Hmmmm.....

This article seems quite ironic considering the lack of women CEOs in the Fortune 500.

The Grand Second Semester Meta-post

            My favorite post from this quarter was my most recent post about the relation between the economy and the presidential debate and how it was a construction. I believe that this post was one of my best posts because I bring in other texts like the article I read, and then quote it. The most important was my blog has improved this semester is that I now explain what I quote, like how I did in the second paragraph in this post. Furthermore, I then relate my posts to big ideas we are learning in class, like American values, or in this case how everything is a construction. I used real evidence by explaining both sides of how the different political parties are trying to frame the issue to show that it is a construction. Lastly, I end the post by asking questions to my reader to try to engage them in the posts and give them something to respond to. One way in which this post could be improved is by finding an image that more closely relates to the post I am writing about.

            Another reason that I think my posts this semester have improved is that many of my posts related to my junior theme topic which I was very interested in, so I was writing about topics that actually interested me. Last semester in my meta-post I said that " I think that I am starting to find the balance between taking what we learn in class and writing about the ideas from class that interest me the most." I believe that this semester I have found that balance. I found my posts about my topic ended up benefitting my junior theme, because it forced me to keep up with contemporary women's issues. Many of my blog posts also lead to inspiration for my junior theme, so it was a win-win situation.

            If I were to continue this blog for another semester, one minor thing that I would work on would be tying visuals to my post that may further enhance my research. One instance of a successful image I used was in this post because it added something new to my post and added extra details that I was unable to add in, and one unsuccessful image was in this post because I think it was just a filler image. Another thing that I would work on would be asking questions at the end of my post that relate to something in my post that I have not answered or is controversial and my reader would want to respond to.

            Overall, I believe I made steady progress and accomplished my goal for this semester of continuing class discussions on my blog and finding the balance between writing about topics that interest me and relate to American studies. 

Sag in Economy Could Reshape '12 Campaigns

As the presidential race has narrowed to President Obama versus Mitt Romney (and of course a slew of independent parties with names of people no one has heard of), the issues that are driving the race have begun to surface. A little while ago it was the birth control debate, sparked by comments from radio host Rush Limbaugh, which seemed to help Obama win favor of voters—especially female voters. The most recent issue is the economy. When I got the New York Times, the front page had an article on this exact subject. (The article can be found in its online version here.)

The issue is presented by the paper as this "The race may be a referendum on Mr. Obama, as Republicans want, or, as Democrats prefer, a choice between a president nursing the economy back to health and a challenger who represents the failed politics that caused the crisis in the first place". What struck me as very interesting in this sentence was how much of a construction this race is; it points out the two different ways the problem is framed by saying "as Republicans want" and "as Democrats prefer". There are always two sides to an issue, and voters must see be critical when deciding which candidate they trust more, because each side has a bias and has constructed the debate in a different way.

With all of the current emphasis on this side of the debate, I am beginning to think about what this says about us as Americans that we have decided that the economy should be among the most important topics to consider when voting. In my opinion, the recent focus on the economy as a driving force in the campaign highlights how materialistic Americans are. America has remained the number one buyer in the world, and our obsession with having things and having the money to buy things has been magnified by the race. We built the United States on a platform of democracy and freedom, but I think we have in some ways lost sight of these ideals and turned to material as a way to define our success as a country.

One study asked people what Americans' biggest problems are (an indicator of the issues people will be voting on). 

Do you think that the economy should be a driving force in the campaigns? What do you think should be one of the most important issues in the campaign? 

Oprah to the Rescue?

According to a recent New YorkTimes article, Oprah Winfrey has recently declared that she is reviving her book club, much to the satisfaction of fans, bookstores, authors, and publishers alike. The New York Times described her as "the publishing industry's unrivaled tastemaker" because when Oprah puts her stamp of approval on something, that something usually receives immediate success in both sales and critics' reviews. As the amount of reading in America seems to be going down, I must say I was thrilled to find out that she will be restarting her book club. Hopefully reading will increase because "an Oprah title translated into skyrocketing sales".

One thing that has been upsetting people is the shift from traditional printed books to electronic reading sources like the Kindle, Ipad, phones, you name it. Personally, I believe that reading is reading and the medium by which people read does not matter as much as the fact that they are reading. Reading is the gateway to knowledge, and in recent years America's position as one of the most intelligent countries in the world has been threatened by countries like Russia and Canada where 54% and 28% of the population respectively has a college degree, compared to the United States' 40% (article).

