Big Data Big Problems?

When I arrived at home on Friday after school, a giant package sat on my counter. I scanned the plastic covered structure only to find that it had come from restoration hardware, a home design store which no one in my family has ever shopped at. I immediately asked my mom what it was, since the package was addressed to her, and she responded that it was a stack of catalogues from Restoration Hardware, that she had not sent away or anything. The unsightly stack was later (painfully for the environment) put into our garbage as we had no use seemed to reveal a lot about the growing issue of "big data", and whether or not companies should have regulations on the amount of our personal information that they can gain access to. 

As many have begun to learn, people we don't know have a lot of information about us. Simply put by CNN, "data brokers, analytics firms and retailers are creating hundreds of 'secret' consumer scores." There are companies out there, such as Acxiom; PeekYou and Rapleaf, that take inventory of your personal information, and sort people into groups. Americans are giving out information without even realizing it, as the Washington Post notes  "more snooping goes on than most people realize". The "snooping" that these big data companies do enables them to sell to companies, such as Restoration Hardware, the news that you fit into a certain group, and therefore will be more likely to buy a certain product. 

My mom, for example, has just completed redecorating our family room (hold the applause). Therefore she has spent countless amounts of time on websites looking for furnishings and decorations. And while she claims that she has never visited Restoration Hardware's website, the fact that she has visited similar sites got back to Restoration Hardware. Hence, the stack of magazines on my counter.

While Big Data is an answer to my initial question of why this lump of plastic sat on my counter Friday, it is the root of questions for many. Be it phone records, internet searches or even just the yellow pages, both corporations and the government have access to our information- and it is entirely legal. 

Many argue that it is imperative for the data collecting companies to have regulations put on them. Others, such as Restoration Hardware, say that they are allowed to freely collect this information in order to help their companies, and no law can deny them this right. Personally, I would have to side with the anti-big data team, as it seems to me that all of these magazines on my counter is excessive. However, I can see why, to a certain extent, this data collection would benefit companies and consumers alike. It just seems to me that they have gone a bit too far. Do you notice evidence of Big Data in your life? Maybe in the form internet ads, telemarket calls or, like me, mail? Should these be more restricted? 

Paper or Plastic?

After spending part of my Sunday afternoon at Trader Joe's with my mother, I noticed an interesting thing that recalled some of my previous posts on class. What struck me as even more interesting was my observations at the checkout line. Trader Joe's only offered paper bags for us to load our groceries into, where as our other favorite grocery store, Jewel Osco, offered both paper and plastic. My mom used her fancy-smancy reusable bags and opted out of the offered paper bags in general, but all the fuss over the bags had me thinking. 

Later, I heard about the recent Chicago "plastic bag ban". In a quest to save the environment from the approximately 185,000 plastic bags that become litter each day, officials made it official that in August of 2015 all chain grocery stores in Chicago must only use paper bags to package their customers' purchases. The teacher of mine who happened to introduce me to this ban, noted that it was only a ban that applied to Chicago, and the surrounding suburbs, such as mine of Wilmette, were not following suit nor had any interest to. 

I found this ban and my Trader Joe's experience to be telling me something about class. Was it a coincidence that a store that only offers paper bags was known to be one that also sold "designer" food products? I don't think so. I think that the plastic bags that we are offered at grocery stores are cheaper to produce, and therefore, as menial as it may sound, connote a lower class mark than their sturdier and more eco-friendly counterpart. Many popular stores along the North Shore only offer paper bags; take Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, Fresh Market and Treasure Island for example. All popular stores among the shopping crowd of the North Shore-ians, and all which are known to be more upscale super markets. And although there are other extremlely popular grocery in the area that DO offer the plastic bag, I would argue from my own experience that many of the shoppers, like my mom, use their own reusable bags that they bring from home. Which seem to make a statement on class even greater than that of the paper bag. 

While it all sounds to be a little ridiculous for someone like me to argue that our thirst for class perceptions goes down to the kinds of grocery stores we visit and even greater the kinds of bags we use there, I believe, from my own observations, that these bags we use do, in fact, connote class. Hence the need for a ban on the prominent plastic bags in the inner city of Chicago and not the wealthier neighboring suburbs. Do you think this to be a crazy conclusion from such a menial part of everyday life, or have you observed similar trends? 

Keeping up with the Joneses?

Stemming from reading The Great Gatsby, my American Studies class has been discussing class and classism. We discussed the possible sources of class and the influences on class. One major influence on class is one's "group of aspiration", or the social group that they desire to be in. Maybe this group of aspiration is not so much what group we want to be in as what group we want to appear to be in. Joe Queenan, a journalist for the New York Times and the Atlantic, claims that there is "a desire in this country to be perceived as being one step ahead" (PBS, People Like Us). The word perceived in Queenan's argument jumps out to me as one of much importance. He claims that we want to appear to be wealthier than others, even if we are not. This thirst for an elevated perception of our own social class made me wonder: what price do we pay for class (or perceived class that is). This seemed to be demonstrated during the 2008 housing crisis when 3.1 million foreclosure filings were issued (Christie). 

