The Celebrity Effect

Angelina Jolie and husband Brad Pitt

   Everyday, we hear about celebrities. Most of the time, it's completely unimportant information: a break-up, a divorce, a fight, or even the occasional arrest. As pointless to us as this news is, Americans just can't help but listen.
    A few days ago, Angelina Jolie wrote an op-ed in the New York times about her decision to undergo a double mastectomy due to her high risk of breast cancer. In my opinion, this was a very brave thing for her to do. Jolie is an extremely well-known figure, so her speaking out about the surgery is sure to raise awareness and make women more open to having genetic testing and surgery, if necessary. As Linda Holmes stated on NPR, we live "in a celebrity-infatuated world." The word "infatuated," meaning an unreasoning or extravagant passion/attraction, is no exaggeration. American people worship the ground that many celebrities walk on and because of this, Jolie can easily make a huge impact on people's lives just by saying that she went through the genetic testing and surgery. While in some cases Jolie's impact might be a positive one, in others it might not be. For example, because Americans are so celebrity-obsessed, it is possible that people will want to get the genetic testing, even if it is unnecessary for them.
   Despite whether Jolie’s impact is positive or negative, it is also interesting to think about why we listen to and believe celebrities. Seemingly, it is for the wrong reasons.  When people think about Angelina Jolie, they are likely focusing solely on her beauty. Forbes describes her body as "An American Iconic Body" and in this Huffington Post Blog, she is described as a "goddess." If Jolie was not viewed in this way, as a perfect and beautiful figure, I would argue that her statement would not have had the same impact. In the celebrity-obsessed country of America, people listen to a “beautiful” celebrity about serious matters (such as surgery), over a doctor or scientist.
     The impact that celebrities have on the American people is just another example of how our views are constructed. Hearing one statement from a celebrity has the potential to completely change one's perspective. Do you see the impact that celebrities have in America as being positive or negative? Why or why not? Why are Americans so impacted by what celebrities have to say?

All About the AP

    As I near senior year and begin the college process, I am hearing more and more myths about how to get into a certain school or what classes "need" to be taken in order to have a chance at getting in somewhere. Although I probably participate in it at times, I find all this talk quite frustrating. I do not understand why people are advised to take a bunch of AP classes that they may not care for, when there are many other options that aren't AP that a person is probably much more interested in. Even more frustrating was an interview that I read recently in the New York Times with Jeff Rickey, the dean of admissions at St. Lawrence University.
      In the interview, Rickey was asked whether a student should take the most challenging  courses even if they are not at all interested in that particular subject. Rickey's answer to this questions was "Absolutely." Upon reading his answer, although I may have saw it coming, I was quite shocked. In my opinion, students should challenge themselves, but also be sure to take classes that truly interest them. Another question asked to Rickey was whether it is better for a student to receive an A in an honors class or B in an AP class. To this, Rickey stated that, "As we admissions officers say when we are asked this question, “An A in an Advanced Placement class!” Comments like these are the reason why so many students feel so much pressure to have to take AP classes. Not only that, but they have to get an A in the class, as well. What they don't understand, and what I learned this year in American Studies, is that it is not the grade that matters!!! If students are only focusing on that single letter, then in the end they will not end up taking anything away from the class. We need to veer away from this society where the only thing that students think is important is how many hard classes you are taking and what letter grades you have.  How, if in any way, will our society be able to divert from this way of thinking?

Mothers Everywhere

    Today is mothers day; a day when mothers are, deservedly,  given thanks and appreciation for everything they do and all the advice that they give. Mothers everywhere, no matter what social class they be a part of, are recognized on this day.
    As I discussed in my Junior Theme, once someone is born into the lower class it is hard to escape it,  especially when you are raised by a single-parent, particularly a mother. However, we should recognize that while doing so is difficult, it is not impossible. Just take Angelica Gonzalez, as described in this article, as an example. She and her brother were raised by their mother, who did not attend college (putting her at a disadvantage in today's society). She provided income to the family by working constantly. Today, she continues to work as a blackjack dealer in Las Vegas. Because of the society that we live in, it may be surprising to hear that this woman's daughter, Angelica Gonzalez, is now a professor at Yale University and a scientist in the field of tissue engineering.
    As explained by Gonzalez, " My mother may not know the ins and outs of academia, but she taught me the essential ingredients needed to make it as a scientist in a white, male-dominated field." It seems that people who live in the lower class are underestimated, as if they can not teach the same values as people living on the upper class. Clearly, this is not at all a fair generalization to make. She may not be college-educated, but Gonzalez's mother is skilled in interacting with others, has a great sense of humor, is determined, and very creative ("she can sew, crochet, paint, cook, sculpture, and do woodworking and metalworking"). Although her profession may not seem at all similar to a blackjack dealer, Gonzalez uses these skills that she learned from her mother in her everyday life at work as a professor, as well.
     Angelica Gonzalez has a story that is not often heard from people coming from the lower class. When (and how), if ever, will our society get to a place where stories like Gonzalez's are not rare?

