Difference in American Values

What are the top ten true American values? If there really is such a thing, who chooses them for us? Today in class we discussed values of society in todays world. One point that struck me was the idea of youthfulness. When I watch TV, I can't even count the number of times I see Loreal or Maybelline face lift adds, that avertise the ability to look younger and have younger tighter skin. What is so wrong with aging? Why are the only top stories in the magazines about models and actresses going under the knife and getting plastic surgery? Even our shows like 10 Years Younger, What Not To Wear, and Dr. 90210 only show people with needs to look younger and "better". Below, I have included a few links of comercials advertising our American obsession with youthfulness.

Loreal Comercial:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qn53hR9zl7w

My Political Spectrum

Above is my official Political Spectrum. I was incredibly surprised with these results. It said I was closer to Ghandi with my views than someone like Obama. I definently agree that I am a strong Liberal, and I believe in posotive change within the government. But what I don't agree on is the result of my Libertarian views. I am a full believer in a cenral government and a strong authority leader, not a small government and someone like Ghandi in power. I wonder how acurate these tests really are.

Modern day law suspention??

In class, we are reviewing civil liberties and perilous times. I
have begun to wonder if I am the only person who believes it is not ever ok for a president or a government to suspend laws. We learned from the Civil war group that when Lincoln was president, he suspended the Habeas Corpus law, meaning that the government could basically throw anyone in jail without reasonable proof or reason, just because the people of that time were scared. I don't think that he was justified doing this and for anyone who does believe that, what does that say to our leaders of today? If Bush suddenly decided to cut Habeas Corpus, what would happen to America as we know it? Anyone for any reason could be thrown in jail. When is it ever ok for a president or official to take away our birth given constitutional rights?

How has Hollywood changed our view on history?

When you hear the word Indian or pirate, what first comes to mind? For me, when I hear Indian, I automatically think of Pocahontas, and Dances With Wolves. I think about feather headdresses and arrow-heads. I think of long black braided hair and people dancing around a fire somewhere in the Forrest. When I think of Pirate, I see Johnny Depp and Kiera Knightly and how beautiful and glamorous all pirates lives must have been, and how incredibly cool it would have been to be there and watch a real ship being attacked. Recently in class, we had a discussion about how two statues in downtown Chicago were of Sioux Indians, aiming a bow and an arrow at each other. The Indians both have feather crown headdresses on, like the ones we see in the movies and on TV. But in reality, the Sioux Indians never, ever wore headdresses like that. This really made me think about what we actually know about the past, and what we imagine about the past. I believe Hollywood has romanticized all of the things we watch and has changed perceptions on many people. In reality, Pirates were nothing more than savage killers who didn't care who they killed, as long as they got what they wanted. They raped and killed sailors and their families, yet all we think about is people walking the plank and awesome heroic sword fights. And Indians probably did not all talk to raccoons and hummingbirds. They also did not converse with talking willow trees and sing and fall in love with English settlers. They fought for their land and struggled to survive everyday by living off the land and animals. If you were to think about the Titanic right now, what would come into your mind? Let me guess, Leonardo Dicaprio and Kate Winslet? A love story that will become a classic for years to come? I'm betting that you didn't think of the 1500 people that died that night and how incredibly horrific that tragedy was for America? What do we really know about the past and historic events that hasn't been romanticised and changed to make a better story?

Bong Hits For Jesus

Today, we talked about the kid who made the sign and held it up before the Olympic parade that read, "Bong Hits For Jesus". Although I agree with the school giving him a suspension for displaying references to drugs (which was a school policy), I am slightly confused at where the supreme court decides where student free speech ends. In a CNN article I read, one of the lawyers added, "...While the court has limited student free speech rights in the past, young people do not give up all their First Amendment rights when they enter a school." I think that this is just one case, but where does free speech really end and begin? This really made me think about what we are truly allowed to say and display at our schools. In freshman year, my advisory was going to make sweatshirts with my advisor, Ms. Hayes, and it was going to say Purple Hayes (like the song). But the idea was turned down by the principle. But if we had made those shirts...what would that lead to? If that kid can't make drug references, can we even joke about it? where is the line, and should it even be drawn?

Puritans using belief for control?

In one of our discussions about puritan life after they left England, I started to question the puritan beliefs in God vs. the Devil and who was going to heaven or hell once they died. After hearing the puritan views on life and, I began to wonder what the intention of all of their rules really was. We talked in class about how a few of the puritans were excommunicated from the village because of their thoughts and ideas, and were sent away to Rhode Island. One of those people was Anne Hutchinson. A few years after she was banished from the town, she was murdered by Indians in the woods. The puritan priest found out and told his people that it was "The lord's doing...and isn't it great?" This statement really made me think, what is the priest trying to tell his people. Was he saying that they should be afraid of the world, and should not speak their mind or else they will suffer a death like she did? I think that is exactly what he was trying to tell them. In the movie The Village, a small town is hidden away in the forest, far away from modern human civilization. The people are told that they can not leave the village, for if they do, they will be killed by monsters. A couple times throughout the movie, we see the monsters come out, but in the end, we find that they are really older towns people dressed up in costumes to scare their people from venturing out of the village. This, I believe, is a parallel between the puritans and the movie, The Village. Just like they dressed up in monster costumes to scare people to not wonder off, the puritans were told that if they leave their village of "God" or are not told they are going to heaven, they will end up going to hell or dying, like Hutchinson did when she was banished to Rhode Island.