Allow me to explain. In the early 2000's the government lowered the credit rating needed to take out a loan, making it easier for people to borrow huge sums of money in order to buy a home. People, who otherwise wouldn't have been trusted to repay the loans, could now borrow sums of money that they may or may not realistically be able to pay back. With these loans buyers bought houses that were otherwise unaffordable. The graphic shown here mocks the "McMansions" that such people purchased during the time. Because hey if you have a loan for so much money why not buy your dream home!? Well the answer to this is also demonstrated in the graphic with the big fat "foreclosure" sigh plastered on the regal columns. The opulent columns as well as the "McMan$ion" sign serve to demonstrate the excessiveness of the home. Clearly these people did not need houses of such a size, so they must have been reaching for the purpose of appearing higher on the class ranks. After the bank's "here take the money and spend" spree, the market crashed, and the people who were supposed to pay the banks back couldn't (read more). This caused thousands of homes nationwide to also go into foreclosure. While many blame the irresponsible loan takers, it is also argue that this crash should be to the banks for making the risky loans in the first place. Upon whomever the blame may fall, it is apparent to many, as well as exaggerated in the photo, that these mansions were owned by people who could not afford them. 

This graphic seems to illustrate perfectly the connection between Queenan's theory that everyone is always wanting to seem to be wealthier than their neighbors. I would argue that class competition made these families take out these loans in the first place that they knew were shaky, and eventually cause them to end up in foreclosures. It seems to me that some Americans are willing to risk everything to be perceived as higher class. 

Excessively Career Orientated or Properly Prioritizing?

Upon reading The Great Gatsby and discussing class, wealth and power in my American Studies class, I have been thinking a lot about American's priorities. One thing in particular that I have picked up on is the concept of people's dreams, and the American dream in general. It seems that many people's motivations are revolved around acquiring money and thereby "succeeding" in the work place. But another American dream centers around the idea of raising a family. So I wondered, at what cost do American's sacrifice their family centered dreams for their career centered dreams? And is there one that people generally value over the other.

A recent Bloomberg article covered a hot new trend that to me demonstrates the prioritizing of these two dreams- family and work. It is called "freezing eggs". Freezing eggs is a newish technology that allows women to extract eggs from their bodies and have them medically frozen until they want to use them to have a child. Brigitte Adams, a women interviewed in the article, says that freezing her eggs "bought [her] time and the possibility of having children in the future." Brigitte is a marketing executive, and like many other wealthy, career oriented women, paid $10,000 for the opportunity to put establishing a family off several years.

I first took the whole concept as a demonstration of Americans not valuing family but career above anything else. Wanting to work first rather than establish a family. However, after more thinking I have come to the conclusion that by these freezing their eggs they are actually doing the opposite- putting family above career. While they may be deciding to tackle their career first, they are spending large sums of money so that they can have a family eventually. They fear that if they "Work hard, put off kids, [they] might find [themselves] at 40 hearing a fertility doctor deliver the bad news." These women freeze their  eggs in fear of never having the ability to live their other American dream of raising an American family, which in turn demonstrates the fact that they care about the family values.

Do you feel as of these women are putting their values of having a family in front of or behind their career? Do you think there is a general American trend regarding the ranking of people's workplace and family dreams? 

Aware of The Truth?

        Just last weekend Wilmette hosted a 5k breast cancer awareness run at Gilson park. Pink was all around and ribbons covered everyone's tee shirt. People support these walks to feel good about donating to a cause of such a perceivably deadly disease. In a 1997 survey when asked what the leading cause of death in women was, 44% responded breast cancer (Jamieson). If I had partaken in the survey, I probably would have answered the same thing. To my surprise, however, the perception that breast cancer kills more women than any other disease is incorrect. 

If fact, heart disease is nine times as likely to kill a women. The book Unspun points out this misconception that many hold, and explains. It claims that though ironic, "breast cancer gets so much attention partly because so many women survive it"(Jamieson, 91). Not only is heart disease fatal to nine times as many women as breast cancer, but other diseases such as lung cancer, chronic respiratory diseases and stroke, kill more than breast cancer. 

When there are so many survivors, there are more people who try to advocate for the prevention and thereby raise awareness. It should be noted that I am not, in any way, trying to simplify the fatalities of breast cancer, because it is such a terrible disease. But I would make the argument that make the argument that breast cancer is way more publicized than other medical conditions which should receive equal, if not more, awareness. 

