Walmart Owns Me

The rich really do have power. Why? because they could buy your house and everyone in your city's as well. Don't believe me? Check out this article. One of the more shocking facts is that "The Walton family's (Walmart's founding family) combined wealth of $154.8 billion is enough to purchase all 241,450 homes in the Emerald City, which are worth a total of $111.5 billion.." Wow.  This is kind of a scary thought. After reading this article I feel like the big corporations in America own me. Or could if they wanted to.

What really bothers me about this is that there are so many families in America  struggling to find a home. I think that this is embarrassing for America. The gap is getting out of control. Who really needs all this money?

I know what many people reading this post are going to say, that living in the area that I live in with the opportunities that I have that I really have no right to complain, and I don't. But I don't want to live in a country that encourages their people to strive to change their economic position when it seems nearly impossible. 

I think that something I have learned in American Studies this year is that many people like to deny the lack of freedom we have in our country. Relating to this blogpost, I think that many people are't aware of the fact that there is basically no social mobility in America. When someone ends up in a lower class, people "above" them like to claim that they did not work hard enough to move. But after a year in this class I know that that is most likely not the case. People need to forget the idea that it is all about personal drive. Rather, things like connections and opportunities given to you based on your natural social status affect where you land in this country.

Ignorance is Bliss...

We all know the importance of recycling and most of us would like to say we care about the environment, but why is it that so many people are choosing to deny the possibility of the serious immediate impact of global warming? A recent CBS poll taken shows that only 28% of Republicans believe that global warming has a serious impact on the environment now. While the democrats have a better percentage of 65%, I wonder why this issue seems to brushed off by such a large portion of the population.

In the CBS article analyzing this data, they suggest the denial might come from push-back from Obama's recent carbon emission standards. The states that say that global warming is not an issue are those that produce a lot of coal. I believe that some states take Obama's recent action as an attempt to satisfy democrats who are pushing for reforms. However, I know that this is a real issue and that what Obama did was the first step to changing the way people treat the environment.

It seems crazy to me that people could be skeptical of an issue that is obviously a problem. We see it everyday with changes in our environment. I think that the denial comes from wanting to make a profit from the coal industry. By the time some people choose to accept the impact of Global Warming, it could be too late.

Breaking News: Hilary Clinton Loves Netflix!

Ever since people have started to suspect Hilary Clinton of planning to run in the 2016 presidential election, she has been a centerpiece of political discussions. Some directly about her plans if she gets elected to office, and others about more than that. I wouldn't even call a lot of the news stories about her "political." With the resurfacing of the Monica Lewinsky scandal in january, people have found more than just her political views to talk about. 

This scandal seems to follow Hilary every time she makes a move in the public eye. Everyone is always looking at her for her reactions and comments on the issue. This makes it hard for her to really make people see her as more than just her reaction to an affair her husband had many years ago. 

This article is one of many, analyzing comments made by Hilary about the issue and also her shift in political positions recently when she left the secretary of state's job. "In the People interview, Mrs. Clinton discusses her life since leaving the secretary of state’s job last year: cleaning out her closets (“very calming”); doing yoga and aquatics (“not as much as I should”); and binge-watching the Netflix series “House of Cards,” a Washington-based political thriller." This quote to me just shows the lack of progress we have seen in representation of women in the media. These hobbies aren't as ridiculous as the fact that she is even saying this in an interview. If a male (high-profile) political figure ever admitted to watching too much Netflix after leaving his job he would probably be laughed at and never taken seriously again. I think that people want to paint this picture of Hilary Clinton as your typical harmless woman so that they do not have to consider the fact that she actually might have a good chance at leading this country. People who don't believe in a woman president want to believe that Hilary Clinton's time off consists of binge watching Netflix and organizing her clothes rather than spending every minute of her free time preparing for her possible future in the 2016 presidential election. 

A Crime for a Crime Makes the Whole World Blind

Ever since Edward Snowden began releasing information on the NSA and their methods of monitoring the population, the people of the United States have more been concerned about their privacy than ever. As people are becoming more and more aware of this surveillance, they are discussing ways to prevent access to this information. But is Snowden unjust in revealing this information to everyone? Should we really blame them when so many other huge corporations have a lot of the same technology to commit the same "crime" that the Government is? After reading this article, these are some of the questions that I have considered.