Who is the army really advertizing to?

In class, we had a discussion about comercials on TV during certain sports events and other events where the media takes advantage of races and ethnicities to advertize to. One advertizement that really sticks out to me is the "Army of One" comercial trying to recruit people to the army. One thing I have always noticed is that the comercials are always of young people, and promnently young black and hispanic men. Rarely you will see a woman or a white person on the screen. This made me think about what is really being advertized on our army recruitment ads. For one thing, it is a well know judgement that most people who live in the ghetto are black. It is also a common judgement that most black families are from low incomes, and do not aim for college. This, I think, is a main reason that the army comercials on TV, target young African American boys who are in need of extra money to get to college and a career, for that matter. The comericals for An Army of One, are about a young black man who talks with his parents about joining the army. I think this is really wrong . One, I think the army should not target kids from low income families, just becasue they don't have a lot of money. Most kids don't have any idea what they are signing up for in the first place, because the comercials they see are about people running and looking very brave and heroic. They don't see the blood and death and pain that really happens inside the army. Secondly, I think that the army is trying to take advantage of a situation in their favor. They are targeting kids of a single ethnicity becasue of a jugement that African Americans are poor and have nowhere to go, but to the army. So how strong, is army strong?

Erasing Memory: Changing History?

The other day in class, we talked about the idea of a person possibly being able to erase a single memory by just taking a pill. This pill would not necessarily erase the full memory, but would lesson or take away the emotional attachment to that particular memory. I fully and completely object to this idea. Like I said in class, erasing emotion and memories could distroy memories of event in history, such as genocides and the holocust. Without emotion, we have no idea what happened and how badly peopke were effected. Also, someone mentioned about how if someone was suffering from shell shock from a war, wouldn't "The pill" erase the bad memories from the war and help them and their family? And if a woman was raped as a child, wouldn't it be better if she could just swallow the memory away forever? I believe this issue is much deeper than just yes and no. For one thing, if this pill did eventually go onto the market, what would the message be to all the rapeists in the world? "Oh, I can rape whoever I want because they will just take that pill and they won't remember it!" Or what would it say to all the war generals or future presidents? They would just say "We can send everyone to war now! They can swallow the pill and won't remember this later in their lives. They won't remember the pain." The pill would just be an excuse to get rid of other people's pain for personal gain. Another point is that what happens if everyone can get a hold of this pill? What if people abused it to erase little memories they didn't like, such as a break-up, or a bad grade. I think this pill would be easily abused by everyone. And what would happen if we all took this pill? Would we suddenly be in a perfect eutopia? Would everythinmg be perfect with no pain in the world? Would mom's suddenly say to their kids, "Oh sweetheart, did u lose your soccer game? Take this pill, you won't feel sad anymore!" What are we trying to accomplish by doing that? Pain is normal, its human, its natural!!! (Sorry teachers) but shit happens. Its part of our everyday lives. Its what makes us...us!

Why were we attacked?

After our discussion last week about the 9/11 attacks, I have been thinking over and over again about why in the world we were attacked in the first place. Why the twin towers? Why New York? And more importantly, why so much hate? I don't think anyone really knows the exact reason. In class, someone brought up the point that it all depends on viewpoints. According to (most) americans, the people who ordered the attacks were evil human beings with such a hate twoard the USA, that they were willing to kill thousands of innocent humans without a second thought. But according to them, they might be completing some sort of religious deed, and in the name of their God, they are doing good by killing Americans. But that still doesn't make any sense to me. Why would they come here and cause such distruction? Was it jealousy? Were they jealous of our society? Were they mad at our political decisions? Or was it, in fact, just a religous factor? I would love to hear any feedback or ideas from you guys.

The News and apperance??

In class, we had an intersesing discussion about how people's appearance has become a major factor in deciding who is on the news and who anchors are. It used to be that all anchors were middle aged white men with english and journalism degrees, but today, it seems that even if an anchor is terrible or rude (AKA Nancy Grace), it only matters if they are good looking and camera friendly. Today, people like the presidents press secretary, have become sudden celebrities. People on CNN shows such as Glen Beck, Anderson Cooper 360, and Robbin and Company are all beautiful and flawless people that all have their own time on the news. Our discussion made me really think about what goes on behind the scenes of hireing anyone for a job. I admit, it is easier to watch someone that is good looking, but should looks be the only deciding factor in hiring newscasters, and anyone that is on TV for that matter? If you read my blog, what do you think about our journalists today becoming celebs?

Pictured Left To Right: Robbin and Company, Anderson Cooper 360, Nancy Grace

Secret Messages

Sometimes, when we see people on the street, the obvious things that are right in front of us convey a different and deeper message.

When a person is walking around school sporting a Louis Vuitton bag, the obvious idea is that they own a leather bag. But for most people, the bag may seem like a bit more. When an object no more than a bag costs around $1,000, people notice!

When I see someone that uses a bag that expensive to cary around school books, I automatically think that they are stuck up, rich, and get everyting they want. It is incredible how much we judge people by a bag, but the first thing that comes to mind when I personally see someone carying one is that they are rich stuck up brats and that they are the last person on earth I want to try and be friends with.