Meta Post: Stop Meat: Spot Team

      I think that my favorite blog post this year was one I wrote in response to one of Mr. O'Connor's blogs, "This American Lie", and a discussion we had in class about the Kony 2012 campaign. The blog post was called "Little White Lie?" and in it I tried to answer the question: "What constitutes a 'lie' when it comes to story telling in the media today?" I worked hard on the formatting of this post. I tried to use different colored fonts and images to break up the long post as well as to highlight my main ideas. I thought I did a good job of clearly defining my term of what a story or a "construction" was. I also struggled to make sure the reader understood the difference between "omitting information" and "adding falsified information" because I felt that that was the difference between a story and a lie. 

      I think that my blog posts have improved this semester because I have started including quotes in my posts. At the beginning of the year, I would simply have posts where I stated my opinions on various topics (like in my post "Um So Like Ya..."). As the year progress, I became better at making sure my blog posts were rooted to actual articles/pictures/videos, but I did not usually integrate many quotes (like in my post "It's Not For Women"). However, one of my strongest post this semester was "Day of Silence" because I supported my claims with multiple quotes from the article I talk about in the post. Although my favorite blog post, aforementioned, did not have any quote integration, I still thought it was a strong post because I developed my ideas thoroughly. 

The Great Gatsby on the Big Screen

       I've been hearing a lot about the new Great Gatsby movie that is supposed to be coming out sometime this year and since we just read the book in American Studies class, I figured I would look up the trailer. The movie was directed by Baz Luhrmann, who I know also helped create the movies Moulin Rouge! and Romeo + Juliet. I know from seeing both productions that he has a flare for colorful and extravagant looking movies, so I'm interested to see what his take on this classic novel will be. Below is the trailer for the movie:

      There are a few things about the trailer that struck me. First, was the various flashes of the party scenes, which seemed even more exuberant and crazy than I imagined. Second, was the flashes of the character Jordan, the first one being at 26 seconds. She seemed to be described as more masculine in the book, but in the trailer we see her as quite thin and delicate. Lastly, was the shot we see of Gatsby at 44 seconds as he watches the party from a window in his house. This reminded me of the line in the book where Nick is observing the party and he sees Gatsby, "standing alone...looking from one group to another with approving eyes" (54). Gatsby is somewhat of a lonely man who always seems to prefer to observe his parties from afar rather than actually partake in them and I thought this was captured beautifully in that moment of the trailer. I am interested to see how the rest of the movie turns out and if it holds true to my previous notions of the book. (This is a somewhat short post with little analysis mostly because I want to simply point out various moments I noticed and allow readers to interpret what they have seen).

How has the trailer met your expectations of the books? What characters did you find different from your previous perceptions? What moments of the book do you think will be the most challenging to portray on screen?

Day of Silence

      Recently I participated in our school's annual Day of Silence for the third time in my high school career. For those who may not know, the Day of Silence is a day where people pledge to not talk all day. It is supposed to represent the silence that people of the LGBTQ (Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning) group go through everyday because society does not accept them for who they are. It is basically an anti bullying campaign to spread awareness about how difficult it is to not be able to express who you are.
      At my school there is a lot of controversy surrounding the Day of Silence, but not quite in the way that most would think. Many people support gay rights, but believe that silence is not the best way to go about fixing anything. This lead me to look into the question of: Is there a better way to do the Day of Silence?
      I read a "guest post" on the GLESN website (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network) that helped me to understand the day and its difficulties better. If you want to check out the full post you can click HERE.

      A problem that some have with the Day of Silence is that it does little to affect someones understanding of the issue unless you participate. As stated in the article, "Anyone can participate"in the day "but the only person you can change is yourself." Although observers might notice the silence, the people the day most helps is just the individual participants. I think this is quite limiting because the people who do not understand the issue will continue to be ignorant unless their is communication and education about it. Although it is simply not enough to have a day where we say "Don't be a bully" because people have been hearing that their whole lives, so it means almost nothing anymore.