Many government officials paint Edward Snowden as the "bad guy," often calling his actions treason. The people who really benefit from this information he is releasing probably think differently. There is a price to pay in order to uncover larger crimes.  "So the question really isn’t whether Snowden committed a crime, but whether he uncovered larger crimes and that of course is the case, not just in the US, but in many countries. When crimes are committed we wouldn’t know about it if it were not for Snowden." Says Nohl, the journalist that commented on the issue in this article.  Obviously the NSA does not praise Snowden for his actions, however the public should. Though he is seen as someone who betrayed our country and put it under more stress, I believe that Snowden is releasing information that we should already know. 

This idea can go both ways, though. Think about the reason that the government really is tapping into this information. They are, in a sense, trying to "...uncover a larger crime" (Nohl) just as Snowden was. The NSA does not care about your personal information unless you are a threat to the safety of your country. So why is it such a crime that they have access to this unless you are actually a criminal, in which case you probably shouldn't have the right to your privacy. I believe that sometimes we should justify these little crimes by looking at the bigger picture. The question is, what does your bigger picture look like? A society where you are free to communicate without the fear of someone surveilling your every move, or one where everything is monitored by officials for "the safety of the nation"?

The Low-Class Billionaires

Everyone knows who Kanye West and Kim Kardashian are. Not only do we know who they are, we know a lot about their lives. We know that they are very rich, can buy expensive clothes and cars and attend exclusive Hollywood parties. But I wonder what class people would put them in if they were asked.

I know that for me, I have heard many times that these two individuals are "trashy" and "ghetto." If they have so much money and fame then why do people use these words, that often imply a lower social class,  to describe them? I think that something like this definitely shows what it means to be part of a higher class in america.

Kim Kardashian was not accepted to have a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, according to US Magazine and Kanye west himself in this article. I know, I know, this isn't exactly breaking news and it feels kind of silly to be writing a post about this, but I really think that this says something about our society.

Kim Kardashian is famous, rich, pretty and people seem to care about her life more a lot, considering she has a successful show that basically consists of her going to lunch with her mom, so why doesn't she "Qualify for a star?" (Martinez) The way Kim Kardashian got to be famous is not admired in our society, therefore she is often not considered to be in a higher class than people like Angelina Jolie, whom the public respects and appreciates. They could have the same amount of money, and own multimillion dollar houses on the same block, but they will never be in the same class.

The Modern Day Bully

Being honest, how many times have you heard your friends call someone a "slut"? or stupid? or a "pussy"? The answer for most people unfortunately  would be a lot. These words are considered bullying. Most people are aware of the devastating affects of these actions, but when does name-calling become a crime?

Mark O'Mara, the author of  this article, says  "We don't want to criminally punish kids for being kids. We don't want to make it illegal to call people names. (Who would judge such a thing anyway?)" This is a good question to ask, but with the growing suicide rate someone has to step in. So how do we judge when normal "name-calling" turns into bullying. How is someone supposed to know the affects that what seems to be normal teasing? For one person this harassment could be brushed off, but for another such as Rebecca Sedwick,  it could mean the end of his or her life. 

I think that the best thing to do in this situation is to make schools aware of the issue. Most schools already give talks about this but in a kind of naive way. No school wants to recognize words like "slut" or "bitch" as bullying. They almost paint the picture that the biggest form of bullying seen in schools today is your average school bully stealing lunch money from the short kid with glasses. With the advancement of technology and younger generations becoming equipped with the technology needed to communicate easily, I think that it is crucial that schools give a more up-to-date version of what bullying is when they warn students and parents.

Chicago's Own Pagina en Blanco

It has come to light recently that mayor Daley's nephew committed a crime that was covered up for a long time. His nephew  was drunk and punched another man who was at the same bar. The man died at the scene. Daley found out about the incident and called the Chicago police covered it up in order to maintain his family's reputation. The mother has just spoke up against this revealing the truth. She is suing the cops for changing the story just for the mayor's reputation. Read more here.

This article was interesting to me because of our Pagina en Blanco projects that we did in class. I think that this is a perfect example of this. This event was whitewashed from the history of the Daley family because it could have caused problems with his image. They wanted the public to focus on mayor Daley's career and have nothing distract from the way he is perceived.

This is alarming because people in power are able to control what the public finds out. The police, who I consider to be very trustworthy are the bad guys in this situation. It's hard to believe that they were in on this too. Whatever the authorities say we are supposed to trust, but these paginas en blanco are what make me question the reliablitiy of the government.

