Unexpected?

The other day I was listening to Pandora and a very strange advertisement (on right) popped up on my screen. Pictured was a pregnant man, and the caption read, "Unexpected? Protect yourself and your partner. Avoid unplanned pregnancies and STIs. Use condoms." It is obvious that we are making progress in that our generation is the least homophobic generation that America has had, but I think that this ad is taking it to an extreme. This is simply uncalled for. This is not an attractive advertisement to me, and actually I find it quite sexist and racist. Everything about this advertisement is "unexpected". For biological reasons, it is simply impossible for a man to become pregnant. He also looks extremely sad and ashamed, which I find degrading to women. I think that pregnancy is a beautiful thing, and this ad makes it seem disgusting and something that is unwanted. He has lost all hope, because his life is now ruined thanks to this unexpected occurrence.

It is also interesting that the man is of color. The advertisement proposes that this sort of thing would only happen to a minority, maybe suggesting that they are not as educated in this topic. This makes me wonder who the target audience of this ad is. Is it targeted towards minorities? Maybe African-Americans and/or gay people? What do you think about this sort of advertisement? Is it too much?

"Only in America"

As I was browsing through the articles under the US tab on The Week website, I noticed that there was a new sort of series called "Only in America". It is set up in a flipbook style, and there are hundreds of short stories that feature different Americans who did something that apparently only an American would do. 


After flipping through several articles, I noticed that almost all of them showed outrageous things that Americans would do, which shed a bad light on certain American laws, policies and culture. For example, the first one is titled, "Suing the people who saved your life". It briefly talks about a man in Colorado who is suing the people who rescued him from a flood, just because he thinks that they didn't rescue him fast enough. The man (Roy Ortiz) shockingly said, "I'm really happy to be alive, but I'm looking for some help in paying my bills." Only in America would someone take advantage of the justice system to basically steal money from the people who saved his life.





Some of the stories are much more severe, as the next one that caught my eye was "Throw a snowball, get arrested". This one is about a 13 year old kid who threw a snowball at a police officer, and was charged with a felony and got arrested. Only in America would a police officer arrest a kid for being a kid.

It is interesting to think about the American values that the authors of this series are trying to portray. I began to notice a trend within this series. It seems as if these Americans were taking advantage of their power with self gain in mind, which shows the American value of the individual over community. It also shows people overreacting and taking seemingly harmless situations to an unreasonable level. In the eyes of many (specifically foreigners), the actions of American people (especially the government) seem ridiculous, and I think that this series is trying to show the American people how crazy some of the everyday occurrences that might go unnoticed really are. 

Under the Red Dress

When I was scrolling down my Facebook newsfeed today, I saw that several of my friends had liked a page called, "Under the Red Dress". I clicked on the page, and was shocked to find one of the most interesting, beautiful and in my opinion most effective breast cancer campaigns that I have ever seen. Beth Waanga, who is an Australian mother, nurse and breast cancer survivor recently created this extremely bold campaign that vividly displays the normally unseen effects of breast cancer on a woman's body. First we see a beautiful, normal picture of Beth in a red dress, where she looks completely healthy and unharmed. As you scroll further, Beth shares nude photographs of herself after her battle with breast cancer, revealing the total bilateral mastectomy, navel reconstruction, hysterectomy scar and stretch marks from rapid weight loss to the world. I don't even know what half of those fancy medical words mean, but as they say, a picture says a thousand words. (to view the more graphic images on her page, click here)

 

Although some view these photos as inappropriate, too graphic or even sexual, I think of them as art and as an amazing way for Beth to tell her story. It is amazing that a woman would make herself completely vulnerable to the world, simply exposing herself in every way possible, in order to educate women about the dangers of this terrible disease. So brave. So selfless. So smart. Obviously Beth knew that the only possible way to inform people of the battle scars and the aftermath of having cancer was to show this body, this uniquely beautiful body, to everyone. Whether they were ready to see it or not. Although things often appear "normal" or "untouched" on the outside, but by taking a peek on the inside we can often uncover a different story. The biggest problems and challenges in life are often ones that we don't see coming or are temporarily invisible, and Beth is making a statement in that everyone should be proactive about breast cancer and take it seriously.

What are your thoughts on Beth's photo shoot? Do you think that she takes it too far? Do you think that this will be an effective way of conveying breast cancer to the world?

Is Allegiance a Convenience?

Today when I was driving around town, I stopped at a stoplight and noticed an interesting bumper sticker on the car in front of me. It read, "I pledge allegiance, not thoughtless obedience." Obviously this sticker is referring to the pledge of allegiance, a topic that I blogged about in the beginning of the year. From this sticker, it seems as if the person agrees with the meaning and thought behind the pledge, but doesn't necessarily agree with the way that it is implemented and executed within our society. He is telling the world that he is SINCERELY dedicated and loyal towards his country, and not just saying so because of routine or because other people tell him to be. I agree with him in that many children simply recite the pledge everyday out of memory, without even understanding it's meaning. However, I still think the pledge is an important tradition, and a good reminder of all the blessings that we have in this country.

