts have become increasingly longer throughout the semester and I attribute this to Junior Theme. The process of writing a post became much longer because I found myself doing much more research behind my posts than I did before (this says a lot because before I usually did about 30 mins). For some reason I now read so much more on a topic before I blog about it as if each blog post is a mini junior theme. For example in order to write my latest post I ended up listening to 20 stories on storycorps to find the best ones to use. And for this post, I first found the article about the new Dove deodorant, then researched cellulite, then flipped through a bunch of Seventeen magazines(guilty) in order to have everything I needed to write the blog. Looking back at many of my blogs like that one I realize that they could have been split into two blogs or even three sometimes.
I remember the first week of blogging. I texted Emma Murray because I was excited that I had found the perfect topic for my blog. I used a topic from class, had some research, made a personal connection, etc but rereading it I find myself liking my most recent work the best even if the posts don't have all the criteria the very first one had. One thing I said I'd work on this semester in my second quarter meta post was that of not asking questions but instead writing in a manner that begs a question without saying so. Most of my blogs now either ask a leading question in the beginning and then explore the possible answers or do not ask a question at all. American Dream, Upper or Lower class?, Dying Rich, Dying Alone, Bringing Lunch to School: a privilege? . None of these posts end with a question. The other change to my blogging is that the writing comes much more effortlessly. At the beginning of the year I was so self conscious I would think hard about what exactly I was writing. Now it is easy and I feel like my blogs flow so much better and the writing is so much better.
I'm sorry for another super long post! But one last thing...I would've never guessed that blogging would become so comfortable. The thought of having to put my work on the internet for others to see practically scared me half to death at the beginning of the year. This whole experience has really opened me up and I am now considering making a new blog for fun. If you had told me sophomore year that I would want to write for fun I would've thought you were kidding. I've never written for fun before creating this blog and I think that the enjoyment is what made my posts so good and why I am so proud of them.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Thursday, June 2, 2011
American Dream
In class we've been talking about the "American Dream" and what it is. We came up with many descriptions like going from rags to riches or just being in a better financial position than one started with. What I am more interested in is why America? And why is there an American dream in the first place?
I went back to the storycorps website that we were introduced to earlier in the year and started listening to the stories of Americans and more specifically, immigrants. Many people told of how excited they were to be in America when they first got here. This man said in his story that when he was 6 his mom immigrated to the US from the Dominican Republic and would send him postcards of New York (where she was). A few years later when it was his time to immigrate and live with her he said that he imagined he'd be living in a place like the ones he saw on the postcards. So instead of living in the Empire State Building he ended up living in a basement in West Harlem that opened into a space where people threw their garbage. But he was happy to be here anyway.
Many of the stories from immigrants noted how hard it was to immigrate and live here but yet they all made the choice to come. Perhaps they were in search of the American Dream. Or perhaps they came to America so they could dream.
One moving story (listen here) was a woman telling her daughter how she risked her life to cross the border and then had to work day and night to keep afloat. The daughter suggested that because of her parents struggles she knew that she could achieve her dream: finish college. She said,"It's the most important thing for me, having gone to college, and I feel like anything I do from here on out is ok because I've already achieved my dream. " In this case this woman may not have had the opportunity to go to college had she been raised back in Mexico which suggests that some dreams are only possible in America. One immigrant said he moved here with no money, no job, and no knowledge of English but it turned out that he invented a hot dog vending machine. He said, "It was a hard time but we knew [America] was the country of opportunity. I'm telling you, only in America can you have an idea and go and find people who believe in it as well to achieve something".
In all I think that there is an American Dream because we can dream. The possibilities are endless here. Maybe people want to accomplish the American Dream to prove that wherever they've come from they've reached success here. It's a goal. And it's amazing too. The American Dream has driven people from all over the world to America in search of it. If it weren't so special we would probably not be having the problem with border control. It is not as important what the American Dream actually is but more so that it is possible.
If anyone wants to listen to a story that makes you confused and puzzled, listen here. If anyone would like to explain this woman's actions to me please do because I think this may be one of the most unusual stories I've ever heard.
I went back to the storycorps website that we were introduced to earlier in the year and started listening to the stories of Americans and more specifically, immigrants. Many people told of how excited they were to be in America when they first got here. This man said in his story that when he was 6 his mom immigrated to the US from the Dominican Republic and would send him postcards of New York (where she was). A few years later when it was his time to immigrate and live with her he said that he imagined he'd be living in a place like the ones he saw on the postcards. So instead of living in the Empire State Building he ended up living in a basement in West Harlem that opened into a space where people threw their garbage. But he was happy to be here anyway.
Many of the stories from immigrants noted how hard it was to immigrate and live here but yet they all made the choice to come. Perhaps they were in search of the American Dream. Or perhaps they came to America so they could dream.