Perks of Having a Dog

    Pets are a big part of the lives of many American people. In fact, according to this article, "Nationwide, Americans keep roughly 70 million dogs and 74 million cats as pets." This is no surprise, especially living on the North Shore where it is difficult not to see a dog on a single block.  It turns out that owning a pet, particularly a dog, has more perks than just being there to keep you company.
     On Thursday, it was discovered by the American Heart Association that "owning a dog...[is] “probably associated” with a reduced risk of heart disease." This makes perfect sense because people with dogs are more prompted to get outside to walk/run their dog. Another reason is that having a dog lowers your stress level, and therefore your heart rate as well.
    I found that this research relates to what we have been discussing recently in class, social classes. While it is true that people in the lower class might have a pets, it seems that they would be less likely to receive the same kind of benefits from it that people in the upper class do. One reason for this is that people in the lower class are more likely to be having to work two jobs. Because of this, they would not have the same time as someone in the upper class would to take their dog for a long walk or even just work out on their own. Clearly, the research above has some flaws because many people that do have dogs may be unable or just chose not to take their dogs out, and thus having a dog would not reduce their risk of heart disease. Although a small one, this is just another perk of living in the upper class over the lower class.

Technology Hazards

    Most of the time, I always have my cellphone on me. I check my email, Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram every few minutes, similar to the majority of Americans these days. In fact, one of the reasons why it is taking me so long to write this blog post is likely thanks to the fact that I have Facebook open at the same time.
    According to research from Carnegie Mellon University’s Human-Computer Interaction Lab, as this article explains, an experiment was performed at Carnegie Melon in which two groups took a test; one group was not interrupted and the other group was interrupted by an instant message. The result was that the interrupted group answered questions correctly 20 percent less often than members of the group who were uninterrupted. This is even further of an issue because "a typical office worker gets only 11 minutes between each interruption, while it takes an average of 25 minutes to return to the original task after an interruption." All these distractions really do make people dumber and less affective in getting things done.
     Thinking more about the issue of all these technology-based distractions, it does not seem like there is really any cure for it. Technology only continues to advance in America, which just increases our access to social media and other ways of communication through technology. Thus, we will just continue to have more and more distractions. While technology advancements are good in some respects, the harm that they do to a person's brain power need to be kept in mind. As the experiment described above shows how technology interruptions make us dumber, it also affect our social skills. Take me for example: just a few minutes ago I was sitting next to my mom typing away on my cellphone while she was talking to me. After five minutes, I realized that I had absolutely no idea what she was talking about, thanks to the meaningless conversation I was having via text message. The more and more we text, the less likely we are to have skills in talking to someone face-to-face. How, if in any way, can these interruptions be lessened, or are they already built too far into society?
    

An Irreversible Loss?

    Among the many factors driving the widening income gap between the rich and the poor is a replacement of middle-class jobs with low-class jobs. In other words, a decline in manufacturing jobs, an area where people with lower educations were able to make decent wages, has resulted in more people having to make a living working low-wage jobs instead. Despite Obama's efforts to aid this issue (increase in minimum wage and creation of the American Opportunity Tax Credit) as this article states, "inequality has worsened during his administration." Although he has made many efforts, "Real median income is eight percent below pre-recession levels and middle-class jobs continue to be replaced by low-wage jobs." The decline of middle-class jobs, particularly in manufacturing, began in the 1980s when large industries started finding cheaper labor in other countries.
    A documentary called Roger and Me, by Michael Moore, exposes how big of an issue it became when manufacturing jobs started to go overseas. As seen in the trailer attached below, nearly 30,000 people in Flint, Michigan lost their jobs all because the General Motors factory was moved to a different country. While the majority of Flint was affected by the loss, there were a few very wealthy people who seemed to care less about the issue because they were still extremely well-off. This reminds me of The Great Gatsby because most of the characters seem to only focus on their wealth and materials, and might not even know or care that poor people exist. The manufacturing jobs that have been lost do not seem to be coming back any time soon, which makes for a smaller middle class, and a much bigger lower class.

What even is the Income Gap?

  

    Before I began my junior theme, I didn't know anything about the gap between the rich and the poor. Sure, I knew that it was "widening," whatever that meant, but I never really understood how severe of an issue it is. And that's the problem. Americans know that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, but that's pretty much it. Many people don't know, or don't understand that, as the attached video states, "The richest 1% take home almost a quarter of the nation's wealth." I'm not a numbers person, but even I understand that a quarter of the nation's wealth, is a lot of money. People also may not be aware that "The CEO now makes 380 times the average worker's. Not the lowest paid employee...the average one." I can't help but ask myself, doesn't this anger people? A CEO could be working just as hard as one of its workers, yet it is making 380 times more?!? I'm sure that people are angry, but we just don't hear about it. 

    Finding a solution to this growing issue is going to take a lot of work involving many different aspects of our society (taxes, education, technology, etc.), but in my opinion, before any of that happens, the leaders in our society, and people in general, are going to have to start understanding, and being more open to how huge of an issue this really is. Just take a look at the video; it is clear that Americans' perception of how wealth is distributed is skewed, not even close to the reality. One of the reasons for this could be because of how politicians treat the issue. As Peter Edelman mentioned in his book So Rich, So Poor, in regards to the Recovery act, "Obama made little use of the word "poverty"...[but instead] used the word "vulnerable"...to characterize low-income people." Poverty is a real thing and as the income gap grows, it only is going to become a larger issue. If the leader of our country can barely make use of the word, then American people will not think of it as the serious issue that it is.