      We need a day that educates people about LGBTQ and celebrates diversity (similarly to the Gay Pride Parade that happens annually in Chicago). As stated in the post, we cannot simply "convince a student to stop being homophobic" but instead must "deconstruct our social norms of hate, ignorance, and hostility." This will obviously be a long process, but it must start with open communication about the topic. Although silence can be extremely powerful, in this case it only pushes this problem into the dark, unknown that people find hard to understand.

Do you think that there is a better way to spread awareness and understanding? Why or why not? Is silence always affective?

The Grass Isn't Always Greener On the Other Side

      Throughout our American Studies class their year our teachers have tried to really push us to include an "AOS" or "address the other side" in every paper we write, and Junior Theme is no exception. What they mean by AOS is that we should make sure that we acknowledge other opinions on the topics we are writing about. An argument becomes more well-rounded this way and shows that you have looked into alternative views or explanations for your topic. For my AOS, I decided to look into suicide and depression for women. I thought that maybe there was another possible explanation for the extreme suicide numbers for men in the comparatively low ones for women. The Encyclopedia of Gender and Society turned out to be a great source to help me look into this.

      I found that there is a lot of confusion surrounding suicides for women because of the methods they chose. Females suicides tend to be "misclassified as accidental" because of the "ambiguity" in their methods (817). While men tend to use violent methods, like shooting themselves, women tend to have more subtle ways. "Drug overdoes and poisoning" are common methods for women and it is often difficult to determine whether or not their deaths were purposeful or accidental. I concluded that since female suicides can often be misclassified it is possible that the male suicide rate seems larger simply because they have the wrong numbers for suicide rates for women.

Do you think this is a viable explanation for the difference in suicide rates? Why or why not? Why do you think women tend to use more ambiguous methods to commit suicide?

Felon On Himself

      As part of our Junior Theme, we're supposed to have a "historical look-back" in our paper. Basically what that means is that we research an event that happened in the past that is similar to our current issue that is the main idea of our paper. This is supposed to help show how our issue has been a constant problem in American history and give the argument more strength. At first, I was worried that I would not find anything that would work, but thankfully I found an article that helped lead me in the right direction. The article was called "Felo De Se: Soldier Suicides in America's Civil War" and it looked into the rise in suicides during and after America's Civil War and possible factors.

      The article led me to look into the military and the affect it has had on male suicide statistics. The article concluded that "emotional disorders and alcohol misuse, when combined with the hardships of war, contributed to a steady rate of suicides during the Civil War" (Lande). Men had difficulties keeping up with the harsh military bearing necessary to survive in the war. They were away from their families for extended periods of time and when they finally returned home, they realized they had changed so much they could not relate to their families anymore. A fellow class member Leah Roche echoed these ideas when I talked with her about the research she had been doing for her own Junior Theme on the military. She said that the one of the biggest problems soldiers face, even today, was "reintegration into society." Returning soldiers feel isolated and filled with anxiety from their past traumas, these feelings lead to depression and thoughts of suicide.

      An additional interesting thing I learned from the article was that "Felo de se" was a military term for suicide, meaning "a felon on himself."Suicide was very negatively looked upon in society as most people found it to be a moral sin and not a last cry for help by hurting individuals.

How do you think opinions on suicide at the time affected the suicide rate? How big of an influence do you think the military has on suicide rates for returning soldiers?

Covert Depression

      As I've started to do research for my junior theme I've been looking into male suicide and depression. Throughout my research, a name kept popping up, Terrence Real. I learned that he was a therapist that had written a book specifically about male depression and the experiences he has had with it in his many years as a therapist. It turns out this book was exactly what I had been looking for and began to help me answer my why question. It gave me a lot of insightful research about why men were not getting help with their depression and consequently committing suicide.

      In his book, I Don't Want to Talk About It: Overcoming the Secret Legacy of Male Depression, he talks about the problems men face receiving help for their depression. He talks about what he calls "covert depression." Basically, he believes male depression tends to be hidden under other behavioral aspects thought of as typically male. So the family and the man himself does not believe that he is depressed, simply just having typical male problems with "alcohol and occasional violence" (30). Instead of being sad or tired all the time, like most women, men become more violent and irritable. There is then difficulty diagnosing and treating depression for men because most people, including psychologists, do not quiet understand the differences yet in symptoms for depression between genders.