One moving story (listen here) was a woman telling her daughter how she risked her life to cross the border and then had to work day and night to keep afloat. The daughter suggested that because of her parents struggles she knew that she could achieve her dream: finish college. She said,"It's the most important thing for me, having gone to college, and I feel like anything I do from here on out is ok because I've already achieved my dream. " In this case this woman may not have had the opportunity to go to college had she been raised back in Mexico which suggests that some dreams are only possible in America. One immigrant said he moved here with no money, no job, and no knowledge of English but it turned out that he invented a hot dog vending machine. He said, "It was a hard time but we knew [America] was the country of opportunity. I'm telling you, only in America can you have an idea and go and find people who believe in it as well to achieve something".
In all I think that there is an American Dream because we can dream. The possibilities are endless here. Maybe people want to accomplish the American Dream to prove that wherever they've come from they've reached success here. It's a goal. And it's amazing too. The American Dream has driven people from all over the world to America in search of it. If it weren't so special we would probably not be having the problem with border control. It is not as important what the American Dream actually is but more so that it is possible.
If anyone wants to listen to a story that makes you confused and puzzled, listen here. If anyone would like to explain this woman's actions to me please do because I think this may be one of the most unusual stories I've ever heard.
Is something wrong?
Recently in class we saw a video of two reporters talking about a new product from Dove. What is this new product? Deodorant that makes your armpits prettier. Yes. According to this article from the Wall Street Journal, Dove is now advertising deodorant that has specialized moisturizers to help women achieve prettier armpits in just 5 days. Yes only 5. Amazing. Personally I had never even thought that armpits were something that could be considered pretty or ugly. I just thought they were a body part. But now it seems like Dove wants us to feel like we need "pretty" armpits when ironically they've always advertised that women should feel comfortable in their own skin. They even made an ad revealing the photo shopping used to create a standard ad in the hopes of informing viewers of our distorted image of beauty. Watch the video here (it's super surprising!). Yet now they are suggesting that women should be concerned with another part of their body being beautiful. It's just not right.
In the news Khloe Kardashian (a famous socialite/reality tv star for those who do not know her) "admitted" to having cellulite. (Article here). She "admitted" it. I'm definitely not surprised. And that is not because I think she is fat or at all overweight. It's because 90-95% of women have cellulite. Cellulite isn't just prevalent in people who are overweight because whether or not a person has it isn't based on weight. The heavier you are the more likely you are to have cellulite but in reality it happens when fat becomes trapped in the skin instead of under it. Beauty companies make it seem like cellulite is an gross abnormality that should be fixed even though it is a normal occurrence in women. Ironically when I was doing a little research about the prevalence of cellulite there was an ad on how to get rid of it.
In the news Khloe Kardashian (a famous socialite/reality tv star for those who do not know her) "admitted" to having cellulite. (Article here). She "admitted" it. I'm definitely not surprised. And that is not because I think she is fat or at all overweight. It's because 90-95% of women have cellulite. Cellulite isn't just prevalent in people who are overweight because whether or not a person has it isn't based on weight. The heavier you are the more likely you are to have cellulite but in reality it happens when fat becomes trapped in the skin instead of under it. Beauty companies make it seem like cellulite is an gross abnormality that should be fixed even though it is a normal occurrence in women. Ironically when I was doing a little research about the prevalence of cellulite there was an ad on how to get rid of it.
It seems as if the marketing strategy of beauty companies is to make you feel worse about yourself thus compelling you to buy products that would fix the so called problem that they say you have. They are even tricky about it too. If you look at the ad below which was in Cosmopolition magazine you'll see that it says "Spring Survival" and then suggest a bunch of products that will help you survive. Tricky tricky. First of all, I didn't even think I had a problem "surviving" spring. Why would I need to "survive"?
Upper or Lower class?
In a newspaper article in the Chicago Tribune that I saw last week there was an article about Rahm Emanuel and his family, coinciding with the start of Emanuel's job as mayor. It talked about how Rahm's parents raised him and a little about the family history. (Read it here). What I found interesting was that the article stressed that Rahm's relatives came from hardship, escaping the Nazi's when they immigrated to the US. The article stated that the parents, "granted the rare interview in their Wilmette home, the modest split-level where they have lived since the late '60s". The author didn't have to write "modest split-level home". I feel like this is almost trying to make it seem as if Rahm didn't grow up in a house that might be a standard north shore house in order to cover up the fact that by most people's standards he had a privileged childhood. In class, it seemed like many people felt the same way about their own wealth considering that a staggering 27 people said that they considered themselves in the middle class.
