Topic 193: The Responsibility of Greatness

Carol:

“Whoever Would be Great Among You”

Does responsibility come with greatness? Charles Barkley took a lot of flak for refusing to accept the title of “role model.” In his typical blunt way, he reminded people that being a great ball player doesn’t make a great human being, and responsibility for being a role model is that of parents. “Just because I dunk a basketball doesn't mean I should raise your kids” (Barkley). Fame and celebrity create false idols, especially in America, and we bemoan the human foibles of the famous when we should be looking elsewhere for our models of greatness. Charles Barkley was a great basketball player, but he was no Mother Teresa.
 

I said that as a bit of a joke, looking for contrast, but she’s a pretty good example of a person who never let her growing fame and international reputation interfere with her mission to not only serve the poor but to love them. Probably the secular apex of her life was receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979. When she was given word of the award, she responded with characteristic humility and spiritual vision: “I accept the prize in the name of the poor.”

Mother Theresa accepts another prize.

The Nobel Presentation Speech referred to Mother Teresa as a bridge. She “has personally succeeded in bridging the gulf that exists between the rich nations and the poor nations.  Her view of the dignity of man has built a bridge. Unencumbered and naturally she has crossed the gulf by means of this bridge” (source: Nobelprize.org).
 

In her lecture at the Nobel ceremony, Mother Teresa spoke about visiting an elderly couple living in an institution, a nursing home full of beautiful things. But, no one smiled and it seemed to Mother Teresa that everyone there was looking towards the door. When she asked why they weren’t smiling, she was told that the old people were hoping that someone—a son or daughter, any family member—would come to visit. They felt  unloved and forgotten. Mother Teresa called that loneliness the greatest poverty of all.
 

I began my teaching career at a private school near Beverly Hills, and most of the students’ families worked in entertainment industry—producers, actors, writers-- people used to fame, even considered great in their fields. The principal of the school also knew how to bridge worlds. Sister Colette had spent years teaching in poor countries, so she knew first-hand the responsibilities of a life dedicated to the poor.  She also  understood “poverty of spirit” and the loneliness of emotional neglect. She considered it a special calling to serve the wealthy  with compassion,  to see beyond the outer bravado of wealth and celebrity and to encourage the humanity and dignity of each student, of each family. I don’t think she had the ego to consider herself “great,” but she was one of my role models. That’s why my daughter is named Megan Colette.
 

What is the responsibility of greatness? I guess Charles Barkley might say his responsibility was to practice hard and play well, to nail those free throws and slam those dunks.  Mother Teresa might say her responsibility was to love and obey her God, to love others so that “no child will be unwanted, and also that we meet each other always with a smile, especially when it is difficult to smile” (source: Nobelprize.org).
 

Somewhere far away from the professional athlete and the professional saint is… well, is me. My role models showed me the importance of accepting challenges , making commitments, loving what you do and who you’re with. It’s about learning the greatness of responsibility.
 

Sources:
Charles Barkley quote. Brainyquote.com.
    
The Nobel Peace Prize 1979. “Mother Teresa.” Nobelprize.org.
 

Megan:

“With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility” 

– Spiderman or Voltaire or Thomas Francis Gilroy

Anyway, let’s take a moment and look at the current events. We’re several weeks (or years, depending on how you look at it) into the News of the World hacking scandal.  I haven’t paid that much attention because since returning from New Orleans I’ve misplaced my remote control so I haven’t been watching any TV. But from what I can tell, it is unlikely that Rupert Murdoch had anything to do with the hacking, as the NOTW was only a tiny part of his media empire. I’m not sure what outcome to expect from these hearings aside from likely significant financial payouts and criminal charges for the actual hackers. Murdoch is the man in charge though, and the actions of his employees are his responsibility.

In addition to major corporations, celebrities and politicians are the two other groups of people in this country to whom we ascribe power, but only from the latter do we have a right to expect responsibility. I’m not saying politicians necessarily have a moral responsibility, I just mean that we elect them with the intention that they responsibly represent our interests. This expectation is one of the foundations of our democratic system.

Unlike corporations and politicians, celebrities have very little actual power.
We see their movies and listen to their music and sometimes they touch us on an emotional level.  These people become role models simply because they are in the public eye. We consider them trendsetters and we buy the products they promote because we recognize them and maybe consider them our friends.   And when they mistakes most of us get to make privately, we feel let down, and we turn on them.

One might argue that celebrities are financially compensated for forfeiting their right to privacy. They choose to act and perform, they allow their faces to become internationally recognizable, and in return, we have a right to look at stolen pictures of them with their children or to judge them after a night of heavy drinking. And then we accuse them of being bad role models, of being irresponsible.  This is unfair.

We have a right to expect great and powerful people to act responsibly because when they act without care or regard, actual real damage can be done. When celebrities fail, they are usually only hurting themselves. When corporations or governments fail, personal tragedies are exploited, minority groups are discriminated against, economies collapse and lives are ruined. 

Topic 158: The Penalty of Violating Convention

Carol:

The Penalty of Violating Convention

  

My family history research has provided an interesting window into some of our country’s most significant—and controversial—periods in history. Take the War of Independence. We call the families who fought for separation from England “Patriots,” so we may oversimplify the political positions and issues that split communities and families in Colonial America. In fact, only about 40-45% of the Colonists were Patriots, and a full 40% were neutral. Not only did about 20% of the population remain loyal to England, but others choose not to take sides, and still others were religious pacifists who paid severe penalties for choosing NOT to fight.
 

One such group, of course, was the Society of Friends (Quakers), which at the time was about 10% of the population. Fundamental to Quaker philosophy was not only pacificism but equality regardless of race or gender. Early American Quaker women enjoyed incredible freedoms, and the Society itself condemned slavery far ahead of the Abolitionist Movement.
 