All of this made me wonder why we even have a pledge in the first place. I know that the U.S. is one of the few countries that has both a national anthem and a pledge of allegiance. After some research, I discovered that the man who wrote the pledge, Francis Bellamy, desired to "instill into the minds of our American youth a love for their country and the principles on which it was founded, and create in them an ambition to carry on with the ideals which the early founders wrote into The Constitution." (from Margarette S. Miller's I Pledge Allegiance) I think that Francis' motives were solid, but how realistic are the benefits of reciting the pledge? I think that kids saying the pledge won't make or break the country's future, nor the loyalty and allegiance of it's citizens. However, it is a good way to instill patriotism into our daily lives and insure the identity of the American people.

Do you see any benefits of having a Pledge of Allegiance? If so, what benefits? Is there a better way for people to show their allegiance and patriotism to our country? Is it necessary to show allegiance to the United States in the first place?

Dude This Whole State is High

As a born and raised Coloradan, the legalization of marijuana came as a big shock to me. This winter break was the first time that we had been back after the legalization of marijuana. We were shocked to find souvenirs like these in almost every tourist shop that we entered. I think it is sad that so many people find these souvenirs funny and cool. Personally, I believe that the legalization of marijuana has changed the entire atmosphere of the state, and it makes them look tacky, unclean and uneducated.

I don't think that people realize the effects of the legalization of marijuana on teenagers. Now, marijuana is even easier for teenagers to get their hands on. Obviously minors have friends or even family members that are over the age of 18, and many of the older "friends" have no problem with dealing it to the younger kids. According to The Week, "drug addiction specialists are predicting sizable increases in marijuana addiction (in CO)".  I saw evidence to support this firsthand, after talking to several of my good friends who attend high school in Broomfield, Colorado. They say that pot is more prevalent then ever in their school. They told me that more and more of their friends are smoking.  One of my friends even told me that one of her teachers doesn't allow the kids to eat in class anymore, because tons of kids are bringing food with pot in it to school. It would be interesting to see Colorado test scores and/or grades change within the next year. With kids going as far as consuming pot in school, I am sure that many of them will have suffering grades. Personally, I think that the cons of legalizing marijuana greatly outweigh the pros, and that the legalization of marijuana was a huge mistake. Do you think that the legalization of marijuana was a good decision? Will the US legalize marijuana as a whole in the future? How will this change our culture and morals?

The Plight of an American Farmer

Over winter break this year, my family decided to take the long drive to Colorado so that we could enjoy the beautiful mountains and the way-better-than-Illinois skiing. On the drive out, between my long naps and the reading of The Crucible, we passed an interesting light display somewhere in Nebraska. Unfortunately the quality of my photo is not up to par, but I am lucky to have even got a decent picture since we were driving around 80 mph. 

Merry Christmas! EAT BEEF.

This was the Christmas wish of a certain Nebraskan farmer, that Americans would eat more beef. Why? So that people will eat HIS beef, and pay him (although very little) for it. Because of the intense competition in the American food industry, farmers actually get paid rather minimally. Farmers may be some of the most hardworking people in our country, and yet they are probably paid the least amount of money. Quite honestly, I think I haven't fully appreciated the hard work that goes into making my food. We always go to the store and try to find cheap, good quality meat without giving any thought as to how it affects the farmers who produce it. The relationship between farmers and consumers couldn't be more impersonal in our culture. Often it is the consumers and grocery store co-ops that dictate the prices farmers should sell their goods for. This is the opposite of what it should be. The principle of supply and demand should allow farmers to price their own goods independently. We are a consumer based society, and therefore everything is based on the wants of the consumer rather than that of the farmer. Why should the American farmer suffer in this way? What practices could be changed that would result in a healthy supplier-consumer relationship in agriculture? 

TSA's Deep Pockets

Almost every time that we travel somewhere by plane, my dad gets his pocket knife taken away by the TSA. After seeing this happen a ridiculous amount of times, I began to wonder what the TSA does with all of the things that they take from people. After some research, I was shocked to discover the different ways that the TSA disposes of prohibited items, from shampoo to pocket knives. According to The Week, most liquids are thrown away, and all other items may either be donated or sold. Donation is a good solution and throwing stuff out is obviously not the most resourceful or economical thing to do, but I was most taken back by the fact that the government is permitted to sell the confiscated items. After reading more into the article on The Week, I discovered that, "The TSA is prohibited by law from profiting from items surrendered to them, but other government agencies' hands aren't tied the same way. Stuff that could potentially be resold is turned over to the states... and the state of Pennsylvania says it made some $800,000 in revenue from re-selling confiscated property online between 2004 and 2012." (read full article here) To me it seems very strange that just because one part of the government can't sell confiscated items, they simply hand it over to another in order to be resold. Honestly, what difference does it make? Either way, the government is taking our stuff and making an large profit on it. Fortunately, the government doesn't sell everything that they confiscate. There are some things, like scissors, that are donated to non-profit organizations or schools.

Is it okay for our government to confiscate our property and sell it for their own benefit? Is it the American people's fault for not following the rules in the first place? What are some other actions that could be taken that would be a better use of the acquired property? Should the property simply be returned to it's owner?