Although I am not criticizing anyone of the class they put themselves in, I must argue that by the standards of the test that Mr. Bolos took, I'd be surprised if anyone in our class was in anything lower then then the upper end of the upper middle. Of course I do not know everyone's personal information but using this test from the New York Times, I think most people in our class would at least be in Upper Middle. So what I am wondering is why so many people said Middle, and why saying whether you put middle or upper was so taboo in our class. People seem afraid to admit that they are wealthy (although I do recognize that some may have middle class because of standards other then wealth and education).
As for the Rahm Emanuel story, the author might have wanted to make Rahm Emanuel follow more of a rag to riches story or downplay the fact that he was raised on the North Shore, having been criticized heavily for that. In this campaign video (sorry I don't know how to embed it) he says "I'm glad we can help other middle class families send their kids to college" (at 1:00). It's like he is referring to himself as middle class. This was a reoccurring theme in his campaign; he was just a average person helping the other average person, average especially when it came to wealth. At the same time that the Chicago Tribune article came out, I saw an article in the Wilmette Life about how Rahm Emanuel had been back on the north shore for a charity event. I'm sorry that I don't have the article but my mom through the paper away and I can't find it online. Basically it was just saying that he had come back in Wilmette and was at a benefit. What struck me the most were the pictures. There were many pictures of what would be considered "upper class" attendees. To give the reader a better idea, imagine pictures like the one on the right, in the format of the picture to the left. Or basically imagine the people in the right super dressed up instead or country club dress (which is still very upper class looking). What I found interesting was that in the north shore newspaper, Rahm Emanuel was portrayed as being in the upper class. This suggests that he uses his appearance of wealth to fit in with people of a certain wealth. I'm just using him as an example, I feel like a lot of times wealth is used to fit in and that it is not properly represented. It seems as if our society forces it to be that way.
As for the Rahm Emanuel story, the author might have wanted to make Rahm Emanuel follow more of a rag to riches story or downplay the fact that he was raised on the North Shore, having been criticized heavily for that. In this campaign video (sorry I don't know how to embed it) he says "I'm glad we can help other middle class families send their kids to college" (at 1:00). It's like he is referring to himself as middle class. This was a reoccurring theme in his campaign; he was just a average person helping the other average person, average especially when it came to wealth. At the same time that the Chicago Tribune article came out, I saw an article in the Wilmette Life about how Rahm Emanuel had been back on the north shore for a charity event. I'm sorry that I don't have the article but my mom through the paper away and I can't find it online. Basically it was just saying that he had come back in Wilmette and was at a benefit. What struck me the most were the pictures. There were many pictures of what would be considered "upper class" attendees. To give the reader a better idea, imagine pictures like the one on the right, in the format of the picture to the left. Or basically imagine the people in the right super dressed up instead or country club dress (which is still very upper class looking). What I found interesting was that in the north shore newspaper, Rahm Emanuel was portrayed as being in the upper class. This suggests that he uses his appearance of wealth to fit in with people of a certain wealth. I'm just using him as an example, I feel like a lot of times wealth is used to fit in and that it is not properly represented. It seems as if our society forces it to be that way.
Dying Rich, Dying Alone
Recently in the news there have been stories about Hugette Clark's passing. But the many articles seem not to be talking about her life; more so, they talked about the money. The money she left behind, how much money she left behind, who will inherit the money she left behind, etc... Huguette Clark was the daughter of William A. Clark, a U.S. senator and Gilded Age copper magnate from Montana, who was reputed to be one of the two richest industrialists in the United States, rivaled only by John D. Rockefeller. She died recently alone in a New York hospital. She had apparently not left far her huge NYC apartment for 23 years never once visiting the estate in New Canaan, Connecticut that she bought in 1952 (its for sale at $24 million). In total she is estimated to be worth $500 million. To read more about her click here or here. But I think the most intriguing and sad thing is that she died alone. Apparently it was Ms Clark's specific wishes and instructions that no funeral service or mass be held. She even forbid any family to know when she was being buried. The only people at her burial were the funeral workers.
It is now unclear what will happen to her estate seeing that she has no children, was married only for a brief time, and has cut ties with relatives. These relatives have gone to court numerous times because they suspect the Ms. Clark's attorney and accountant, the only 2 people she kept contact with, took advantage of her wealth.
When I read about her I immediately thought, "Great Gatsby". He also died with boatloads of money and only a few people came to his funeral. Even Mr. Wolfsheim, whom we were led to believe was his friend, didn't want to go to his funeral. It seems as though when a person's wealth gets so astronomically large, they become business. What I mean by that is people are only in Gatsby's life for money and business not to be his friend. He gained attention because of his money which is now the same with Huguette Clark who is receiving attention because of her fortune and questions surrounding its fate. It's amazing how people can turn into money in the eyes of the world. I bet that if there was no mystery surrounding her fortune, Huguette's death would not have received nearly as much notoriety.