At their 1774 General Yearly Meeting in Philadelphia, the leadership ordered a letter to be sent to all members of the Society to maintain their principles of pacifism and peace. The letter reminded Quakers that “under the King's government they had been favored with a peaceful and prosperous enjoyment of their rights” (Wetherell), and it suggested that members who disobeyed the orders be “disowned.”  Expulsion from the Society of Friends meant not only separation from the religious community but family members as well, and a common reason for excommunication was marriage outside of the denomination. 
 

Betsy Ross (1752-1836) is a name we all recognize from our earliest lessons in American history, credited with making the first American flag. But she was born a Griscom, one of 17 children of a Quaker family who upheld both the philosophy of their denomination and its simple lifestyle.  Her own great-grandfather Andrew Griscom, a Quaker carpenter, had arrived in  the Pennsylvania colony a year before a much more famous Quaker, William Penn, founded Philadelphia. When Betsy Griscom eloped in 1773 with John Ross, an Episcopalian, she was “read out” of the Society of Friends. Although she was reinstated after she was widowed, and later joined a group of disaffected Quakers who supported the Revolution, now called “Free” or “Fighting Quakers.”  By the end of her life, the last Free Quaker meeting house was closed. (source: Betsy Ross)
 

Those Quakers who remained non-combatant during the Revolutionary War often received vicious treatment from their neighbors. The Bull family of Dutchess County, New York, may be a typical example. Quaker John Bull had immigrated to this area near the Hudson River in the mid-1700’s along with 9 children, including 6 sons. According to family genealogy, two of the sons were taken prisoner during the War of Independence and sent to New York.
 

The treatment of Quaker non-combatants in New England was not less severe than that meted out to their co-religionists in Pennsylvania, as one of the Bull brothers died from violence and privation, while the other survived only long enough to be rescued by his relations, and died soon after. (Bowerman)

Quakers George & Phoebe Bull

Generations of the Bull family would suffer temporary excommunication for marrying outside the denomination or by joining a liberal branch known as the Hicksites. Many of the Bull family immigrated to Canada, where many of the Quaker pacifists and Loyalists from the Revolutionary War had moved decades early (The United Empire Loyalists’ Association of Canada estimates that 1 in 10 Canadians has a Loyalist ancestor.)
 

Despite its long history of peace and equality, the Society of Friends had its own penalties for members who violated its religious and social conventions. And that’s no Bull.
 

Sources:
Betsy Ross: Her Life. 
Bowerman, Dr. A.C. “Genealogical List of the Bull Family of the County of Prince Edward, Ontario.”
United Empire Loyalists’ Association of Canada.

Megan:

The Convention of Violation without Penalty:

a brief survey and critique of reality television

Nowadays, it seems that if you violate conventions, you are rewarded with a reality TV show. Shows like 16 & Pregnant, Sister Wives, 19 Kids and Counting, Hoarders and the obviously named, Taboo – draw upon the novelty of people who live or act contrary to what is common and acceptable in our society. The arguments against reality television are fairly well-known, as its detractors tend to be loud and smug in their derision.

These shows reflect a dangerous sociological evolution, wherein people behave badly in order to get their own show. Jennifer Del Rio, a 16 year old mother of twins, is being sued by the father of her children who claims she got pregnant to get onto the popular MTV show. Whether or not this is true almost doesn’t matter. Supporters of this show claim that it portrays the harsh reality of teenage parenthood and relationships. It is true that these girls are rarely able to finish high school or maintain a good relationship with the fathers of their children, but they are paid for being on this show. Perhaps they are unhappy, but surely they must be financially secure. I have no idea what they are paid, but generally viewers assume that if you are on a TV show, you get money for it. Reality TV is not actual reality – people act differently when they know they are being observed. Not only that, people act differently in order to ensure they are observed.

These shows also uphold the  unhealthy standards of beauty so often represented in films and advertising. Even music competitions like American Idol, The X Factor and The Voice which claim to be talent-based, constantly refer to cultivating brands, having “the whole package,” and in the case of The X Factor, that certain je ne se quoi, the unknown quality that makes one unique. These shows pretend to promote individuality, but instead conventional beauty is valued over talent, The exception is when  the person is unattractive but super-talented, in which case their strangeness and ugliness is part of the spectacle. Look what happened to Susan Boyle – the shock expressed by the judges and audience during her audition indicated that it is hard to believe talent can come in a misshapen, ugly package. After her makeover (and her breakdown), when the novelty wore off, Ms. Boyle was marketed to a demographic closer to her age who still appreciate music for the sound and not the image in the video.

 The Voice, with its blind auditions gives the impression that the acts are chosen with no regard to the contestant’s appearance, but you can see the delight on the judge’s faces when they turn around and see an attractive face and body. It’s the first thing they comment on. From that point in the show, the judges compete with each other to shape the real people into marketable, Hollywood cookie-cutter pop-stars.

My mother likes to watch the cooking competition shows, but occasionally I discover that she has clogged the TIVO with Reality Housewives of Atlanta, (or Houston, or Beverley Hills.) I have only seen the previews for these shows, but as far as I can tell, the allure to the public is rich people behaving badly. Despite the dramatic and ridiculous way these women are portrayed, they cater to an envious audience who aspire to their wealth and circumstance. These shows portray extreme moments edited together to seem like a coherent, and achievable lifestyle.

Despite the fact that I obviously fall into the loud and smug detractor category, I do watch some of these shows. After 4 years without a television, I find myself oddly transfixed at times by the bizarre scenarios playing out on screen. But I think these shows are dangerous because they manipulate people’s emotions and insecurities, their dreams and narcisstic tendencies, present illusion as reality without acknowledging the fiction.