I wonder if at a time when America may be declining, if something like having more influential people endorse reading and education can help. But can someone like Oprah really help? Secondary school costs are skyrocketing in America, whereas in other countries like Russia, schooling is free as long as you maintain good grades and a full coursework. If the cost of a college education remains so high, then college will be reserved only for the wealthy people who can afford to pay for it and people who are willing to take out huge loans that they know they will have to repay for many more years after they graduate. Can you expect someone to read when the future use of his or her knowledge is questionable? 

Two things to notice about this graph is that it is not as recent as the
article from which I took my data and that many sites have discrepancies
between which countries have the most college graduates. 

Trayvon Lives On

The news has been pouring with stories and different accounts of Trayvon Martin's shooting back in February. The simple story that has been spread around by major news sources such as the New York Times, is that a young African American in Florida-- 17 to be exact-- named Trayvon Martin, was shot by an armed community watch guard who suspected Trayvon of suspicious activity. Trayvon was unarmed at the time, and was carrying only an iced tea and a bag of skittles. Driving While Black is a pretty well known phenomenon, think of this is as Walking While Black. 


President Obama shared his sentiments on the atrocity later: "'I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this'". Obama understands that this is not just about one boy who was killed, this is about our entire attitudes as Americans towards people of different races. Mitt Romeny, the Republican presidential candidate, took a similar stance on the issue "'What happened to Trayvon Martin is a tragedy. There needs to be a thorough investigation that reassures the public that justice is carried out with impartiality and integrity'". 

Trayvon Martin

Some facts about the shootings that are much less well known are that Zimmerman, the community watch guard who shot Trayvon was a Hispanic American. I am not sure how exactly this affects my views on the shooting, but I definitely think that you could see this as an example of racial tension. Another lesser known fact is that Mr. Zimmerman had called 911 an astounding 46 times in the past eight years, which shows his paranoia and mental instability- no wonder the police did not come rushing to the scene when Zimmerman reported suspicious activity. Few people know why Trayvon was really there. He was there with his father to visit his father's fiance and son-- so he truly was minding his own business. Zimmerman is now in prison and has been charged with second degree murder. Thanks to the media, the police received enough public support to further investigate the case. Now, there is an extremely long Wikipedia page dedicated to the "Shooting of Trayvon Martin". 


I personally find this whole case a giant upset for American progress. It has been centuries since we have been importing slaves to America. Segregation in public schools has been outlawed for about 50 years now. America now has its first African American president. Yet, after all of these improvements, I wonder in light of the Trayvon Martin shooting, how much has really changed? Is it possible that America has not in fact progressed, but began to regress?




Sources:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/trayvon_martin/index.html?8qa
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-27/dear-al-sharpton-leave-trayvon-martin-alone.html
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/obama-makes-first-comments-on-trayvon-martin-shooting/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

NIMBY

"NIMBY" I told my parents half jokingly. Over dinner, my parents informed me that the synagogue I live directly across the street from is trying to renovate their basement to form an apartment or home for a homeless family, which would house them. Instead of continually teaching the values of taking care of others and being generous, a bunch of churches and now this synagogue also, have decided to help solve the problem. Indeed, it is a noble idea. Its nobleness is the reason it is so difficult to oppose it and voice our opinions against it-- no one wants to be the one denying a homeless family a home.

When you wipe away all of the grandeur of the idea, you can begin to see the flaws. The three main causes of homelessness are crime, drug issues, and mental illness. These three things sadly make it hard to buy or rent a residence and make you an undesirable neighbor. But these reasons are the reasons that I am not in favor of having a homeless family as my neighbor: I question my safety. If you put yourself in my feet  you may agree. Do you really want to live next to someone with schizophrenia?

Beyond my worries about how this may affect me, I wonder how this will affect the homeless family. Family is a very vague term, and the details of what exactly will happen are vague too. But regardless of whether this is a parent with three children, or grandparents with a child and their spouse and their 24 year old son or daughter, how will they feel and manage. If the family cannot afford to maintain a residence, then how will their 10 year old daughter feel in the midst of label heaven (Glencoe is the second most fashionable town after all, see earlier post). As far as how an older family may manage, where will they do something like buy their groceries? At Grand Foods which only offers six dollar organic milk? I doubt it. Everything around here is more expensive, so situating someone with very very little money in an expensive neighborhood seems like a path to disaster.

