I love the New Millennium?

Throughout our American Studies Class, Mr. Bolos and Mr. O'Connor have reinforced the idea that everything is a construction. During class on Friday we watched a video on the 1920's and we briefly discussed what and why things were chosen to be put in the video that was supposed to represent the entire decade. This made me think of these television specials on VH1 that are called I Love the (insert decade). There are ten segments of the decade, each focusing on a different year. So, the special I Love the 80s, would have ten segments starting with I Love 1980 and ending with I Love 1989. I know it may seem like a far stretch to go from an educational video straight to VH1, but they are similar.

The TV special's format is nothing like our 1920's video, yet they both had to make choices on what to include in order to give the viewer "the whole picture" of that decade. Which celebrities to highlight, which scandals to poke fun at, and which fashion trend to be embarrassed by. Although the "experts" on VH1 are all comedians and popular figures from that time period and the 1920's video was the host (I forgot his name) taking us through his family tree they both constructed the show that was produced.

During our classes many times people have brought up what the think will be included in an educational video about the first decade in the new Millennium and it just so happens that VH1 has produced seven segments starting with I Love the New Millennium: 2000 and ending with I Love the New Millennium: 2007. I thought it would be interesting to show you what some of the highlights that VH1 has chosen to represent this decade are. (Warning: this list is also a construction.)

• Presidential Elections
• Music: Who Let the Dogs Out?, Lady Marmalade, Laffy Taffy, Here It Goes Again, You're Beautiful, London Bridge, Hey There Delilah
• TV shows: Survivor, The Daily Show, Fear Factor, The Weakest Link, American Idol, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, Punk'd
• Movies: Pearl Harbor, Moulin Rouge, Zoolander, Lord of the Rings, The Passion of the Chirst, Napoleon Dynamite, Brokeback Mountain, Borat
• 9/11
• Fashion: Tramp Stamp, Muffin Top, Ugg Boots, Crocs
• Technology: iPod, Segway, YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, Google, iPhone
• Katrina

Eye Contact and a Handshake

As we discussed the final chapters of The Great Gatsby we talked about what a hand shake can tell you about a person and how long you should hold eye contact with another person. I became very interested in the topic of eye contact. Mr. O'Connor seemed to think that holding eye contact for a long period of time was some sort of animal instinct and a challenge to the other person. I wanted to see if other people agreed with this. While searching the web for an article I saw something that didn't immediately occur to me, each country has a different social interpretation of eye contact.

In Islamic countries, members of the opposite sex should never hold eye contact for more than a couple seconds. Doing this can be considered cheating or even a form of adultery. In other countries it is rude to look at the superior person of the situation in the eyes. As far as animal instincts goes, I agree that there is some part of our DNA that says holding eye contact is a threat. I believe in class we agreed that dogs and bears were animals that saw holding eye contact as a threat and a challenge.

But why is it different in America? In our country we are told when you first meet someone you want to impress you need a firm handshake and to look them in the eye. Or why is it that when I type in "first impression" to Google images one of the first pictures I get is this:

A guy looking straight at the camera and reaching out for a hand shake.

This is a question I actually don't really know what I think about. The only tentative answer I have is that maybe in America we feel that in order to succeed we need to be aggressive, and by being aggressive we tap into those animal instincts and hold eye contact.
What do you think?

Full Body Scan: Strip Search?

TSA has recently begun to install full body scanners at security check points throughout the our nation's airports. As of now three have been installed  at Boston's Logan Airport. TSA plans to distribute as many as 150 to the nation's busiest airports. The full body scanners are set up are made for people to stand between two large sensors and a picture of the person being searched will be displayed on the screen of the security officer's computer. The screening gives the security at airports a more accurate idea of if someone is carrying potentially harmful items into the airport. But many question whether these scans violate a person's privacy.

As I said the scanners show a detailed image of a person's body, in an article from the LA Times the scanners were compared to a "virtual strip search". Images such as this appear on the screens of security.
The images are certainly graphic, but should people have to sacrifice their privacy in the name of security. The body scans are effective and you can see in the picture where this man's gun is located. patting down a person may not have been as effective in this situation. In a pat down a woman could potentially hide a weapon in her chest and no security officer is going to pat her down there, but here trade off is another member of security essentially seeing a picture of her naked.
Would you feel comfortable stepping into a full body scanner at O'Hare? Do you feel personal privacy should be sacrificed  to ensure national safety? If so, where should the line be drawn?

Music Doesn't Count

I'm sure many of us had trouble deciding our senior schedules. I know that I went through at least fifty variations of my schedule until I came up with my final decision. Besides wanting to take advantage of all the wonderful class opportunities offered at New Trier I wanted my schedule to be seen as competitive to the colleges I will eventually apply to.

My final decision was to only take four academic majors my senior year and major in orchestra as well. But, that is exactly how I have to phrase it when talking to other people...I am taking four academic majors and majoring in orchestra too. When I would originally say I am going to take five majors my senior year and would list my math, english, social studies, science, and orchestra, people would immediately respond by saying, "Oh, but orchestra doesn't count."

But, why shouldn't my music class count? Our class discussion about arts in our educational system made me think about this. During the discussion we came to the consensus that New Trier valued the arts while other schools don't. But then why do people question me when I list orchestra as a major? I think that even though music classes can require as much if not more work than academic classes people don't take them seriously. Even at a school like New Trier who has an incredible music department, music is held to a lower standard. But, who decided this?

Do you think music should be held to a lower standard than academic classes? Are there any other classes at New Trier that you feel are overlooked?