It is now unclear what will happen to her estate seeing that she has no children, was married only for a brief time, and has cut ties with relatives. These relatives have gone to court numerous times because they suspect the Ms. Clark's attorney and accountant, the only 2 people she kept contact with, took advantage of her wealth.
When I read about her I immediately thought, "Great Gatsby". He also died with boatloads of money and only a few people came to his funeral. Even Mr. Wolfsheim, whom we were led to believe was his friend, didn't want to go to his funeral. It seems as though when a person's wealth gets so astronomically large, they become business. What I mean by that is people are only in Gatsby's life for money and business not to be his friend. He gained attention because of his money which is now the same with Huguette Clark who is receiving attention because of her fortune and questions surrounding its fate. It's amazing how people can turn into money in the eyes of the world. I bet that if there was no mystery surrounding her fortune, Huguette's death would not have received nearly as much notoriety.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Bringing Lunch to School: a privilege?
Today in the Chicago Tribune, I read an article about how the public school in Chicago, Little Village Academy, banned bring lunch from home. This means that the students are forced to buy the school lunch unless they have a medical reason that requires them to bring their own lunch. Read the article here. The principal decided to implement this rule after "watching students bring 'bottles of soda and flaming hot chips' for lunch." The principal also said, "It's about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It's milk versus a Coke." At Little Village most of the students only have the option to take the lunch or go hungry. If the student does not qualify for free or reduced price lunches they would have to pay $2.25 for a lunch they don't necessarily like. But on the otherhand if a student is bringing a very unhealthy lunch, it would benefit their health to eat a healthier lunch everyday.
This is a very interesting situation because it asks the question: what role should the government play in individual food choices? But what I find even more interesting is that the situation is almost comepletely reversed at New Trier. Personally I've always thought that people who brought their lunch ate healthier lunches as opposed to the fries, Uncrustables, chips, and soda that many New Trier students eat for lunch. I just so happen to be part of the group that brings their lunch to school and my lunches are almost always really healthy. Its only when I buy lunch that they are unhealthy. Correct me if I'm wrong but I've always been under the impression that bringing a lunch is healthier, like this poster suggests:
Forcing the kids to eat the school lunches would make sure that they were eating something healthy but then again they might choose to not eat anything at all if they don't like the options. And the fact that they have to "force" the kids to eat healthier lunches doesn't seem right either.Overall I think that the school trying to get kids to eat healthier is great, I'm just not sure the school went about it the right way.
This is a very interesting situation because it asks the question: what role should the government play in individual food choices? But what I find even more interesting is that the situation is almost comepletely reversed at New Trier. Personally I've always thought that people who brought their lunch ate healthier lunches as opposed to the fries, Uncrustables, chips, and soda that many New Trier students eat for lunch. I just so happen to be part of the group that brings their lunch to school and my lunches are almost always really healthy. Its only when I buy lunch that they are unhealthy. Correct me if I'm wrong but I've always been under the impression that bringing a lunch is healthier, like this poster suggests:
I am all for trying to prevent and fix childhood obesity but I think that the actions that the school took might have been slightly too drastic. I think maybe a better approach would've been to inform parents about the importance of a healthy lunch and ask them to make sure their son or daughter has a healthy lunch. But at the same time I feel like I can argue for the ban because I'm assuming that the children at this Chicago public school do not come from wealthy families. Kids might be bringing unhealthy lunches to school because they are cheaper. You can get a 12 pk of soda for $5 whereas a 12 pk of milk (and only 1/2 of the ounces of soda) costs $15. You can get 10 packaged hot dogs totaling 16 oz for $3 but only 9 oz of cut turkey for $5.
Forcing the kids to eat the school lunches would make sure that they were eating something healthy but then again they might choose to not eat anything at all if they don't like the options. And the fact that they have to "force" the kids to eat healthier lunches doesn't seem right either.Overall I think that the school trying to get kids to eat healthier is great, I'm just not sure the school went about it the right way.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Search
Junior Theme has been going pretty smoothly except for one major speed bump: I don't know what to search. The librarians have done an excellent job showing us how to do advanced searches and get exactly what you are looking for but my problem is figuring out what words to put in the search. In one subtopic of my research I have been able to find huge amounts of information because there is a specific category that I am looking under and not much variation. The topic is prescription drug advertising. But one of the other parts, diagnosis, I am having real difficulty because there is such a brood spectrum of what diagnosis includes and I am not sure on the best way to narrow it down. If I search something like "diagnostic tools and prescription drugs" there is a lot that comes up but a lot is specific to cancer or still way too broad. What I am looking for is information on how tools of diagnosis have improved which could possibly be a reason why more people are on prescription drugs then in previous decades. I'm sure I will end up finding something that works but for now I will just have to keep on searching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)