The Power of Pixels

Today we had American Studies Day-A day which focused a lot on the power of photography as a means of sending out a specific message. Bearing this in mind, I found it so ironic and all the more fitting that today as I opened up my yahoo mail, right in the front box was this article. It discusses the fate of pictures of American troops torturing prisoners. The pictures allegedly showed "grinning American soldiers posing with detainees — some of the prisoners naked, some being held on leashes". Naturally, the reaction to these photos was strong American sentiment all around the world, but especially on the part of the nations affected first hand by this abuse.
While I definitely agree that the negative consequences of the circulation these photos are immense and not beneficial to foreign relations, whether or not I agree with Obama's decision to try and block these images is a different matter. I mean, they are real photographs-to hide them from the public would be censorship, regardless of the motives. Also, to ban them would be ignoring the issue, which is one that should not be treated lightly. While Obama has now made it clear that the actions taken by the previous administration were completely out of line saying, "Any abuse of detainees is unacceptable. It is against our values. It endangers our security. It will not be tolerated." -regardless, what happened happened and cannot be swept under the rug. By making it publicly known but also stating that by no means is that ever acceptable, hopefully the people of America and of the world might learn from this experience and not make the same mistakes again.
This whole situation just further proves what we discussed with Professor Mazur. While yes, admitting that American soldiers tortured prisoners would affect people, it is photographs of the event that really take the whole thing to a new level, that get a real rise out of people.

A Different Kind of Hunting License

This is just one of the examples of propaganda during WWII that Americans used to justify killing the Japanese. By characterizing them as snakes, "vile stinking vipers" as they are called on this particular poster-it dehumanized the enemy, making it easier for the soldiers to kill and the people to know they were killing, because they weren't humans-they were vile snakes. It even tries to cut out signs of mercy-urging the soldiers that if they try to say sorry or anything of the sort, they are not to be forgiving-they are simply hissing at you.
I think it's interesting in this one that they chose to portray the Japanese as snakes. I have seen in the past relating them to bugs or rats, but before this never snakes. When I think of snakes, I think of the story in the bible of Adam and Eve. The snake in this story was greedy and untrustworthy. I can't speak for everyone when I say this is probably a common relation, however I definitely think it is a common relation to snakes. This in turn makes the fact that they are compared to snakes all the more powerful. It helps to add to the brewing distrust that surrounded Japanese Americans during WWII (so much distrust actually that many were put in internment camps).
It is a common theme with war propaganda to dehumanize the enemy like this, which leads me to wonder-if war is considered so fundamentally wrong in our minds that we have to draw evil pictures to help us justify it and feel better about murdering others-can it really be the best way to go about solving problems? Ideally, to fix our problems we shouldn't have to lie to ourselves-right? I don't know, I just think there must be a better way.

When You're Caught in the Cycle of Poverty, Can Striking It Rich Even Save You?

I was listening to a segment on NPR's show "All Things Considered" the other day that described how quickly after retiring, many pro-athletes go broke. A recent study showed that 78% of former NFL athletes have gone bankrupt within two years of retiring, which came to me as a shock. I mean, I always knew that a couple of these stars go over the top and get these extravagant houses featured on MTV shows like "cribs", but I didn't realize it was that much of a pandemic! These men are making upwards of a million dollars a year-the idea of spending that much money that fast is just absurd to me.
Today in class we talked about the idea of the "cycle of poverty" and I really saw a strong connection between that and this growing issue among athletes. More often then not, these outstanding athletes come from low socioeconomic standards, which makes the jump from living a normal, working-class life to having that much wealth that much bigger of a shock. These athletes are not used to managing that much money, and therefore are often irresponsible with it-treating it as if it were a bottomless fountain of cash and making ridiculous purchases like that 5th Lamborghini they've always wanted. It's really sad to consider, but this is most likely a result of their past standard of living. Since they never had money, they never learned how to manage it and therefore lose it quickly. It's depressing to think that this cycle drags people back into poverty, even if they have managed to somehow crawl out of it.

Putting Things In Perspective

When it comes to defining what characterizes a life of privilege versus a life of poverty, it's all very relative. I mean, what defines a life of privilege? Is it having enough money to pay for your children's college tuition in full or buy a house in the Hamptons? Or is it simply having enough money that you can live comfortably within your own means, simply having enough money to live your life without having to worry about how you'll pay for your next meal? Is it privilege enough to be able to live the American dream without concern?

I've always considered myself to be a very privileged person. It's funny because although I feel my family is so wealthy in the grand scheme of things, within our own community my family is average. Our lifestyle is nothing close to some people I know, let alone similar to the "fabulous lives of" celebrities and the really top high rollers. This summer my sister went to a friends house for spring break, it was someone she knew from school. Little did she know that the house would have a coach house twice the size of my own house and a rolls royce complete with driver ready always to take them downtown or to the beach. I mean really? How more Gatsby could we get?
Anyway, so while sometimes people are so over the top wealthy, it makes me lose perspective and I start to think of myself and my family to be average. All it takes is a little bit of perspective though again to realize just how fortunate I am. The fact that there are people so poor within our own nation, in our nation-not just overseas in villages of third world countries, who are so poor that they couldn't even pay for a cab or rental car to get them out of New Orleans before the devastating storm is truly an awful, and yet completely true point.
Living in the north shore, I'm afraid I have a warped view of what characterizes privilege and poverty. Poverty isn't always something reserved for huts in Africa or slums in India, it lives within the borders of our very own nation.