      Even more so, men are afraid that if they admit to having a problem they will be rejected. In his book he talks about a study where males tried to get support from their roommates about their depression and "they met with social isolation and often with outright hostility" (38). Men are often expected to be stronger and able to handle their problems by themselves. Our society tells them that they have to be the strong and fearless ones, any weakness must be squelched. Depression is seen as a weakness, not as a medical issue, so men have trouble seeking or accepting help for it. Overall, I thought it was a really interesting book and have gained a lot of insight from it. I would recommend it to anyone looking into the topic of male depression.

What are your thoughts on "cover depression"? Why do you think men are unable to talk about their depression? Does our society hold men back from expressing their feelings?

The Beginning of the End of Junior Year

      It's that time of year that every junior dreads. The time of year where everyone is stressed out about junior theme. Before I could even start worrying about writing the paper I had to pick a topic that I would be able to research thoroughly and not get bored. At first there seemed to be a surplus of various topics and I did not think I'd ever be able to chose. But as I walked around the library looking at books, I found one called Guyland that seemed interesting. It was a book that described the difficulties men face growing up in todays society. This started to get me thinking about masculinity and the various social pressures that men face. My mom always said that I should try to remember that it's not easy being a teenage boy. My brothers had just as hard of a time growing up as I have had.

      So I had a general topic: masculinity. I thought it would be something a little different since there is a lot of research and understanding about feminism and problems women have faced in society, but there is not as much emphasis on the struggles men face. A poster I found hanging on the wall in the library echoed this idea. It started with, "For every girl who is tired of acting weak when she is strong, there is a boy tired of appearing strong when he feels vulnerable." It calls to attention the flip-side of gender stereotypes. Most people just think about women being discriminated against, but men face a lot of difficulties too. However, masculinity is quiet a large topic still and I need a why question to focus my research. As I looked online for general research, I kept coming across the statistic that men were three time more likely to commit suicide than women. I figured there must be some reason behind this shocking fact. This intrigued me so much that I realized I finally had my why question. Why are men three times more likely to commit suicide than women?

Little White Lie?

      During a class discussion today in American Studies we talked about a blog post our teacher had written called "This American Lie". If you'd like to read the blog post you can click HERE and be linked to the blog. Earlier in the year we had listened to a podcast of a monologue by a man named Mike Daisey who talked about atrocities he had witnessed of the working conditions for people who make Apple products. The story of the workers strife he told was very compelling, however news has recently come out that a lot of the "facts" or claims in the story are falsified completely or exaggerated.

      People in class were connecting this incident to criticism the Kony 2012 campaign has received. Many believe that the issues in Uganda were oversimplified in the video for Kony 2012 video in order to generate  a massive public response. The oversimplified truth therefore becomes a lie in some peoples eyes. Some would argue that this is a necessary lie in order to get the public to pay attention and care. This begs the question is it okay to lie if it is for a good reason? However this isn't the question I want to discuss in this blog post.

I want to focus on the question: What constitutes a "lie" when it comes to story telling in the media today?

      I would argue that the Kony 2012 video isn't truly a lie. Or at least not to as great of a degree that Daisey's monologue was.

      Stories are all CONSTRUCTIONS. (In this blog I'll be referring to articles, nonfiction books, and historical/news accounts as stories). We've discussed this a lot in American Studies. Everything in a sense, is a construction. Even when people write history textbooks, they are reconstructing history. They have to decide what is important and what should be omitted for the sake of space. In story telling, people are allowed to omit information that they don't feel is relevant to the story they are telling. This doesn't make their story any less true, there just might be some things left out. It is the duty of a diligent person to research those extra pieces if they'd like. This is why I believe the Kony 2012 video is not a lie.