Topic 139: On Thinking for Oneself

Carol:

The Rugged Individualist and the Marlboro Man             

 Any list of American cultural values invariably includes Individualism, emphasizing the importance of thinking for oneself, achieving independence, and making important life choices without the “interference” of family. Independent, Individual, free—the American Ideal.  The ideal aside, we are routinely bombarded with messages that attempt to manipulate us to NOT think independently, the in-your-face, overt messages media and advertising use to influence our spending and social habits. 
 

“Product placement,” is the use of branded items in television and movies. Next time you watch one of your favorite TV shows, look at what the characters are drinking and eating, or what the logo is on their laptops. According to Broadcasting & Cable, 80% of commercial television programming includes product placement, or “branded entertainment” (source: sourcewatch.org).  Products are also advertised through corporate sponsorship at sporting events, use of branded clothing, and promotion of products by the athletes who are paid a lot of money to wear a particular brand.
 

One egregious example of “product placement” is the collusion  between entertainment industry and tobacco companies. In a 1983 speech for a marketing meeting, then Philip Morris president Hamish Maxwell emphasized the importance of putting cigarette smoking into films: “Smoking is being position as an unfashionable, as well as unhealthy, custom. We must use every creative means at our disposal to reverse this destructive trend” (source: Smoke free Movies). Despite increasing regulation against such practices and  denials  by the tobacco industry, 74% of US movies in 2002  showed smoking, and 11 of the top box office films showed special brands. Six of those films were PG-13, i.e. oriented towards a teen-age audience.  What about in 2011? Current films with PG-13 or PG ratings that show smoking without negative consequences include Sucker Punch, Limitless, Rango, and The Lincoln Lawyer.
 

I didn’t begin this essay with the intention of writing about tobacco, but I’ve kind of gotten myself riled up here. You can sneak alcohol into someone’s drink, but you can’t sneak a cigarette into someone’s mouth. Tobacco does NOT taste good when you take the first puff. Or the second, or after the first pack. Euphemistically, it is an “acquired taste,” encouraged by peer pressure and the glitzy notion that smoking is Cool, or whatever the current slang is. Despite the highly publicized health risks and decline in smoking by American adults, the number of adolescent smokers has increased in the past several years.
 

A 2009 article from scientists at Dartmouth shows the powerful link between smoking in movies and smoking in teen-agers. According to the authors, frequent viewing of movies that include smoking increases 3-fold the likelihood that an adolescent will smoke. (source: Heatherton and Sargent).  Parents may be scrupulous in monitoring their children’s exposure to violence in the media but not even consider the impact of exposure to positive images of smoking. Ironically, many of the actors shown smoking on camera are actually using clove cigarettes or other tobacco-free substitutes. In other words, they wouldn’t be caught dead smoking tobacco themselves.
 

There you have it, the ideal of Americans as independent human beings, unique and able to think for ourselves. The reality is that we crave to be accepted as attractive, happy and hip. Forget about exposing the insidious plots of subliminal messages in Walt Disney movies. Forget about analyzing the sexual messages in the magazine ads for vodka. Stand up, speak out, and use the power of your pen and pocketbook to fight  the tobacco industry’s hold on entertainment. That’s the American Way.
 

Sources:
Broadcasting & Cable qtd. In “Product Placement.” Sourcewatch.org
Smoke Free Movies.

Megan:

Confirmation Bias

I came across an article called "Citizenship Duties" on Salon.com a couple days ago, which offers an interesting perspective on this topic. The author, Glenn Greenwald, compares two quotes about trusting the judgment of a President. The first is Britney Spears speaking about President Bush in 2003: 

“Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes…”

The second is Kevin Drum, of Mother Jones, speaking on Obama: 

“I mean that if he and I were in a room and disagreed about some issue on which I had any doubt at all, I'd literally trust his judgment over my own. I think he's smarter than me, better informed, better able to understand the consequences of his actions, and more farsighted.”

Greenwald’s point seems to be that this type of single-minded trust and deference is dangerous, no matter which party is in power. He compares such submission to a religious act:

“Venerating a superior being and blindly following its will is a natural human impulse, as it frees one of the heavy burden of decision-making and moral and intellectual judgment, and it also creates a feeling of safety and protection.”

But he encourages us to rise above this natural impulse (and rise above Britney Spears) and do our duty as citizens, which is to question our leaders.

In an effort to spend a little more time researching for this essay than I normally do, I went back and read the original Drum article as well as his irritated follow-up after Greenwald’s piece was published.  It is clear that Greenwald took Drum’s quote somewhat out of context, considering the entire article is about questioning President Obama and the Libya Intervention.  Drum said his original quote had been written hastily and upon reflection, “If I weren't unsure of myself, after all, I'd hardly be interested in Obama's views or anyone else's.”

 And then Greenwald responded (update added to original), basically saying that if Drum had said what he meant in the first place, there would have been no need to compare him to Britney Spears. Aside from the Britney Spears comparison, Drum and Greenwald’s arguments were fairly respectful, most likely because they are otherwise politically aligned. Both made references to respecting the other’s writing and ideologies, and the conflict only became personal because one liberal compared another liberal to a red-neck pop princess's unquestioning faith in the stupidest President we’ve ever had. 

Neither of them actually said that, but that’s gotta be from where the outrage stems. Similiarly minded people can argue smaller points of rhetoric respectfully, but (as the media constantly reminds us) Democrats are always going to think Republicans are stupid, and Conservatives are always going to think Liberals are elitist (perhaps rightfully so).  Greenwald isn’t the only commentator to call Drum out on his  apparent unquestioning devotion, but Drum disregards them because they are not Obama supporters anyway. He’s only interested in responding to criticism from someone who usually agrees with him, even though all the critics made the same point.
 