It was so eye opening, to me, to read that breast cancer wasn't the number one cause (nor was it close) of death in women. I think that like many Americans, I have gotten myself caught up in being charitable to the one cause, and never really gave a second thought to other causes that deserve as much attention. I would also make the claim that many Americans don't really question the facts behind such touchy subjects, and therefore never really receive the whole story when they think they do. No one would want to hold up a breast cancer awareness walk to say that they should also raise awareness for heart disease! While the survival rate of breast cancer was a pleasant surprise, I think the awareness and funds that its advocates have raised need to be similarly reflected in the advocacies of other diseases as well, so more people can survive these in the long run. 

The PAC to End all PACs?

        I have recently become quite the expert on Political Action Committees (PACs). PACs are orginizations that pool campaign donations from donors and give the funds to a specific candidate in order for the canidate to have success in their election. The people who run and contribute to the PACs contain beliefs that they want represented in congress, and by putting all their money to a common candidate's campaign, they are able to get these beliefs in the house (in the form of the elected official). While hearing this may make one feel giddy seeing teamwork being used in a productive manor; others understand that there comes a lot of possible corruption behind these PACs. 

        One such man opposer of these PACs is Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessing. Lessing has "long opposed 'big-money' in politics". And today, Lessing announced his plan to start his own PAC to end all PACs: he tells us to "laugh at the irony" (Derrek Willis). You can read the full article here with the details of how Lessing plans to make his dream PAC a reality. 

        Upon reading this article I quickly saw a link that made me question American morals. While I understand and appreciate the determination of the American people to fight for their say in congress, I do feel as if the monetary aspect of PACs tells us something. When we want something to be done, it is simple, just get a ton of money and throw it at the problem. Yes this is much easier said than done, but it seems to me that fundamentally this is what PACs are doing. It seems that a lot of times we have the mentality to make a connection between money and success. If we want our problem to be resolved in order for us to succeed we could try spending more. If we earn more we are more successful. Is it having money that grants us success, because we can then throw money at our problems. While it may sound a bit far fetched, I would argue that many people have this mentality. "If I were richer this wouldn't be a problem!" So can money really solve our problems? 

Which Came First: the Chicken or the Egg?

          While I may be thinking about American polarization way more than the average Joe, due to my seemingly endless junior theme research, I have come across many interesting thoughts stemming from the theme of polarization. My theme specifically focuses on political polarization in our country, the gap between the democrats and the republicans, but when researching political polarization it is nearly impossible to run into other types of polarization as well. 

          The book "Red State Blue State Rich State Poor State" by Andrew Gelman looks at the geographic divisions caused by political divisions. Where people who live in certain states are classified as "red" or "blue". While these divisions may seem second nature to anyone who has watched the states light up on the election night news, there is more then initially meets the eye. Gelman argues that richer states, such as New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut are blue states, or vote democratically. Where as poorer states, such as Mississippi, New Mexico and Arkansas, were red states, or republican states. Even within these state lines, are districts that are either red or blue. This shows proof of geographic polarization especially people living in areas with people who agree with them politically. 

          So what came first, I ask myself, Political Polarization or Geographic Polarization? In other words, do people live where they do, be it states or districts, because people in the area agree with their political views? Or are people polarized politically because where they live. The book "Red Families v. Blue Families" discusses how family values and views on social issues divides us politically, and therefore geographically. So with our morals, political views and geographic location all playing a part in who we are, I ask: which causes which? I would be interested in hearing anyones anwser to this question, but while I continue to research I begin to think that maybe there isn't an anwser. 

Inter Party Marriage?

          As you may recall from my last post, the topic I have decided to take on for my "Junior theme" research paper is political polarization in America and the growing partisan gap. While the topic in name may seem to center around congress and politicans over in Washington, what really stood out to me, and the reason I ultimatly choose the topic, was the fact that political polarization is so prevalent in our culture and some don't even realize it. Okay well maybe most people can attest to hearing political extremists on the news, or enduring a long dinner discussion of two avid political buffs who can't seem to agree on the same issue, or even families that won't allow their children to marry someone of the other political party. Yes, you heard me alright. According to CQ Researcher, a study from YouGov Poll in 2010 stated that about 50% of republicans and 35% of democrats said they would be unhappy if their child marrried someone from the other party. The same poll taken in 1960 found that only 5% of republicans and 4% of democrats would be unhappy with this.

          Like I stated, this fact was one that caused me discontempt. How could our society be so shallow, I thought. But two weeks and piles of books and articles later, I have discovered that there is way more to politics and the polarization of them then just the way some elected officials vote on laws. The polarization runs in a deep culture divide where morals are tested against eachother: social and political principles that people have increasingly become loyal to. It has started to occur to me that maybe the reason parents have increasingly not approved of inter party marrige is because they feel that their childrens' morals are being swayed by the oposing party spouse. Do you think that it is bad for parents to put these kinds of pressures on their child to marry one of the same political party? Or do you think that they are just trying to make sure that their future son/daughter in-law has the same values? 