      However, there is a difference between omitting information and adding falsified information or exaggerating facts. This I would consider a lie and not a truthful construction. If something never happened, it can't be a part of a historical construction. For example, in Daisey's monologue he talks about a man with withered hands using an ipad for the first time. There was never a man and this event never occurred. Daisey didn't simply retell an event in a moving or dramatic way, he completely fabricated one that never existed. It's not a truthful construction because there was never a man or event that happened. He had no basis to construct anything from, he just made it up.

      My ideas only apply to stories that people claim to be accurate accounts of events. I would have been happy with there being exaggerations in Daisey's monologue if he had said that his story was a piece of fiction with some basis in facts. However, he claimed that his story was all true facts, which in fact, it was not.

What do you think constitutes a lie in story telling? Is omission a form of lying as well? How much should intent be considered in these situations?

The Sea Horse

      Recently I saw New Trier production of "The Sea Horse" by Edward J. Moore. It's a story about two characters, a man and a woman, that are romantically involved but their relationship is difficult because she has trust issues and he is aways away working on a ship. In the show, they are at the restaurant she owns called the Sea Horse, talking about their plans for the future as the man wishes to get married, but the woman is hesitant. The female character, Gertrude, was played by Chloe Knight and the male character, Harry, was played by John Parks.

      I was very impressed by Chloe and the sophomore John in this show because I felt like they were extremely invested. They did everything all out and did not hold back or seem uncomfortable onstage. There were a few moments when I felt their silent tension could have been used differently. The moment that I would have changed was when Chloe finally admitted that she could not have children anymore because she had been hurt too badly before. Her old husband had abused her. In the show, John shrugged a little and the scene moved on, but I felt like that was a big revelation and called for a longer time for it to sink in and for the audience to realize its importance. Especially since John had a monologue at the beginning of the show where he talked about how badly he wanted a kid and how having one would change everything in their life for the better. I would have kept it so that there was a build in the argument until the moment when Chloe finally blurts out she can’t have children. Then there would have been a pause where John steps back a little shocked and confused. Chloe would have stepped forward reaching out her hand to him a little and he would have just pulled away a little more, turning away from her, prompting her to say her next line about how she was hurt too badly. This line would be said quieter than her previous one and a little softer, showing her vulnerability and how much it hurts her to not be able to have a kid anymore. Hearing the change in her voice he would turn back to her and try to comfort her a little bit as the scene progressed and the lines continued. The whole moment should be done slowly, with each action being done with some tenacity to show how painful this truth is for both characters.

TV Tolkenism: Fringe

      In our class American Studies we've been talking about the idea of "TV Tolkenism". Our teacher has formulated the thesis that on the majority of network dramas minority characters are just used to create diversity, but are never really seen as the main characters. A show that I picked out to support this thesis was Fringe.

Click HERE to view a video clip of the show. Below is a screen shot from part of the video.

-Fringe is a FOX drama about a group of scientists and FBI agents that work together in order to solve crimes in a special unit of the government called the "Fringe Division." They solve crimes that involve theoretical areas of science. Basically that means crimes that are on the "fringe" of reality, they don't seem like they're possible.

-The show centers on a white male, Peter and his crazy scientist father, Walter. In this scene, Walter (center) is walking with Agent Broyles (left) and Astrid (right). Agent Broyles is the head of Fringe Division and he is a very serious, play by the rules character. Astrid is the quiet assistant to Walter that reigns in his insanity.

-The most exciting character by far in this scene to watch is Walter. He draws attention by the way he talks and carries himself. He is a character with a complicated relationship with his son and past. Agent Broyles and Astrid are not complicated characters. They are there to help Walter and you don't know too much about their personal lives.

A Good Slogan Is a Terrible Thing to Waste

      Recently our teacher in American Studies presented a power point about the Civil Rights Movement. I was shocked to find out that an organization started back then with the name of the United Negro College Fund had kept its same name today. I figured that they would have obviously changed their name to be more politically correct. Just like how my mom always tells me that I can no longer call being stewards, they are now flight attendants. Or more seriously, the change from derogatory terms such as queer being used to describe homosexuals to gay. This brought me to the question of why did UNCF not change their name to something else?