Everyone wants to believe that they think for themselves – that they are aware and informed and able to make up their own minds. But the truth is no one has enough time to fully investigate every issue they are expected to feel strongly about, so it is often easier to defer to the party line or the dogma of their faith.  Add to that, the problem of confirmation bias which suggests that people tend to favor information which confirms what they already believe even when presented with evidence to the contrary. Perhaps we must first question our beliefs before coming to any further conclusion about our capacity for independent thought.

Sources:
Greenwald's " Citizenship Duties" Salon.com

Confirmation Bias. Wikipedia.

Drum, Kevin. "Obama, Libya, and Me." Mother Jones.

and the follow up.

Topic 129: Penalties of Success

Carol:

Go to the Penalty Box           

One of our friends from college  was always looking for the best deals.  One summer Russ came back from Mexico bragging about all the stuff he had bought. He pulled up his sleeve to show his proudest purchase. “Guys, can you believe I only paid $30 for this Omega watch? Take a look.”  As Russ  pulled the watch off his wrist, the little gold horseshoe on the clock face came loose and dislodged in the hands of the watch.  Imitation may be flattering, but it is also costly. Consumer Reports estimates that legitimate businesses lose nearly 250 billion dollars a year in sales to counterfeit merchandisers.
 

If one penalty of success is unwanted imitation, another is notoriety. Successful people have little privacy. The missteps of famous celebrities like Charlie Sheen and Mel Gibson make money for “entertainment” magazines and talk-show hosts, but successful people are rarely portrayed with compassion or insight. Nor are their family members, who then become “collateral damage” through the media attention.  Take, for example, the son of Bernie Madoff—the most successful of Ponzi schemers, at least until he got caught.  Forty-six-year old Mark Madoff committed suicide on the 2nd anniversary of his father’s arrest. According to Madoff’s lawyer, “Mark was an innocent victim of his father’s monstrous crime” (source: Reuters).
 

Successful people may seek fame regardless of the loss of privacy. But, they may not anticipate all the consequences of courting the public eye. The penalty for James Frey put him in a league of his own. Frey is the author of A Million Little Pieces, whose critical reviews  sent him on the Oprah Show, was “outed” for fabricating parts of his so-called memoirs. Random House settled a law-suit by disgruntled book buyers at a cost of 2.35 million dollars. The damage to his reputation wasn’t permanent;  he may make a million little dollars on the success of his book turned teen-age science-fiction film I am Number Four. Don’t look for his name on the book, however. He and collaborator Jobie Hughes publish under a pen name, Pittacus Lore (source: Wikipedia).
 

Of course, plenty of people are successful without being famous. Do the successful folk in our own families pay the price for being good at what they do?   My son  son taught me a lesson about success when he was in high school. Because he had shown a strong aptitude for mathematics, we pushed him into accelerating his math studies to include a college calculus class at the same time he was working part-time, playing guitar in a band, and taking a full course-load at the high school.  When I applied a little pressure to work harder in the college class, he remarked “Just because I’m good at something doesn’t mean I like it.” Duh—I have thought about that comment often.
 

Closer at hand, my writing co-conspirator  pays the penalty for being the most proficient “techie” in our household.  Yesterday, I decided to reconfigure my workspace and started moving everything around without unplugging the computer, the modem, the printer, or the screen.  The penalty of that hasty, lazy whim was that I pulled some wires loose.  Megan was not pleased to be rooting underneath my desk reconfiguring a tangled mess of wires by flashlight.
 

Everybody knows how Megan’s cartoons really add just the note of humor to The Daily Theme essays. I can only imagine what she would have come up with today. I asked her if she had the time, but she said no. I guess I’m in the penalty box now.

Sources:
James Frey. Wikipedia.
 Mark Madoff death.
“Real or Fake? Counterfeit Merchandise can Threaten Your Safety and Fund Crime.” Consumer Report  Jan 2008. 

Megan:

Penalties of Celebrity

I bet celebrities are counting on there being a special place in hell for the paparazzi . But those photographers wouldn’t be taking the pictures if there wasn’t a market for them. Tabloid magazines and websites wouldn’t buy them if there wasn’t an audience eagerly waiting for the next picture of Suri Cruise, Brangelina, or the Twilight kids. I have always been a part of this audience, but recently I’ve started to feel uncomfortable about the role I play in supporting this part of the industry.

As I’ve mentioned before, I see almost every mainstream movie that comes out (I like Independent films too, but they hardly ever make it to my local cinema). Naturally, I have a curiosity about the actors who star in these movies. One of my favorite TV shows is Inside the Actor’s Studio, and although I was not previously a fan of his work, the interview the Dave Chappelle changed how I thought of Hollywood. In the interview, he was speaking of Martin Lawrence, Mariah Carey and his own public “breakdown” when he left his show at the height of its popularity and went to Africa:
 

What is happening in Hollywood? Nobody knows. The worst thing to call someone is crazy. It’s dismissive. I don’t understand this person. So they’re crazy. That’s bullshit. These people are not crazy. They are strong people. Maybe the environment is a little sick.

Since he gave this interview in 2006, we have watched Britney Spears shave her head, Joaquin Phoenix freak out in a very elaborate hoax, and now we are watching Charlie Sheen implode. If there was ever a reason for not doing drugs – aside from their illegality – look at what they do to the people who otherwise have everything going for them. 

For every Charlie Sheen, you have dozens of actors who aren’t wasted on live television, who aren’t modeling for the paparazzi every night in front of nightclubs, who remember to put on their underwear. Because there are so many examples of celebrities who are able to cope with their fame, it is easier to put the blame on the ones who can’t, the ones on drugs.

But I think it’s more than drugs.  I think the condition of celebrity will eventually be studied in college psychology classes. I don’t think a person can withstand that much scrutiny, such a loss of privacy without it having some sort of negative affect on their mental landscape. Sometime last year, Kristen Stewart compared the effect of the paparazzi with rape – an analogy that drew derision from the public and the Internet. But maybe she was just using the only other word for such persistent violation that she knew. 