Also, God forbid something goes wrong, like a theft for example, the defendants will not be suing the family, they do not have any money, they will be going after the synagogue.

Some questions that I have which I hope to be answered when more details are provided are 1) will the family pay taxes or are residents supposed to support them, and 2) will this be a stable housing unit for one family for an extended period of time or for shorter terms.

I am all for affordable housing but I think homelessness is a completely different case . In the end, is the synagogue solving the problem or using the family as a token of their support?



Note: "66% [of homeless people] report either substance use and/or mental health problems". For further reading, this article talks about homelessness.

Glencoe: The 2nd Most Fashionable Town in the U.S.

Apparently I live in the second most fashionable town in the entire United States. My sister texted me today saying that Glencoe was ranked the second most fashionable town in America.  I was aware of the fact that Glencoe, Illinois was one of the wealthiest towns in America, but this still came as a shock considering that while talking to kids and parents in Glencoe most labeled themselves "upper middle class". Maybe they are right and they really are upper middle class, or maybe they are unwilling to label themselves as upper class or even lower class. Recently in my American studies class we have been learning about how people identify themselves based on class, and how skewed people are. In a documentary we were watching, one person said "everyone considers themselves middle class". But why? 

I believe that the term middle class connotes something very American-- working hard and moving up. In my opinion, if you are in the upper middle class it is more likely that you have had to work for your money than if you are in the lower upper class or upper class. Upper class people have probably inherited money and have been given a little bit of a financial cushion making it more likely for them to remain in the upper class. These people are not quite fondly called "old money". Glencoe is a mix of old money and new money. The general consensus would be that it is marginally more "new money". I have a theory on why Glencoeans identify as upper middle class even though research would argue otherwise. Growing up, most of my parents generation was middle class. They got by fine but did not have a surplus of money. So, these people consider themselves middle class because that is what they are used to being. I believe it is hard to change classes, and these people know. Undoubtedly though, they have gained more wealth, which is shown in the amount per household spent on clothing. Still, it was hard for them to believe that they managed to believe that they had moved up but still acknowledged a little. Upper middle class became for them the compromise between being middle class and being upper class, and middle class still connotes that they had to work to get to where they are, it was not handed over. 

If my generation moves back to Glencoe, I expect Glencoe to shift to being a predominantly "old money" town. We would be "old money" because we grew up wealthy with such amenities as dressing nicely, and a college education to name a few. I think then, we may be willing to identify as upper class because having money will no longer be a foreign idea to our generation. 

(Note: the article can be found by clicking on this link)

Women: Nothing But White Noise?

In my American Studies class in school, we recently finish White Noise by Don DeLillo. Here is the premise of the book: set in the 70s, tells the story of Jack Gladney, a Hitler studies professor at a college, and his family. After the set up, a cloud of chemicals comes that forces the family to leave town for a little, and later move back. Jack is of course the main character, complex and interesting, but his wife Babette also receives a decent amount of development. Don't get your hopes up though, by no means is she described flatteringly. When we do learn about her, it is for short sections, that could be thought of as white noise.

I am not surprised by the lack of impressive female characters in the novel. I think that this novel merely mirrors life. The New York Times recently published an article about Gloria Steinem, a prominent and highly influential woman involved in the women's rights movement for 40 years. The article  talks about how the feminist movement relies solely on Gloria as their spokesperson, and how no one else has been able to replace her. As I said at the beginning of this paragraph: this novel merely mirrors life. In White Noise, there is not a single powerful female character. Let me describe some of the female characters in the book:
Babette: scared of death, obsessed with weight, and sleeps with another man to get what she wants.
Denise: Jack's daughter who is bossy yet extremely gullible and easily influenced. For instance, she adopts every symptom of what she hears on the radio that could be a result of exposure to the toxic cloud "'[Denise and her sister] get them only when they're broadcast" (129). In this case, "them" is whatever new symptom has been announced.
Steffie: Jack's other daughter who is like another Denise except sensitive. We do not really know very much about her but we know that her genes are not great because her mother has some issues.

Those are really the three main female characters, but combined they are still all less interesting than Jack, the main character. If novels are reflections of real life, can we expect there to be interesting, intelligent characters like Gloria Steinem when there is only one person like her? Except for Gloria Steinem, are women nothing but white noise?