You Are What You Wear

After watching the documentary called MISSrepresentation in class, I started to become more aware of sexist comments in the media. Specifically referring to women in a professional position. I saw a video on the Huffington Post of a news anchor making an extremely offensive comment. (video)

The man in the video said that women should use their bodies as an asset to help them be successful in court. This made me think about sexism in the workplace. Women are often put under the spotlight for what we wear in a professional setting. Not because of the quality of the clothes, but how they fit our bodies. One woman could be accused of looking inappropriate because of her body type and how the clothes look on her while another could be ignored. This is something that should not be happening. 

A woman should never have to feel like she should use this method to command attention. The news anchor is basically saying it would be strategic to show off your body so that men would be distracted. Because obviously women aren't smart enough to succeed otherwise. 

Tough Crowd

How many times have you been on YouTube and seen someone comment something like: "If you put yourself out there, you should expect criticism." ? For me, the answer is many. People often use this as an excuse to comment something mean. It makes people feel better about the fact that they are posting something extremely rude on a complete stranger's video, picture or post. 

My mom came across this video and showed me it explaining that she thought it was so cute. She couldn't stop laughing at the boy's mature way of speaking. I agreed, and was shocked when I found an  article talking about the criticism that the parents received after posting this video. (article)

The author of this article is appalled that anyone could say such things and make these assumptions about a family that they've never met. "The onlookers were jumping to conclusions about a family they knew nothing about with nothing to go on except their prejudices." 

I completely agree with Navarrette (the author) when he says this. It is unfair to assume things about a family from a 3 minute video of their (very cute) toddler trying to convince his mom to give him a cupcake. 

Earlier in the article he says: "This isn't about privacy; when you post content online, you give up the right to privacy. This is about propriety; it's about having manners, knowing your place, and respecting boundaries. Just because someone posts wedding pictures doesn't mean you criticize the bride's dress." What Navarrette is saying is that this is a matter of being nice. I think that no matter what, if people put themselves out there,  they are still people and still have feelings. It is not worth it to assume things about these people because of a post on a social media site.

Don't Give It To a Russian

There is a new campaign in Ukraine called "Don't Give It To A Russian"  The campaign is meant in protest of Russian actions in Crimea such as kidnapping, taking away rights, limiting journalism and other things. read more about the issue here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10723540/Ukrainian-women-launch-sex-strike-against-Russian-men.html.

The idea of a "sex strike" has apparently been around for a while and is an attempt to control men. I can't decide whether I think this is degrading that these women are doing this or not. I think that they are standing up for what they believe in, but do you really have to say that you won't have relations with any Russian man because of the dictatorship that they are most likely not directly responsible for? 

I think that part of this protest is being done for attention. When the men are deprived of these relationships with women then maybe they will be more motivated to stand up for them. The only reason I really clicked on this article is because I had never heard of something like a "sex strike" and the idea seemed so weird to me. I understand that women are trying to be smart by commanding power over men in anyway that they can but I can't help but think that this isn't going to do anything. It definitely is a new way of protesting.

Acing Your Test on Miley Cyrus

Please excuse the name of this website where I found this article talking about a new college course about a class titled "The Sociology of Miley Cyrus." I thought the issue was too interesting to pass up.

The fact that there is actually a class at a prestigious school (Skidmore) offered about Miley Cyrus is embarrassing, but then again, why is this even happening? Miley Cyrus seems to have taken over the world. It makes me think about how social media played a apart in this take over.

Do you think in 1977 there was a class at universities about Elvis Presley? Probably not. This makes me think that pop culture has truly taken over the lives of the younger generation. I think that social media definitely helped with this. 

We are constantly reminded of what everyone else is doing, listening to and watching because of social media. This makes it a lot easier to discover what the trends are. I mean, really. Walk in to American Studies during 8th period and look at how many people are on their iPads checking instagram. Maybe if more classes like this were offered, we would think school was more fun. But is this information useful? Probably not.

Rain, Rain, Go Away

Winter Vortex, Raindays, 60 degrees in the summer, is this Global Warming or is it just Chicago weather? I think the answer is pretty clear. The climate changes are staring everyone straight in the face in these past couple years and I honestly haven't seen that much press about what is going to be done.