      I found a great article that helped me to understand the reasoning behind the name staying the same. If you'd like to read the full article you can find it by clicking HERE. It explained how the name UNCF was a well recognized name and various attempts to change it to other things such as the "College Fund" were unsuccessful. The change was too confusing for a lot of people and simply did not stick. Another point brought up was that acceptable terms keep changing, so it would be difficult to change it every time. The president of UNCF said that when the company first started he "thought of himself as a Negro"and as times has gone by that has changed to "black"and then "African-American."

      However the organization is making efforts to take attention away from the title, instead choosing to focus on its slogan, "A Mind Is a Terrible Thing to Waste." They have remade their logo so that it no longer states what UNCF stands for and just allows the slogan to do the work of explaining what the organizations believes in. I think this is a good compromise, allowing the familiar letters to remain the same and still being able to send out a positive message.

Do you think this shift in logo is sufficient enough of a change? Why or why not? What else do you think UNCF could do in order to stay politically correct?

Opera Vs Musical

      This past week I went to go see the opera "Showboat" with my chorus class at the Lyric Opera of Chicago. I had never seen an opera before, only musicals, so I was interested to see if they were as dry and boring as I'd been led to believe. I was surprised to find that I really enjoyed the show and I did not see how it was any different from a musical besides the fact that they had a giant screen for the superscript with the lyrics (even though they were singing in english, I was very appreciative of that). However, upon further research I found that Show Boat is considered a musical, but then I was confused why an opera house would do a musical. This lead me to try and figure out what truly is the difference between musicals and operas?

      I found an article that was trying to define the line between the two genres of shows. If you'd like to read the full article you can check it out by clicking HERE. Basically, the article talked about how many people have tried to make crossovers and combine both genres, with little success. The author attributes this to the fact that "these genres are too close for comfort. The differences, though slight, are crucial." I guess I can understand that there are many similarities because both use musical numbers to explore an often very dramatic story. I thought it was curious that the author defined the difference as "in opera, music is the driving force; in musical theater, words come first." At first I did not understand this analysis because I thought they meant that the dialogue in musicals was more important than the music, which is not the case. However, as I read more I realized the author meant that they lyrics to the songs are more important in telling the story line in musicals than they are in operas. I thought this was very true since operas are often done in different languages, so the way you understand the story line is by the mood the songs portray. Though the difference is very slight, I do think it makes combining the two genres nearly impossible.
      If you know more specifically the difference between the two I'd love to find out more!

Do you think combining the two genres is impossible? Are there more specific differences between the two genres?

      

"Color Blind" Casting

      In theatre class this week our teacher brought up the subject of colorblind casting. I'd never heard the term before and was quite interested in the topic when she brought it up. Basically colorblind casting is when a director casts a show with actors that might not have the same ethnicity as the production normally contains. The idea is that they can try to have more integrated casts and give actors more opportunities usually denied to them because of race. 

      At first, this seemed like a great thing to me, but my teacher had mixed opinions on it. She thought that the term "colorblind" had a poor connotation to it. It meant that you would pretend to not see, or ignore someones race, but in truth you can't do that. Why would you ignore part of a person? She thought it was better to be conscious of someone's race, accept it, and work with it to improve the production. 

       I read an article from awhile back that discussed some of the pros and cons of color blind casting. Click HERE to read the article.  

      The article brought up the issue of white people playing roles traditionally played by black people. For instance, in the show Showboat there is a black that sings the well-known song Ol' Man River. Some would argue that the song would not have the same affect if it was sung by a white man. Another example would be the show Ragtime. The show is centered around a black man, Coalhouse Walker Jr. and his black wife, Sarah. Coalhouse's car gets trashed by a bunch of white males because they are mad at him for being successful black man. His wife is also killed because of misunderstandings based upon her race. There is also a subplot about an immigrant and his small daughter. The show is a marvelous commentary on American and it's treatment of minorities. However, the entire plot is centered around problems based upon their race. A white man could not possibly play the part of Coalhouse, the story wouldn't make sense.