Mad (Wo)Men

Mad Men, a popular tv show on AMC set in the mid 20th century about the big wig advertising men of that era, just aired the premiere of its 5th season on Sunday Night. Deciding to give into the Mad Men crave, I watched the first episode of the show today. In the first 15 minutes of the show, you see 5 different women's characters. The first one is a woman smoking at the bar, the second a booty call, the third a young girl who seems like a hopeless dreamer with the dream of getting ahead who cannot stick up for herself, the fourth a pissy red head who insists that women are good for nothing but sex, and the fifth is finally a seemingly educated woman- however, she is foreign and is immediately shut down when she begins talking.

But don't worry it's okay because they are just making fun of people who make fun of women.....

But is it really okay? Are we not taught in English class that a double negative makes what you said before you repeated yourself true? Example: "Mother, I did not not do my chores". In this case I am partly clearing your name, but what I still really mean is that I did not do my chores, I am just unwilling to admit it. SO, to say that you are making fun of people who are making fun of women really just means that you are in fact making fun of women. In the words of a vlogger on feminist frequency "It’s really the normalization of sexism through the use of irony" (video shown below). I certainly agree with what she has to offer on the topic of lampooning others who make fun of women; check it out to hear her ideas on the topic.

Do you agree? Can we apply the theory of a double negative to something like sexism in a tv show?

At The Bottom

Feminist sayings with Ryan Gosling pictures have
been flooding the internet. This is one of many. 

A popular New York Times article floating around is about the possibly longest serving flight attendant in the U.S.- an 83 year old man who has been working as a flight attendant for 63 years now. The tone of the article can easily be described as light, heartwarming, or even inspiring. When I saw only the title of the article, I assumed the subject of the article would me a woman because of occupational crowding- men or women being  grouped in a certain job because it is the right "fit" for their gender. I do not think it was presumptive of me to jump to the conclusion that the flight attendant would be a male for a reason stated in the article. The qualifications for a flight attendant used to be: "single (widows and divorcees with no children considered), 20 years of age (girls 19 1/2 may apply for future consideration). 5’2” but no more than 5’9,” weight 105 to 135 in proportion to height and have at least 20/40 vision without glasses". I suppose it goes without saying that they must we women. Oh and also they were required to retire by 32. These requirements to be a flight attendant are quite appalling. The gall of the executives of this company to put this add out there in 1966, not that long ago, is remarkable. In the next paragraph, the article mentions his personal life: "He married a fellow flight attendant... He continued to fly. She promptly quit". This should give an idea of just how regulated these things were; these rules of being single and such were played by the book.

Despite this article acknowledging the unfair treatment of women in the work force, it does not mention women's role in the field until the very bottom of the first page and spilling on a tiny bit onto the second. It makes me wonder: how far have we really come? In an article about the unfair treatment of women, why are women only a small portion of the article, and why do they come at the point when most people would stop reading?

Women DO Count

One of the cover stories on the Sunday New York Times is about Obama's campaign and his latest tactic to regain candidacy in the 2012 race. As my title suggests, the key to his winning the election is getting the women vote. A new health care law is out mandating universal insurance and requiring coverage of both treatments for illnesses, and more controversially, certain women's health care coverages. These coverages include: contraception, mammograms, and abortion. Republicans and leading republican presidential candidates are not in favor of these health care laws and plan to repeal it if they get in power. 


One of my main problems with this issue is the disconnect between the Republican party's pro-life stance and how they treat people. A friend of mine recently shared this photo with me on Facebook, about all of the help the Republicans deny different groups. As the sign poignantly remarks upon- we will take care of you to make sure that you will be born, but once you are born, we have no intentions of protecting you from going broke from expensive medical treatments which you cannot pay for, or breast cancer prevention (mammogram testing), etc. Being sick is not a choice, which is why I believe that whether or not the Catholic Church's morals allows Catholics to receive previously mentioned women's health care, they should provide it as an option for all employees and people who have their health care. It simply does not make sense to be pro-life and not let people then have a good life where they do not have to worry about whether they can receive medical attention or not because it may cost them their house for something like a few chemotherapy treatments. 