I found an article that shows the government's planned method for action. One quote in particular stuck out to me as unusual as I read it: "Previously the IPCC was accused of being very conservative," said Gary Yohe, professor of economics and environmental studies at Wesleyan University, one of the authors of the report. "This allows them to be less conservative without being open to criticism that they are just trying to scare people to death." To me this is so confusing, why would the IPCC want to scare people to death? They would never exaggerate the effects of this problem so why would they ever hold back or be "conservative" with the issue? 

To me this is something that all Americans should be aware especially because of the worldwide effects it might have on the economy. I never thought about this part of the issue until I read this article. Of course the climate change is killing crops in tropical areas, making it harder for them to sustain a stable economy. 

I think that this issue is becoming bigger and bigger and something needs to be done. No one will be blaming the IPCC for over reacting once they see the issue has gotten out of hand and they can't go to the beach anymore.

Mo Money Less Fat

I've never really paid attention to the childhood obesity epidemic because it just never really became something that I saw everyday. The whole "nationwide obesity problem" to me, was basically just the reason why I have to take gym every year. Not to say that everyone around where I live is in tip-top shape, but I think few would argue when I say that obesity definitely isn't the number one issue to deal with in Winnetka.

Then I asked myself, why is that? Why is it that we don't see as many overweight people around here? I read this article where the author questioned if the claimed drop in childhood obesity was really legitimate. That is why I began to think about the habits that the mothers in the North Shore create for their children early on.

I babysit for a family of 3 kids every week. Their ages are 3, 5 and 7. When the mom runs out the door quickly giving me instructions she tells me that the kids have to be outside for at least an hour before coming in to have dinner. Dinner instructions are always the same, written on a post it in the middle of the kitchen: "WHEAT bread pb&J for Declan, ORGANIC mac n cheese for Didi and Karys, and SKIM, ORGANIC milk for Karys' bottle." I never argue because this is what I grew up eating too. My mom would never buy whole milk or anything other than non-fat, and now if I ever drink it my stomach hurts.

The kids never argue either because they simply have never tried anything else. How are they supposed to know that Kraft mac n' cheese is like, 10 times better than Annie's Organic? Even when they play outside everyday they get bored inside. I think it is because we are surrounded by moms who really don't have anything else to worry about besides this kind of thing, and we all have backyards to play in. Kids in a lower income neighborhood who have never been in a whole foods might not get the same benefits of pretty much dodging the bullet that is childhood obesity.

Where Do Your Snaps Go?

Everyone has heard about people's issues with the NSA hacking into personal files and using the information to "protect our country." But when does it go too far?

Snapchat is a messaging app that claims to delete all of its "messages," or pictures with words on them, after up to 10 seconds. Delete as in no one can ever find them anywhere, not even the person who sent them.  You are notified when anyone screenshots your pictures as well. I'd always heard stories about someone getting their picture screenshotted and distributed against their will, so clearly people are not okay with their snaps people shared.

The public public was outraged when the idea of their snapchats being erased turned out to be false. Many people the company for false advertisment. This article proves that there was a little more to the story. (http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/26/opinion/schneier-snapchat-wickr/index.html?hpt=op_mid)

Of course the government wasn't okay with this idea, I mean really, we're talking about America here. But seriously, why does the government care about our snapchats? I highly doubt there was anything interesting in investigating this type of communication. I was okay with the fact that they were looking at texts and calls because I can see how that could lead to a tip on a possible terrorist but snapchat? Really? I highly doubt anyone is sending a  5 second picture of their homemade bomb to their buddies.

Are Leggings a Crime?

During advisory we've been watching a documentary called Missrepresentation. It basically talks about women in the media and how it affects the way girls perceive themselves and all that. It's very interesting, but honestly we've seen it all before. Everywhere we look we have people telling us flat out to not pay attention to the media. But I think that there is more of an issue here. 

I just came across this article talking about how schools want to ban leggings. All of the sudden it occurred to me as I read this specific part of the article: "In fact, one 13-year-old student, Sophie Hasty, put it perfectly over at Slate, saying, 'Not being able to wear leggings because it’s ‘too distracting for boys’ is giving us the impression we should be guilty for what guys do.”' 

This made me really think. We've seen this stuff all before but maybe the people who should be watching these films is the boys. They need to know how it affects girls when they objectify them. When we are told to not act a certain way because of the way a boy will react to it, I think it is completely going against the whole idea of not relying on men for approval. No one wears leggings to get a reaction from boys, we wear them because they are comfortable and it is unfair to be blamed if boys can't handle themselves at the age of 17. 