Sure, there are financial compensations… these people live in mansions, can travel the world, and have trainers and personal chefs and nannies for their kids.  But they aren’t famous because they are rich – there are CEO’s who make more money, who can walk down the street without getting mobbed by fans and photographers. Celebrities are famous because we recognize them; we can pick them out of a crowd, like we could a family member or a friend. But we treat our family and friends with more respect.


Inside the Actors Studio: Dave Chappelle 2006.

Topic 116: Face Value

Carol:

What’s the Value of a (Pretty) Face?

Every woman in the United Sates participates in a daily beauty pageant, whether she likes it or not. Engulfed by a popular culture saturated with images of idealized, air-brushed and unattainable female physical beauty, women and girls cannot escape feeling judged on the basis of the appearance. YWCA. "The Consequence of American's Beauty Obsession on Women and Girls."

When my daughter was about 13, she received a subscription to a teen magazine  as a gift.  Thumbing through the magazine, I was appalled.  The “tween” models in the fashion ads were pencil thin, made-up,  junior versions of the high fashion models in Vogue and Cosmopolitan. Not a real girl in the lot, certainly not anyone who looked like Megan and most of her friends.  What bothered me the most was the advertisements, which were already bombarding 12-14 year-old girls with the messages that (1) beauty is the key to popularity, and (2) you can buy your way to beauty. 
 

The beauty industry is big business and not  just in America. The British department store Debenhams  released  a study on February 9, 2011 showing that the most expensive item in a woman’s  purse was not her cell phone or her I-Pod, but her make-up kit, the equivalent of $407,  professional women between 35-44 having the most expensive make-up bags. Debenhams concludes that women should consider adding make-up to their insurance inventory along with the digital doo-dads in their purses (source: Debenhams homepage).
 

Many studies look at female body image, about eroding self-esteem and increasingly narrow standards of beauty, but what is interesting about the YWCA 2008 report Beauty at Any Cost   is that it considers the economic impact. Women in the US spend $7 billion dollars a year on cosmetics. The study notes that the average money spent in 5 years on cosmetics is equivalent to a year’s tuition at a public university.
 

What about their daughters?  According to a Feb 14, 2011 article in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the number of girls between the ages of 8-12  who use eye make-up has doubled in the last 2 years, and 43% of 6-9 year-old girls already use lipstick or lip gloss. Wal-Mart is getting ready to market its own line of “tween” beauty products, but that’s okay because they are “eco-friendly.” The target age group?  The 9- to 12-year olds.
 

If beauty products aren’t enough to transform women into happy, successful beauty queens,  there is always the next level of artifice.  The American Society of Plastic Surgeons’  2009 “Quick Facts Sheet” shows that the number of cosmetic procedures has increased 69% since 2000.  Surgical procedures have declined by 20%, but  “minimally-invasive procedures” have increased by 99% with Bo-tox the #1 treatment. Typically Bo-Tex injections are about $500 a shot, and need regular repeats. Other popular non-surgical procedures include facial fillers, dental veneers, laser hair removal and electrolysis.  According to the 2009 Quick Sheet, 91% of all cosmetic procedures are performed on women.
 

There is another economic reality to the beauty fixation which affects both women and men.  “Lookism” shows up as work-place discrimination. According to the YWCA report , workers with “below average” physical looks tend to earn about 9% less more money than those judged as “above average.”  I doubt, however, that any woman will tell you she has $400 worth of make-up in her purse so that she can get a salary increase.
 

My daughter at 13 decided to give away her magazine subscription after she took a close look at the ads. How much make-up she carries in her purse is her story to tell. Me? I quit wearing make-up because of allergies, But, I have a drawer in the bathroom with about $50 worth of cosmetics I bought out of total vanity and used only once.

Woman at her Toilette

 

Sources:

American Society of Plastic Surgeons. http://www.plasticsurgery.org/Documents/Media/statistics/2009-US-cosmeticreconstructiveplasticsurgeryminimally-invasive-statistics.pdf 

Debenhams homepage. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/02/prweb5043704.htm
“Girls are Wearing Cosmetics at a Younger Age.” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
          http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/lifestyles/family/s_722835.html
YWCA Beauty at any Cost.
    http://www.ywca.org/atf/cf/%7B3B450FA5-108B-4D2E-B3D0-C31487243E6A%7D/Beauty%20at%20Any%20Cost.pdf


 
Megan:

The Value of the Face

This is one of those days where I need to produce an essay in 15 minutes or else I won’t have time to take a shower before we leave the house to do important things (like see a movie).  And this is also one of those days where washing my hair, which is the most troublesome and lengthly part of the shower, is non-negotiable. It simply has to be done today or my hair will bond together in a single, waist-length, lock of dred. And then I’d have to shave my head.

Mom has the same time pressures on her today, not because she needs to take a shower, but because she is the one who has to be somewhere in an hour and a half. She isn’t anxious about it even though she has not finished her essay, she’s not dressed and is in the kitchen making toast. She has also been awake a lot longer than I have and has obviously put some thought into today’s topic because she asked me whether I remember the time I exercised good judgment about a teenage magazine. I didn’t remember that particular incident but it must have been a defining moment in my life. Criticizing advertisements is the reason I yell at the TV for having diet commercials at 10:00 in the morning (“They’re trying to make the stay at home moms feel fat and useless!”), and that is why I can’t watch day-time TV – the yelling upsets Milo.