Back to where I began, women in the election. Most women would and maybe even should be appalled by the Republican party's lack of support for their well-being. Here is a statistic on how much women effect who is in power, a "survey asked in the summer which party should control Congress, 46 percent of women favored Democrats and 42 percent preferred Republican control. But in a survey released Monday ... that figure had widened considerably to a 15-point advantage for the Democrats "(Source). It has been 90 years since women gained suffrage, and their vote is finally starting to matter. But I wonder in terms of the Republicans, how can they expect to win the race when they are upsetting women, who according to the NYtimes article "were 53 percent of the national vote in 2008 " ? 

TV Tokenisim

 

This show is called Undercovers and is a network drama that aired 11 episodes on NBC at 8/7 Central. The main characters in the show are Steven and Samantha, pictured top left. They were ex CIA agents who were recruited back into the agency because they are good spies. Along with their friend Hoyt, (token white guy), they travel the world getting the bad guys and saving the day. Both have many secrets from their past which spill out throughout the season. Their friend however receives under half as much screen time as they do, and is usually in the back of the car fiddling on computers or hiding while Steven and Samantha get the job done.


Source 1: http://images.zap2it.com/images/tv-EP01264338/undercovers-5.jpg
Source 2: http://cdn.static.ovimg.com/episode/ 3046781.jpg

A Short Post About A Short Month

"I liken having a black history month in February and concentrating study on that to milk that's just about to go sour. You can still drink it but it just doesn't taste right" said Phillip Roth in his novel The Human Stain. I most definitely believe that he is onto something- it seems forced to me to have a whole month dedicated to blacks. A few initial questions I had were how did black history month start, who created it, and will it ever end?

Although this article about the history of this month is a bit dated, it is still true. To summarize: in 1926 a man named Dr. Carter G Woodson originally created Black History week in February in the week that was the birthdays of both Frederick Douglass, a former black slave and abolitionist, and President Abraham Lincoln who signed the Emancipation Proclomation. He was appalled by the lack of information the public had about their heritage. This later turned into an entire month in 1976 simply because the public began celebrating it earlier and finishing celebrating it later. (Here is a little point of irony: blacks are given the shortest month to celebrate their history.)

Now it is 86 years later and people are still unsure of whether or not blacks are being left out of the picture. I mean that both figuratively and literally. This past week in my American Studies class we have been discussing TV Tokenism. My teacher defined the token as a supporting character added to the show as a minority. Whether or not you have heard of TV Tokenism, this phenomenon most likely sounds familiar now. Just think about the black best friend, the boss never seen without a tie and suit, or the loving nanny. Many people have been upset by the fact that blacks are still never seen as the main characters in tv shows and only ever as figures of minorities to satisfy minority activist groups and members of minority groups. These characters are very forced in my opinion. However, I would be more upset if these characters did not exist and we saw a solely white cast.

Now I am curious, is it better to have these forced characters in these shows, or should we just accept the fact that blacks do not earn the same starring roles on tv shows that whites do? And in a time of political correctness, can we expect these tokens to ever disappear along with Black History Month? Are these symbols still even needed?

Damn Movie Theater Candy

So good, but so not worth it!

I just got back from seeing a movie tonight with a couple friends. The movie was hilarious, the company was good, and yet I'm angry. Why? Because all I wanted was a box of Raisinets to accompany my "cinema experience", but I am too stingy to pay the $4    for a 3.5 oz. box of candy. I have been boycotting movie theater candy for about two years now, and with little success. Perhaps boycott is not the correct word, but I am still part of a large movement to not by the ridiculously overpriced candy. Here is the secret on how I have not caved in: I bring my own candy from home- GASP!

Some people say that sneaking in your own food is wrong. However, there are no rules of the matter from the movie theater, it is just considered morally wrong so to speak. I disagree- as a consumer in America, I am given choices, not only between brands or Raisinets v. Milk Duds, but between buying and not buying. Although the right to boycott is not in the constitution, consumers may still buy what they want from the existing options.

I chose to research why exactly the candy at a movie theater is so expensive. It turns out that this information has been out in the open for almost 10 years now since CNN did a story on it. To sum it all up, the studios who make the movies take between 70 and 80 percent of the profits from ticket sales, leaving the theater with the leftovers. The only way the theaters can survive is on sales from concession stands, which is why they hike up the prices. CNN quoted one theater owner saying "'We have movies just to get people in to buy popcorn and candy, where we make our money'".