Have You Heard of the Band "We Don't Exist?"

What is it with this trend of always wanting to know the most obscure bands? It's kind of weird if you think about it. If you want a good laugh, watch this video:

In the video, an interviewer is asking people at Coachella (a music festival) if they've heard of a band that they made up, and all of them answer yes! It got me thinking about why it's cool to know bands that no one else knows. 

To me, this fad is a little ironic. The fact that it's trendy to be doing something that no one else is. I think that the reason why this is cool is because it is so easy to access and discover new music in today's society, it is cool to be original because it shows that you take more time to look for new music. Everyone can go on the iTunes top 10, even my 8 year old cousin, but it takes dedication and a sense of what's cool to go on trendy websites and illegally download mixtapes produced by rappers that no one has ever heard of. With the new technology, apps and social media being introduced to us constantly, its hard to not get bored of everything. This is what sparks the need to constantly be refreshing what we listen to, wear, and talk about.

Everyone wants to be the one that starts the new trend, but how is it a trend if the trend is to not follow the trend...? Something to think about the next time you stop liking a band because they became too "mainstream" or "sold out."

The ACT Prince and the Pauper

In a previous blogpost, I talked about how ACT companies see areas like the NorthShore as a perfect place to market because we're all "crazy" due to the pressure and competition at New Trier. But where does this pressure come from?

These tests make people nervous because there is only one outcome. If your test score are good, you are considered smart. If your test scores are bad...are you really stupid? Or are you just a bad test taker? Could you be having a bad day? Colleges don't care. If you looked at a 22 and a 30 you would be able to tell which is better, but what about if you looked at each kid? Would you be able to really say which one deserves a college education? Probably not, because there are so many other factors.  

When I went to my aunt and uncle's house in Delavan, Wisconsin over Thanksgiving it got me thinking, is this really fair? So many of these scores are achieved with the help of tutors, a service that isn't available to people in lower-income neighborhoods such as Delavan. Only a handful of my cousins have attended college and most of them would be grateful for a 25 on the ACT. This is a score that I would not be satisfied with getting. But with the tutoring sessions that I have, could my cousins get a higher score?

This makes me question whether or not ACT tutors should be allowed. Or, is the ACT even a fair way to assess a student on their abilities? One student in Winnetka is seeing a tutor every Sunday who, for an hour, helps said student review everything that they have learned over the past 3 years, and teaches them tips and tricks that are guaranteed to improve their score. Another student in a lower-income neighborhood has never had access to a tutor and takes the test once, thrilled with a score 4 points lower than something that would be acceptable for the student from Winnetka.

The student from Winnetka gets into a better school than the student from the lower-income neighborhood and ends up with a higher-paying job post college. Is this fair? If the student's preparation for the ACT were switched, would the scores stay the same? I think that a student's resources and abilities based on the amount of money they have affects the way they score on these tests, making it hard to really trust them.

I think this says something about American ideals. We are working so hard to achieve this high test score, for what? How is our success measured? It seems to me that the main goal is money, so keep your eye on the prize and keep spending money and maybe you'll raise kids that have as much determination to earn enough money to spend on their kids to do the same thing. What's the point?

Think Twice Before You Swipe

When is giving your information up dangerous? Apparently when shopping at Target over winter break. Starting on Black Friday and continuing through most of December, Hackers have gained access to millions of people's credit card numbers and information through Target's database. The hackers use this information to create fake credit cards and sell them to people who wipe the bank accounts clean.

This isn't just happening in New York or major cities, it happened to my family and many other families that we know. So the question is; how could Target, a huge corporation let something this tragic happen? What's to blame? According to Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan's CEO, we should blame the fact that these major companies aren't taking responsibility for their technological advancements as far as security goes. 

For more information you can read this article. 

"Dimon expects that cybercrimes such as the Target breach will become more common if retailers and banks do not work on security, he said. 'This story is not over, unfortunately,'" I agree with Dimon. With all of the progress made with technology we need to make sure that all of the information we give is safe. We are trusting technology more and more and putting our personal information in a computer system can seem more secure than it really is.

So what do we do here? Stick to hard copies of all of our information locked away in a safe or do we take the cyber route and trust computers and electronics with all of our information, only to be protected by a 5 number or letter password?