But her question about the teenage magazine and the makeup advertising also brings to mind something that happened only yesterday. I went to the mall to buy more of that liquid make up that goes on your face after the moisturizer but before everything else. There’s a word for it, but I can’t remember it right now. I always take the old bottle with me because if I don’t, I cannot remember the brand I prefer. Anyway, I have been using this particular shade and type of this particular brand for the past 5 or 6 six years, but I knew that yesterday would be different. Despite the fact that I have applied sunscreen to my face every day for the past 10 years, I was going to ask the helper lady to find me something with a “little more coverage.”

And the helper lady said she could help me, that they had the very thing, and that it would indeed provide me with… and then she forgot the word and I had to say it again. Coverage. For my face. I need to cover my face. 
I handed her the old bottle so she could see what shade I used. The shade was 0, by the way. The very palest shade they had and she said, “Oh no no no. Your face is too pink. You have a very pink face.” So, she picked out another color, while I called her names in my head.  “I used to live in England,” I said, by way of explaining why I would have required such pale makeup and also because I wanted to feel like I once had a more interesting life, when buying makeup was not the main event of the day.

Then she told me that if I could wait a week to purchase the new makeup, it would come with a gift bag worth $60 of additional makeup and I said, “Sure! Sign me up!” and I know when I go to collect it next Monday, it really will be the highlight of the day. Unless I go to a movie afterwards.

Topic 102: Intellectual Alarm Clocks

Carol:

Wake Up Call 1

In September 1969, I set out for the University of California with a brand new driver’s license and a used but spiffy little Corvair  I kept my car behind the dorms in a parking lot full  of clunkers and Volkswagen Beetles, one of which belonged to my someday husband. My Corvair stood out, and I was proud of it.
 

The campus reflected the increasing political and social tensions in  the country.  The quad was filled with groups pamphleteering for various causes, and anti-war demonstrations occurred on a regular basis. The energy was chaotic, aggressive and idealistic   Whatever  the cause, whoever the speaker, the message was “ We can make a difference.”  
 

First, there was the newly formed Venceremos Brigade,  returned from Cuba where they showed their solidarity with Castro and the Cuban people by working in the sugar cane fields.  Then there was a charismatic former NYPD officer  who was hitting the university speaking circuit to advocate for police reform. His idea for combating corruption and racism within police departments was to recruit college-educated young people willing to work for social change from within. 
 

In the middle of the year, Ralph Nader came, his name linked to a growing consumer advocacy movement and a book I hadn’t read, Unsafe at Any Speed (1965).  The room was full, the applause enthusiastic as Nader strolled up to the stage. He lacked the youthful zeal of the Venceremos and the charm of the former cop, but Nader commanded our attention with his passion and intellect.  His credentials were Ivy League: magna cum laude from Princeton, law degree from Harvard. Yet, he was fighting for consumer rights and political reform. And, he was doing it with a cadre of young people dubbed by the press as “Nader’s Raiders.” We could make a difference. It wasn’t long before Nader got into Unsafe at Any Speed. And, omigod, there was a whole chapter on the Corvair.  My spiffy little Black Corvair, a loving gift from my father, was a death trap. I was stunned.  I was so naïve, so gullible, so unsafe at any speed.
 

Marc and I have heard Ralph Nader speak several times over the years. Marc reminded me this morning that he had stood in line to talk to Nader at one rally. No, no he wasn’t volunteering to become one of Nader’s Raiders. He wanted an opinion on the Volkwagen Beetle,  bought because Marc thought it was a well-made, efficient, and economical car.  Nader  cited safety standards and crash tests showing lethal damage at 25 mph. When I asked If Marc remembered Nader’s exact words, he responded, “Oh yes. He summed up his opinion with a little sneer on his mouth. ‘A car with such minimal safety standards should be banned from the highway.’" Marc’s car was a death trap too, unsafe at any speed.
 

Forty years later, the Venceremos Brigade has a website with the banner “For USA-Cuba Peace & Friendship.”  They are just one memory from a memorable year of my college life. Ralph Nader?  He has been praised as a consumer crusader, but he has also been called arrogant and a political spoiler.  He was also  the first person to sound an alarm that woke me up to my own power to make choices-- on the car lot, in the grocery store, and at the ballot box. I think about that whenever I get into my Volkswagen Passat, strap on my shoulder harness and count the  5 airbags installed for my safety.

We can make a difference.
 

Sources:
Academy of Achievement: Ralph Nader .
    http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/nad0bio-1 

Nader Image: Speaking at BYU’s Alternate Commencement.  Uploaded on April 27, 2007
Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wickenden/474602694/)
Author Don LaVange (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wickenden/)
Venceremos Brigade -- http://venceremosbrigade.wordpress.com/2011/01/

Megan:

Wake Up Call 2

The idea of a wake-up call for your mind is an interesting concept. I’m sure most people have experienced that moment where everything seems to change – a new piece of the puzzle suddenly alters the image, a different perspective or interpretation on an old idea opens a series of opportunities previously unconsidered.  I believe this is also known as a paradigm shift.

Where this has occurred for other people I know, it is not my story to tell (although this may be the only time I don’t jump at the chance to take other people’s stories for my own), but one example from my own experience came literally in the form of a wake-up call.

On September 11, 2001, my friend Kelly called my dorm room to wake me with the news. I met her in the TV room downstairs and together we watched the second plane hit to the tower. In my journal, I recorded an errant thought that eventually changed everything I thought about media from then on: “How do we know it happened the way they said it did?” This is not going to turn into an essay advocating the 9/11 Truth Movement (although I do believe there are some valid questions) ; it is truly a coincidence that I started questioning the veracity of televised information on that day.  This awareness was solidified when I saw the BBC documentary The Power of Nightmare (2005), which can be found online here.

The main way I have chosen to cope with my distrust of the media marketing machine (aside from assigning alliterative addresses) is by reducing my exposure. I’ve managed to block most of the advertising on the sidebars, I watch very little TV, and am selective about the way I inform myself on current events. Reading news articles online instead of watching them on TV ensures my mind is clearer to question and evaluate, instead of being distracted by images and music and the other entertaining qualities used to hold one’s attention.