      Where do we draw the line then? An equally qualified white male could wish to play the role of Coalhouse but he will be turned down because of the color of his skin. I don't think color blind casting is necessarily a completely good or bad thing. 

When is color blind casting appropriate? Do you think there are limitations on color blind casting? If so, what?

Oh Bother!

      This week while I was babysitting I took the kid I was looking after to the library because there was a showing of the new Winnie the Pooh movie. Although the movie was entertaining and it was fun to watch part of my childhood come to life again, I was a little discomforted by some parts of the film. I noticed that there was a lot of misspelled words throughout the film. If you click HERE you can watch a short clip from the film where there are two examples of misspelled words.

      In the clip, they misspell the word tail, writing it instead as "tael" as well as honey being spelled "hunny." For adults, I think this misspelling is found somewhat adorable. People remember the years when they used to spell things in silly different ways simply because they didn't know any better. However, for children I do not think it is a good idea to have these errors. Although at some level it allows kids to connect with the characters, show them that the characters they love also have problems with reading and writing just like them. It's important for kids to be able to relate and see that they're not alone if they are struggling to learn how to read and write.
      However I think that this could possibly harm the kids developmentally. They do not know any better and just trust the TV shows and things they see around them. These incorrect spellings are reinforced in what they watch every time their beloved pooh bear is eating some "hunny." They learn how to spell one way and then have to be corrected, which can be frustrating and confusing. They continually see the cartoon figures they trust telling them one thing and then their parents and teachers are telling them another.
      I don't think its acceptable for films that children watch be allowed to intentionally misspell words because it could harm the children's development.

What effect do you think TV has on children? Do you think children understand the spelling is flawed or do they take it as truth?

Singing To A Different Tune

     This weekend I finally got to watch the movie Moulin Rouge! with my friend, which I had been looking forward to doing for awhile. The movie is sort of a musical about love, however the majority of the music is remixes of 20th century songs. At first, I didn't like the mix of the old time period setting of the movie (it is set in Paris 1900) and new music, but I came to love it because the songs were all so different from their originals it worked.
      I decided to analyze some of the differences between the song Roxanne by The Police and the song El Tango De Roxanne that was in the movie. I cut both of the songs to about a minute long so you can watch and see the differences. The second song takes a bit longer to get to the singing part, but I thought it was necessary to keep the beginning part because it adds to your understanding of the song.























      Both songs are describing a story about a man who falls in love with a prostitute. However I think that El Tango De Roxanne, although it is the remix of the orignal song by The Police, it captures the emotions of the situation better than the original did. As explained in the beginning of the tango, "When love is for the highest bidder there can be no trust...jealousy will drive you mad." He explains how you can never trust that a prostitute loves you because their job is to make men think they love them. Also you will feel extreme jealousy because they will have to sleep with other men. He is singing to warn the listener against falling in love with a prostitute because it will only "drive you mad."
      The tango song from Moulin Rouge demonstrates the anger and frustration that the man would feel perfectly. The background music is sharp and full of tension. The main male singer uses a raspy, guttural voice that sounds more like growling than singing. The dancing is quick and precise with movements that are both passionate and violent. Every part of the video demonstrates the internal battle between the love and anger the man feels. In comparison, the other song Roxanne has a relatively slow tempo with the chords in the chorus almost seeming upbeat and happy. The video is just one of the band performing that doesn't really add anything to the song.

What do you think of the two different versions of the song? Do you notice any other differences between the two videos? Would you agree that one portrays the story better than the other? Why or why not?