My research made me wonder, if I and everyone else who is not buying the candy at the concession stands continue our boycott, will theaters have to begin to charge more to see movies? After all, the two movie theaters in my area have both raised their ticket prices in the last year. And if they continue to raise their prices, then how much freedom do we really have as consumers?

Grammy Grub

The Prized Grammy Award

I am sad to be missing  the Grammy Awards, a joyful celebration of music, which are playing on television at this very moment.  But what may seem like an ode to all the winners of the music industry, (which it kind of is), has a history that contradicts that idea- the Grammy Awards began as a celebration of all those people who did not win.

Let me back up for a moment. The Hollywood Walk of Fame, which honors top musicians with stars on Hollywood Boulevard was in the midst of being created in the 1950s. It took a while to actually build those first stars and figure out all the legal stuff, but the first stars were placed in 1960. Somewhere between 2 to 4 years before that, the concept of the Grammy Awards was created. The people in charge of choosing who would win the stars on the Walk Of Fame wanted to honor everyone that could not be given a star. So now we have the Grammys, or a celebration of second place.

This concept of honoring people who are not good enough seems quite unAmerican to me. The United States is full of competition everywhere, from politics, to our capitalist economy, to our higher education system. I find it very refreshing to see an American tradition that honors not just the winners. But where else in America are the runners up looked up to and applauded? And why don't we appreciate everyone's success, not just the number 1s?

The Made In America Push

In my American Studies class, we have recently been learning about all of the products we buy which are not made here in America. When you look at the label of your shirt in says Made In China, Indonesia, India, or some other poor and underdeveloped country. ABC has been running a series called "Made In America" which talks about the origins of different products and the push to by more products Made In America. The most recent clip was on the Superbowl. To give you an idea of how an American sport has been outsourced consider this fact: you have to dig back about 50 years to find a football jersey that was made in the U.S. (Superbowl Made In America video).

On a more refreshing note, most of the footballs, helmets, coins, and trophies used in the NFL are made in the U.S. These products give Americans jobs as opposed to foreign laborers. The products also keep the money in America instead of outsourcing it. As a concerned humanitarian, the most important thing the Made In America push does, is takes a stand against the cruelties against foreign laborers. Workers here are paid properly, get breaks during work, and are not abused. 

In case you are still doubtful of switching to buying American made products, consider this example from the video. Tom Brady's jersey is made in Wisconsin, and the company there that makes copies of it has the copies down to the exact centimeter. The souvenir of it which was made in Korea is significantly larger and less precise. On top of American products helping the economy, they are simply better products. Consider that next time you are deciding on whether you should or should not spend the extra few dollars.

The Shared Experience of Absurdity

This past Tuesday President Obama gave a State of The Union Address. The basic feeling he was attempting to convey was optimism and hope for the country. He mentioned various people as examples of "normal" Americans, meaning that any of his examples could have been you. Obama used these examples to try and bring together both the nation, and Congress and the House of Representatives in the hopes of overlooking labels like Democrat and Republican and passing bills for the good of America. Obama commented in his address on the irony of the situation saying, "Both parties agree on these ideas. So put them in a bill, and get it on my desk this year." Everything he was preaching sounded good, a unified and happy America, who would not want that? But I questioned the realism of his ideas. Is it possible to bring together many random Americans with opposing viewpoints and accomplish a shared goal? 

 

A little while ago, my sister showed me a TED talk about a man named Charlie Todd who created something called Improv Everywhere in New York City. I am aware that it is long, but it is a truly hilarious video worth watching for at least a few minutes. In the video, Todd shares stories of how "his group, Improv Everywhere, uses these scenes to bring people together" (Ted.com). Specifically in the video Todd mentions my two favorites the No Pants Subway Ride, which is exactly what it sounds like, and the Best Buy improvisation where 80 people showed up at Best Buy in a blue polo shirt and khaki pants. Not only are these outrageous scenes successful in bringing together different random Americans with most likely opposing views to create the scenes, but they also make strangers interact and laugh together.

I believe the meaning behind this video is that once we look beyond our differences, we are all Americans and that collaboration makes the world a better and in this case funnier place. Clearly, it is possible to have different people work together and create something. If all of these ordinary Americans can, then why can Congress and the House of Representatives which are supposed to be full of intelligent people not pass a bill? Is America not a place where unity, teamwork, and collaboration are appreciated?