The Fabulous Life Of...

For one reason or another, I feel like American society really has a fixation on wealth and the lives of rich people. In class we read the poem "Graceland" by Carl Sandburg that highlighted the grave of "a millionaire, a multi-millionaire, ladies and gentlemen", advertising it as if it were some fascinating show. Although I can't say I've ever been compelled to visit someone's burial place simply because they were rich, I have to admit that from time to time-I have done what I consider to be the modern day equivalent: watch "The Fabulous Life Of...". Just in case you're unfamiliar with it, it's basically a show that just talks about rich people and the ridiculous things they spend money on. It's not alone in it's kind either-MTV and VH1 feature several shows centered around this same concept, for example "Cribs", a show that explores the fabulous homes of celebrities, and "My Super Sweet Sixteen", a television show that shows the planning and execution behind birthday parties costing tens of thousands of dollars.

It really makes me wonder, why are we, as a society, so fascinated by the lives of rich people? Society glorifies wealth so much-they have sections of magazines dedicated to showing how celebrities are "just like us" because they eat french fries or walk their dogs. The fact that they have those sections means that many people don't think of celebrities as being regular people, that somehow with their aquired wealth they've become more important then the average person. In the second part of the poem I mentioned earlier, "Graceland", it talks about a working girl and other poorer people. The entire section in parentheses, as if to signify that the whole second part is just an after thought-that the people it talks about are less important then the dead millionaire talked about in the first part. It was true then and it's true now, but why? Why is it that rich people are so glorified and does that tell us something deeper about our American society?

Back in the day, movies used to feature people called "actors"

Today, I found out something even more curious about Benjamin Button than the fact that he's aging backwards, for 52 minutes of the movie...he isn't even there! "What the audience is actually seeing in the first third of the movie is a computer-generated copy of Pitt's head, which the studio aged digitally." (see article)
So they've actually done it: created an almost flawless digital recreation of a human being to play a part in their movie. For 52 minutes, 325 shots, of the movie, Brad Pitt wasn't actually there, it was a digitally created person acting. This is absolutely revolutionary for the movie industry, but is it really progress? I mean, maybe this is just me not liking too much change, but I personally find it more scary then exciting. Is this new leap in technology going to make actors and actresses obsolete in the future? UCLA Acting Professor Judith Moreland says no, "real actors have an ineffable quality that isn't easily re-created...I still think that there is something about actually looking at a human being and seeing something real look back at you ... it's about that human connection." It scares me to think of a future where actors might be a thing of the past, I mean...I doubt that will ever happen, still-I don't doubt that some movies in the future will feature fictional human beings in staring roles. As Laura Sydell said in the article, "Now that they've done what was once considered impossible, it's hard to believe that they aren't going to try and breathe life into an entirely computer generated person."

Earth: The Movie

Today I was at home sick watching television when I saw the following preview for a movie coming out soon entitled, "Earth: The Movie". Now, it's hard to say exactly but from what I got from it, I think the plot of the movie is tracking the daily lives of three different animals, whales, polar bears, and elephants. Seems like it'd be an interesting documentary...but not an amazing, moving work of cinema...right? Well apparently not, because I don't know what it was specifically, but when I watched that preview, I just became enthralled (in retrospect, I'm thinking it was the music.) Whatever is was, I got really excited when (if you watch the preview you'll get the reference) the little chick jumps all the way from a tree branch to the forest floor while the narrator talks about it's immense courage. And when all the goats are crossing the river, oh man. I really wish I was kidding right now but I swear to you I'm not.

So anyway, then as I sat down to try and think of examples of how we, as Americans, are prone to romanticizing things, it hit me how overdone that commercial was. "Join three families on an amazing journey across our planet"? Really? Needless to say, I felt like such a sucker. Romanticizing American? Guilty. My reaction was exactly that which the makers of that movie were looking for, someone to identify with the large humpback whales, foraging the ocean; To feel for the elephants as they ran across the savanna. Don't get me wrong, I do love animals. But really...it's hard to deny how romanticized that movie is. I'm sure the stories are real and interesting, however I can say for sure that every possible angle has been played up to tug at the heart strings of a bunch of eco-friendly, animal loving people. I mean, come on, it even comes out on Earth Day...seriously?

Obama's Gotta Simplify

In Walden, Thoreau said it quite simply, that we need to simplify our lives. “Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity! I say, let your affairs be as two or three, and not a hundred or a thousand” Well, sometimes that's easier said than done. In the wake of Obama's entrance into office, he will be forced to face the inevitable, and much dreaded, simplification of his everyday life by losing his BlackBerry. In an age where email is such a common source of communication, unfortunately, hacking is as well. This means that unfortunately, Obama's going to have to give up his BlackBerry for the cause of National safety.
The fact that this is actually a real issue for President Obama just demonstrates what a huge role these everyday technologies play in our lives. In fact-it plays such a big role that people feel helpless without it. Now, I'm not entirely sure that we should necessarily consider it progress. I mean, yeah, that's awesome that you can access your email, photos, facebook, and phone all in one device-but I think it's sad sometimes just how dependent society has become on it. I think that it's great technology to have, but we should try not to let ourselves fall into complete dependency over it, or else we really aren't progressing at all. Who knows, maybe Obama will appreciate Thoreau's advice, whether or not he's willingly taking it.