A Sort Of Meta-Post

      I've been putting off writing my meta-post for awhile simply because writing about my own writing didn't seem very appealing to me. As students at New Trier, we've had to do similar reflections on our writing every year. We've had to do our "writing portfolio" and basically write an essay about previous essays we've written in the year and how we'd improved and grown as writers. I've never particularly enjoyed writing about my own writing and that might come from the fact that I don't like being wrong, so I have a hard time admitting that I've made mistakes.
       However, I think the real reason I have trouble reflecting on my own writing is because I'm not extremely interesting in improving or changing the way that I write. I'm not saying that I think I'm a perfect writer so there is nothing to improve, I don't believe that at all. I do think there is a lot I could learn to do in order to improve my writing. The problem is I'm not interested in writing. I don't enjoy writing because I feel like I'm better at getting my point across if I talk to someone rather than writing it down and having them read it. So for me, the only reason I want to improve the way that I write is to get a better grade. Which I know is awful, and I probably shouldn't admit that to my teachers, but I feel like I should be honest. Because I want to change that. I want to want to get better at writing because I used to love writing when I was a kid and I want to love it again. 
       So now I'll bring this all back to how it relates to blogging. I think that my blogs are better when I write about my opinions and feeling on a topic. I'm more expressive when I'm passionate about the topics. I always get frustrated because I'll have ideas about things I want to write about on my blog, but I can't write about them unless I find a text or some piece of evidence to relate my points to. I feel limited by this because sometimes I can't find a piece of evidence and then therefore can't write a blog post about what I wanted to. Although I do understand that having evidence really helps argue your point and make it stronger, like in the various posts where I have a video or a picture I'm analyzing the reader can really follow along with what I'm saying, I would still like more freedom with what I can write about. I think with more freedom I'd want to improve my writing because I would be passionate about my writing.
       I think that myself, as well as others, would benefit if we didn't always having to write a blog post with the standard claim, evidence, explanation format. I know it's important to practice our skills writing in that style, but I also believe that there are other ways to get your opinion across and everyone has a different way that they do that best. Sometimes I would just like to post a poem I wrote and maybe explain why I wrote it or possibly write the beginning page of a book and see if people like it. For others, being able to post a rap they wrote or the painting they created and talk about it would be a great way to practice their writing and have it be about something they love. I think people would find it easier to log on and write a blog post every week if there was more freedom in the way they wrote their blog. I want to want to blog, but I'm having difficulty finding inspiration.
      I'm sorry this is a lot to read, but I wanted to get my point across. As I said earlier, I'm better at writing when I'm passionate about the topic. If my teachers don't believe that I fulfilled the requirement for my meta-post I'd be happy to write another one. The assignment was to read previous blog posts and reflect on your writing and this was all inspired by my frustration with my blog posts.

IAIN BAXTER&

       This post is also inspired by my trip to the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago and focuses on a man named Iain Baxter, or really I should say IAIN BAXTER& since he legally changed his name to include the capital letters and the &.  He added the & to his name because he believes that art and life are about connectivity.

Photo taken from his exhibit at MCA.

      After learning about IAIN BAXTER& and his obsession with the symbol & I decided to research it a little bit. I found that the & symbol was actually called the ampersand. The & symbol used to be the 27th letter of the alphabet so children would end saying "and, per se, and" which means "&, meaning, and." The part got mixed together to create the word ampersand. 

      Although I found learning about the creation of the & symbol interesting, I was mostly fascinated with Iain's idea about it's importance. "And" is the word that we used everyday all the time in all languages. Not only does it connect words together in the literal sense, it also connects ideas and people. I can't imagine where we'd be without this important word that often seems insignificant and small. I probably wouldn't even want to count the number of times I've used the word in this blog post, let alone how many times I say it in a day. I think it's important to recognize the little things that keep our language together like the word "and". People tend to focus on how to make a piece of writing sound good with multiple adjectives when sometimes all you need is just a simple way for everything to connect to make a good piece of writing. 

If you want more information about IAIN BAXTER& you can visit the MCA website to watch a video of him explaining his work. Click HERE

What do you think the importance of the word "and" is? How do you think you're life would be different without this word? What do you think about the & symbol connecting the world?

It's Not For Women

      So recently as I was watching commercials today I remembered a funny Dr. Pepper commercial I had seen awhile back. Basically the commercial is about how a new Dr. Pepper drink called TEN because it has only ten calories in it is for men only. The commercial is very openly sexist, but I think that is almost to it's benefit. Watch the commercial below and see what you think.