Meta Blog Post: Blogging About Blogging

As I look from my older blog posts to my newer ones, I definitely notice the themes of hard work and opportunity. I would probably categorize my posts into three sections: the beginning of the year until first quarter where we received comments on our favorite posts from the teachers, then until the day before New Year's, and the day before New Years until now.

In my first section, I was writing for my own enjoyment, about whatever floated across my mind. For example, my very first post, Yoga On the Rise, is about one of my favorite hobbies- yoga. This post and most of the others were not rooted in many texts, had simple and casual language, and had almost no correlation to America or American Studies. However, my speaking voice was well echoed in it, and was most definitely fun to read because I was writing about topics that interested me and I was passionate about.

After receiving comments about our blogs at first quarter, some of the good qualities from the first section were lost, but the problems from then were fixed. Many posts seem generic in the way that anyone could have written them- there is no clear voice. At times, they feel slightly like a checklist of requirements to accomplish. Nevertheless, previous problems like rooting posts in texts, American Studies, and America as a whole were no longer issues. One post that exemplifies these ideas very well is my post titled Is All Art Propaganda? Right off the bat, I say "In my American Studies class". This introduction makes it seem like I am trying to hard to accomplish the set goal of connecting the post to class. As the piece progresses though, I begin to ask more thought provoking questions like  "is propaganda in the form of art a bad thing?" One of my favorite parts about this question is that it makes the reader question their philosophy on art by asking is it. This was a good post because it was truly an extension of the discussions we have in class, despite the fact that it lacked an authentic voice. 

This last section from New Years until now is only just beginning. In all honesty, I am not positive about the origin of this change, but if I had to guess, I suppose I would attribute it to the New Year and the general feeling of opportunity like my first post of the section says. In that post I take it a step further by connecting ideas we learn in class like American values, connecting it to a relevant topic- New Years, and then I connect it back to the novel A Narrative In the Life Of Frederick Douglass. Not only do I bring it back to Douglass, but I cite specific evidence from the text: "Mr. Covey, 'succeeded in breaking me. I was broken in body, soul, and spirit'". I then go on to explain the quote in the context of my blog post and do not just ignore it. Certainly this is only a beginning of the next section, but I believe that I am finally beginning to put together all of the good pieces from all the sections and leaving out the bad ones. My posts now are relevant, relate to class, have an authentic voice, are rooted in text, and are interesting. I think that I am starting to find the balance between taking what we learn in class and writing about the ideas from class that interest me the most.

suc·cess [suhk-ses]: the attainment of wealth, position, honors, or the like.

In my American Studies Class, we discussed success and what constitutes success in the context of jobs. The discussion took the route of the question: Is it better to have a job that you do not like that pays well, or a job you love that does not pay as well. I doubt that the class realized that an article came out just that day on Americans trying to succeed in business to help them live a more comfortable lifestyle. The article talks in length about how Americans enjoy much less mobility in terms of economic status than other comparable countries such as the United Kingdom and Denmark: "At least five large studies in recent years have found the United States to be less mobile than comparable nations". 

Rosie the Riveter, a classic symbol for
women of hard work leading to success
 post WWII.

A distinctly American value in my opinion is the ability to improve yourself financially, and try to surpass your parents. In the North Shore, a few northern suburbs of Chicago, known for being a wealthy community, children tend to follow similar patterns their parents took, speaking contextually about jobs and earnings. Unsurprisingly, the article mentioned something quite similar: “Family background plays more of a role in the U.S. than in most comparable countries”. I would accredit this trend of being well off in the North Shore to two factors. The first factor would be that in our North Shore society, living comfortably is valued and even expected. The second reason I believe is the precedent set on education. If my guesses are correct, than we can understand this cycle of stability in the community. 

However, earlier on in America's foundation, this continued wealth was not the case. In class we looked at an NPR interview conducted with Bill T. Jones, a famous American dancer and choreographer. He spoke about his upbringing and said "'I was in school was so that I didn't have to be out there with [my father]'". Here, Jones is explaining the privileges he was given from the sacrifices his father made by working "out there" as a laborer in the cold. After Jones received his college education, he was certainly able to succeed financially even though it was not an academia related field. For Jones, it was easier to excel more than his father had because his father was not a rich man. In a wealthy area like the North Shore, and in a country like the United States without large opportunities for financial mobility, how can we succeed more than our parents did?