New Kind of Recruiting

Yesterday, I recieved my monthly issue of Seventeen magazine. I began flipping through the pages and I came across an add for the National Guard. I was very confused and surprised to see this in my fashion magazine. The add displays a young looking girl, obviously a teenager, smiling at the reader, and next to her, another picture is displayed of the same girl in her uniform handing bottles of water to a young boy and his family. In big letters in the middle, it says, "When disaster strikes, we're there to help." The message seems to be different than the one we saw in the commercial in class. It is much softer and "cute". The commercial we watched mostly showed young men (with the football), and the music was hard core, there was guns and shooting, and although it portrayed one woman, it seemed to be aimed at men. This add was obviously meant for women, and it has been changed to fit a woman stereotype: soft, non violent, sympathetic for young children, blah blah blah. First of all, how desperate is it to advertise the National Guard in seventeen magazine? I have never seen anything like this in a fashion magazine before. Second, I feel like this add and the one we watched in class were for two different organizations. The 3 Doors Down video showed fighting and collapsed houses and intense scenes. Yet, the magazine add shows women holding children like mothers, and being soft and loving. There is NOTHING violent or intense about the add. What is wrong with this picture? How dare the guard advertise in a popular magazine, and portray women as weak, motherly figures? You guys may think I'm over analyzing, but what the hell? If the guard is all about "Firing the shot that started a nation", then why do they feel the need to downplay that philosophy in a female aimed magazine? Two words, false advertisement.

Too much information??

The other day, I logged on to my computer and decided to check my facebook. When I got on to my home screen, something caught my attention that I had never seen before. In a large box on the screen, big bold letters wrote, "Welcome Stephanie! Would you like to show these on your profile?" Below it was a list of about ten movies that I had rented from blockbuster in the last month, including the list I had on blockbuster.com that were going to be sent to me in the upcoming weeks. I took a double take when I first saw this. It was exactly like our class discussion the other week on big brother. How could this information possibly be submitted to facebook, and why would I want this posted? I find this incredibly disturbing and invasive. What movies I rent is my personal choice, and I would rather not have it shown to anyone who can access the world wide web. Not that I have anything to hide with the movies I rent, but what satisfaction does it give anyone to know that the last three movies I rented were Harry Potter, Transformers, and The Holiday? Does that really do anything other than feed our already extremely stalker friendly Internet sites? I think it a serious invasion of privacy. If its my movies now, what else could facebook find to post? My online store purchases or what websites I visited that day? The Internet is still fairly new and will continue to grow and advance. If we don't watch or be careful of what is happening, then soon, anyone and everyone can have others personal information and then, no one will have any privacy.

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?