      The commercial starts off in a forest where a battle is happening and guns firing everyone. The main man of the commercial, says to the camera, "Hey ladies, enjoying the film? Of course not." Even the first few lines are playing off the stereotypes that men like action-packed thriller movies, while women only prefer romantic comedies. The whole commercial plays off of stereotypes like this, but in a way it works. The commercial is something new, bold, and fresh. People watch endless amounts of commercials a day, so it is important for a company to make one that stands out.
      I'm sure the commercial generated tons of publicity and talk for the drink after the commercial was released because it hits on issues of gender stereotypes. Also, it is found that men don't like to drink "diet" drinks because they don't find it manly. Only women go on diets, while men work out and don't need to. So the commercial takes the essentially "diet" drink with only ten calories and makes it seem manly and exclusive. The video alludes to the fact that only men can handle this new drink. It appeals to the male audience very well.
     At first I was annoyed by this because I thought it was odd they were seeming to exclude women from their marketing techniques. It didn't make sense why a company would want to get rid of half their costumer population. However as I thought about it more, I thought that this commercial also in a way targets women. Women always are looking for ways that they can prove themselves to be just as strong as men in the world. So then women purchase this drink that supposedly only men can. Overall, I thought it was a entertaining, effective commercial.

What do you think of the commercial? Is the audience really only limited to men? How does the commercial use gender stereotypes to its' advantage? Or do you think it's a disadvantage?

Jesus Vs. Religion Video

      Today I noticed a video that kept popping up on my Facebook feed so I finally decided to watch it. Basically it is a man who wrote a poem to express his views on religion and jesus. The poem itself contains a very beautiful and strong message. Although there are a lot of aspects of religion I don't understand, I do think that this man has a point. I would suggest you watch the video linked below before reading on.

"See the problem with religion is that it never gets to the core. It's just behavior modification, like a long list of chores. Like let's dress up the outside, make it look nice and neat, but its funny, thats what they used to do to mummies while the corpse rots underneath."

      His message is basically that Jesus is better to follow than religion itself. In his description under the video he writes that "Religion either ends in pride or despair." He means that either you accomplish the "behavior modifications" and standards of how you should live as dictated by the church, or you fail to follow them. Even when you succeed you are filled with pride, which is a sin. And if you fail you feel as if you are not worthy enough for God. Either way you are like the mummies, you look "nice" because you are trying but you are "rot underneath" because you are still unhappy.

      However, Jesus makes people happy because "He represents you...and His sacrifice is perfect putting us in perfect standing with god!" I think what he means by this is that we don't have to worry about getting into God's good graces because Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice for us and released us from that duty. As he says in the video "Because when Jesus said IT IS FINISHED, I believe he meant it." The "it" is the struggle for trying to live a sin-free life and win God's graces. He made the ultimate sacrifice so that we could live our lives however we chose. The struggles was finished, but today with religion we still act as if it is not.

What do you think of the idea that Jesus is greater than religion? Are people freed from their responsibilities because of Jesus's actions? Do you agree with the way he portrays religion as a "list of chores"? Feel free to comment on any part of the video that strikes you.

Is the Glass Half Empty or Half Full?

      Over winter break I visited the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago with my family. I was skeptical of the artwork at first. I don't tend to understand how a painting of a green square can be considered a high value piece of art. Even though I don't quite understand or like contemporary art all the time, there was one painting that caught my attention.

      The painting is by an american artist Jo Baer. It was painted in 1967 and simply called Untitled. The painting is of two boxes outlined with two borders, one black one red, and a white center.

      At first, I didn't understand the painting and was about to ignore it write it off as just another "green square" painting with no meaning. However, when I read the description the painting made much more sense. The painter is basically asking the question: Is the white part of this painting EMPTY or FULL? The center does have white paint covering it, but white is often connected with emptiness. When I first observed the painting I thought of it as having a blank, empty middle. Upon further reflection I realized that the border almost is signifying that the middle area is important or else there wouldn't be a frame, making me think that the center is full.

What do you think of this painting? Is the center full or empty? What do you think the artist thought of the center? Would you consider this a "good" piece of artwork?