Despite the investigative and research skills I have acquired through my education and career, I have done little to fix what I’ve determined to be a broken system. For now, instead of writing articles or trying to educate people on the ways the media manipulates the public into being afraid in order to sell them stuff, I am more interested in empowering people to come to their own conclusions. Information literacy has been a buzzword of the academic and library professions for a while now – having the ability to sift through and locate, analyze and evaluate the overwhelming amount of data and detail available has become an essential skill. On the Internet, anyone can pass herself off as an expert, and as we’ve recently seen in Egypt, anyone can be a journalist. There is no longer one explanation available (nor was there ever), no reason to assume that there is only one truth. I’m okay with never really being sure, but for those who aren’t – there’s probably an app for that too.

Topic 87: On Holding One's Tongue

Carol:

Bite Your Tongue

David Brooks

I wanted take the easy way out today, invoking the right to hold my (writing) tongue. I’m tired from the drive home and still haven’t put away the Christmas decorations. But, I read an op-ed piece in this morning’s New York Times by David Brooks that changed my mind. I like reading Brooks because (1) he writes from a different political perspective than mine and (2) he writes with civility, thoughtfulness, and elegance.

One of my favorite ways to start the semester was by handing out a David Brooks essay for discussion. Students in our central Arizona (mostly Red) community  would often leap to the conclusion that Brooks is a liberal (Blue) journalist because his column comes from the New York Times. Before we started talking about the content of his article, I would ask what students knew about the author. That’s when the assumptions about his politics came out, that’s when I showed them how to research the author’s credentials, and that’s when they found out in fact that Brooks writes from a Conservative perspective. The ensuing discussions about the biases we all have was always lively and thoughtful.

Even though I would color myself Blue, very Blue, I would not paint Brooks Red. That’s because I trust him to be true to his value system, to thoughtfully evaluate based on multiple perspectives, and to avoid knee-jerk ideological responses. He adheres to the notion of “the loyal opposition” where people can agree to disagree without taking an “us vs. them” stance.

So, his essay “Tree of Failure” is in some ways a response to President Obama’s speech in Tucson and its emphasis on civility, but he moves on to talk about failure, ignorance, and the growth process of constructive criticism and feedback:
         You may write a mediocre column or make a mediocre speech or propose
         a mediocre piece of legislation, but others argue with you, correct you
         and introduce elements you never thought of. Each of these efforts may
         also be flawed, but together, if the system is working well, they move things
         gradually forward (source: NY Times Op-Ed Jan 14, 2011 page A23)

Brooks uses words like civility, modesty and sensibility, which I find genuinely comforting in a world where it seems like conversations escalate all too quickly into arguments and shouting matches.

So, what does all this have to do with holding one’s tongue.  Maybe, it’s more about curbing one’s tongue. Not an expression we hear so much anymore. I know that when I’m writing, what I really want to say comes at the end of a process not the beginning. What I started out thinking gets transformed as I take a wrong direction and rein myself back in or edit for conciseness and simplicity. What I blurt out on the page, or blurt out in a conversation, is rarely my best thinking. If I don’t hold my tongue, what comes out can be sarcasm at someone else’s expense or reactive rather than constructive. When I’m writing, I can take the time to reshape those first blundered words on the page, tone down the emotion, but what comes out of my mouth cannot be re-called so easily. 

It’s just as important to know when to stop talking as when to start. I’m done.


Source:

Brooks, David. “The Tree of Failure.” New York Times 14 Jan 2011. A23.
 

Megan:

I worry about Intellectual Property Theft

This is going to be a fun topic. I associate holding one's tongue with keeping something secret. What examples can I give of keeping a secret without failing to keep the secret? We have a lot of family reading these essays, and the biggest secrets and dramas often happen within families.  To avoid any potential for hurt feelings,  what I’m going to do is tell you about something without telling you what the something is, that way the conundrum can be revealed without giving away the bank. You’ll see what I mean.

The conference I attended in San Diego ended last Sunday, and then I stayed with Kelly (as I‘ve mentioned). During that time I came up with 3 truly brilliant ideas – ideas that will make money and contribute to the information profession. I’m serious. These ideas will be revolutionary. But I need to do some research. The ideas are so great they might already have been invented. If they have, then too bad, but I will purchase one from whoever did the inventing because now that I’ve thought about it, these new things are going to be absolutely indispensible. And if my great ideas haven’t already been invented, then I am going to need to find a partner because I do not have the technical skills to create the prototypes. It is also possible that my great ideas are impractical or impossible to create in real life.

 I may have seen The Social Network a few times too many. I have relationships with people who have the skills to construct my great ideas, who might make excellent business partners, but what if they turn out to be the worst business partners in the world? It’s not a good idea to mix money with friendship. But we could be the next great partnership, like all the other great partnerships everyone could get rich and contribute to the profession at the same time. Or something like that. I am conflicted.  I just don’t want to be the person who’s sits around bitter and telling everyone that I was actually the inventor of “The Greatest Library Related iPhone App ever” (TM).

I think I’ve already figured out what I’m going to do. I’ll do some research, sketch out the instructional designs, and objectives and find out if they would work. Then I will approach my friends with contracts and confidentiality and non-competition clauses.  Worst case scenario, I have to take classes and learn to do the coding and data base construction myself. It will take longer but I should learn how to do it anyway.

So, I would say the conference was a success. I remember after the prison library conferences, I would always return to work so excited and full of ideas, and over time the place would wear down my enthusiasm, but I always got the most ideas after spending time with colleagues.  Eventually I may reveal the great ideas, after  I've determined if they are viable. I once came up with a plan to raise children using only sock puppets and I told everyone about it before I'd fully thought it through. Big mistake.

Topic 37: Epidemic Education

Carol:

Typhoid Carol

The Malone name runs through my father’s family: his uncle Malone DeWitt,  grandmother Anna Malone, her mother Indiana Malone and at least one Mary Malone in every generation. They grew up in Tennessee, Alabama and Texas, a far spell from the New York of a more infamous, Mary whose last name was pronounced Malone but spelled “Mallon.” This Mary AKA “Typhoid Mary” immigrated to New York from—anyone, anyone?—Ireland in the early 1900’s and soon gained a reputation for her culinary skills in the kitchens of the New York upper-crust. Unfortunately, her cuisine came spiced with a “healthy dose” of typhoid fever bacteria that sickened and even killed members of her employers’ families. Finally, medical investigation pointed to a link between her and the spread of typhoid, and she became the first identified healthy carrier of the disease. She probably would have been a footnote in history except that after agreeing not to work in the food industry again, she was released from quarantine only to resurface 5 years later as “Mary Brown, “ infecting 25 people served her cooking at Sloan Hospital for Women in NY (source: “This Day in Tech": wired.com).

He's actually our 10th cousin

Well, grab your ear plugs and face mask because you have just been exposed to the germs of another plague carrier, who takes every opportunity to sneeze and cough family genealogy in your face.  The virus isn’t deadly, but you know you have been exposed when your eyes glaze over and your mouth opens in a huge yawn every time Typhoid Carol grabs you and says “Guess who’s my 16th cousin 42 times removed?” *     --------------->

Or, you may have an uncontrollable urge to turn the TV commercials up louder when she yells out “Omigosh, look at this incredible castle ruin in Aberdeenshire, Scotland that was the home of Gilbert Keith, my 15th great-grandfather!”  At her worst, this spreader of the deadly dull will bore you to death. She not only exposes her family to the infection but anyone she meets: neighbors on the morning walk, casual friends in the grocery line at Fry’s, readers of the “Daily Theme.” She knows she is making her family and friends sick—and tired—but SHE CAN”T HELP IT! The more she learns, the more she is compelled to share.

The current epidemic of minutia peculiar to the Family History bug is just one permutation of a life-long disease, manifesting itself whenever Typhoid Carol takes an interesting class, reads a fascinating book, or watches an unusual documentary. Words spill out uncontrolled at the dinner table or on a long car ride; the pitch of her voice getting higher and the volume louder. “This Malcolm Gladwell book is soooo fantastic. Can I just tell you about one study in Outliers? Just one?”  Well, the Carrier can never stop at Just One of anything.

You may think this disease is NOT one of epidemic proportions, that it’s not really infectious, but the evidence is there. Her husband has caught the bug, which has mutated into Motorcycle Mania and Bird-Brain Disorder. WE CAN’T HELP IT! We are passionate carriers. We think everyone should catch the disease until it becomes an epidemic. Education: help spread the word.
 

*He's actually a lot closer relation than that.

Source: Typhoid Mary

Megan:

Educating on Epidemics

Last year, the back of my head started going numb. It would last about 5 minutes, and occurred several times a day.  I was concerned so I consulted everyone’s favorite tool for self-diagnosis – the Internet.  When I listed the symptom in the search engine, a number of possibilities came up. I eliminated epilepsy and stroke, but went for the other worst-case scenario. Within five minutes I had made an appointment with my real doctor because I knew I had MS.

Assuming the worst seems to be a symptom of the human condition. Mainstream news sources have capitalized on this by using sensational headlines to sell their product, and when they aren’t describing soaring crime rates and terror plots, then Health scares work just as well. Bird Flu, SARS, Swine Flu, Pandemics…

Out of curiosity, I looked at the Health pages of the two news sites I scan every day – BBC and CNN.  Today, the main headline for both is the cholera outbreak in Haiti. But below the main headline, the two sites seem to take a different approach reporting health stories. BBC’s headlines have an informative tone, quoting the doctors directly in the headlines:

           “Blood group ‘affects fertility’”
           “Aspirin ‘cuts bowel cancer cases’” 
           “Depression gene ‘fixed’  in mice” (How did they know the mice were depressed? asks my mother)
           and “Hard to read fonts ‘aid learning.’” 

(That one is interesting -- if you make something hard to read, a person is more likely to remember it, once he's deciphered it.) 

There are a couple of warnings about malaria in India, and an ‘unsafe’ drug in herbal tea, but for the most part, these headlines don’t have the same sensationalism as the American CNN.

Today’s headlines on CNN:

              “Raisinets recalled on peanut fears”
              “Health reforms side effect- Scams” (as if no one ever scammed a doctor before    
                                                                          President Obama passed the reforms…)
              “Teens may not reveal drug use”  (duh). 

                                                                        
More interesting though, are the titles of some of the regular columns on the site. “The Empowered Patient”, “Toxic America”  and “Egg Safety.” I understand that salmonella is a very dangerous microbe, but it’s not limited to eggs… who would have thought there would be enough concern about the safety of eggs to warrant an entire column?

Anyway, when I went to see the doctor, I didn’t tell him I had MS. I only described the numbness. I was surprised though when he used a light to look at the back of my eyes and gave me a number of tests to check for muscle weakness. I was in the office for an hour, by far the longest I had ever spent with an NHS doctor.  Then he sat down and asked me what it was I thought I had. When I told him he nodded and said, “That’s what I thought too.” I almost died on the spot. He also told me that the Internet brings people into his office every day convinced they have life-threatening illnesses. Then he told me what I actually had.

The Internet is the most convenient way for people to “educate” themselves about health issues – convenient, but hardly reliable.  Without a real education, people don’t realize that epidemics are incredibly rare and that some conditions (pinched nerve) are more common than others (MS).