The Path to the Real US?

LBGT Rights by Country

       When approached with the daunting task of coming up with a topic to write the world renowned "Junior Theme" paper on, I explored many issues and came up with the topic of political polarization and the partisan gap in America. While it seemed exhausting reading materials for days in search of a final topic, I did manage to find some fascinating things along the way. And though I didn't choose to write my theme on my findings from www.path2usa.com, I did think it was worthy of note.
       Path "2" USA is a website made for people from India who plan to visit or immigrate to the US. One section of the website lists what to do and not to do upon visiting our country. I urge everyone to take a look at this list. It is fascinating to see customs that are second nature to us, written out in a step by step guide for foreigners.
       One theme I noticed throughout the list was dos and don'ts that involved homosexuality. "Do not walk or sit with arms around the shoulders of someone of the same sex. You may be mistaken to be a "a Gay" or "a Lesbian"" was one that stuck out to me. Also the sites clear warning to not wear a pink shirt unless you want to be perceived as gay.
       It seemed to me that through the emphasis put on avoiding looking homosexual in American society, the site is making a statement on the amount of prejudice toward those who associate as gay in the US. The way that they used the words "a Gay" instead of just "gay" makes it seem like homosexuals are in a separate race of their own, and that Americans always have an eye out trying to spot someone who could associate with this group. 
       While the US has more freedom regarding same sex marrige than many countries in the world demonstrated by the map shown here, my findings make Americans out to seem homophobic and judgmental. Most interestingly enough, the people that that the post are targeted at are emmigrating from a country where it is deemed a "penalty" for being homosexual. Do you think that the US is more homophobic than other nations, regardless of the fact that we federally rocognize same sex marriage? How do you see us globally compared to other countries on this issue? 

More Than Just Another Instagrammer?

For the past couple of years people around the world have been sharing photos through the trending app "Instagram". While the app's popularity may not be new news, what is is the popularity that some of its users have gained. One in particular that caught my attention was the "Insta-Gramma". 

As I read more, I learned that the "Insta-Gramma" is an account under the name of grandmabetty33, an 80 year old women from southern Indiana. Grandma Betty's great-grandson set her up an account to document her day to day adventures in the last part of her life. See Grandma Betty has terminal cancer, so her time is running short. It now occurred to me that the popularity of her page came from something more than just an old women taking funny selfies, it came from people's interest in seeing someone laugh their way through a terrible predicament.  

I think that people enjoy seeing other people laugh their way through these situations, because put in these situations themselves, most would hope that they could have such a good demeanor. I know that Americans are known to be resilliant, through many situations, we are the ones who can endure and get through. So, Is the "Insta-Gramma" more than just a funny old women? To me, she is a symbol of American's ability to get through hard times with a smile. The way we have gotten through hurricane recoveries, economic struggles, and even terrorism attacks.  

Nanny Culture: A Racial Trend?

Ellen Jacobs Photography

Driving to school the other day, I saw an interesting site. A "nanny brigade", as my dad, a fellow witness, noted, was crossing the street in route to the local park. A group of about five middle aged women of color were pushing strollers filled with tots. This got me thinking about the nanny culture in America. It seems that in my neighborhood many white families hire either Hispanic or African-American caretakers for their families. I wondered if this was a national trend or a localized phenomenon. I got input on this query by reading "Ms. Melting-pot's" blog post on nannies in America.

The author told a personal story in one of her posts of a time when two of her relatives, one white and one colored, took their newborn niece with them to lunch. The women were approached by a fellow patron of the restaurant: a 3-year old girl. The little girl turned to the colored women and quickly asked "Are you her babysitter." 

What the blogger found interesting, as do I, was the fact that the small child was so used to seeing women of color caring for a child that it comes naturally for her to assume that the colored women was the hired help to the white women, and not the other way around. The author claims that this is due to the "global assumption that women of color are the caretakers of White children." It now seemed to me that this phenomenon existed outside of my community, and this blogger went even further in claiming that this is a global assumption.

         For me, this recalled the movie "The Help." Which looked at the dynamic of African-American nannies in the south during the early 1960's. A similar dynamic which I observed driving to school the other day, "Ms. Melting Pot" observed through a personal experience, and that New York City photographer Ellen Jacobs captured through her recent photo series (one is shown here) "Black Nannies/White Children." 

I would make the argument that as far as locally and nationally, this phenomenon of colored nannies and white children exits, although I am unsure about the global aspect. Do you agree?

Religion or Competition at The Water Cooler?

Wednesday marked the beginning of a religious time in the Christian church called "Lent", a time known to be one of the holiest of the year according to the Christian calendar. During the 40 day span in early spring leading up to Easter, Christians are supposed to "give up" an item in their lives. And while many of the lent participants are devoted Christians, what I find interesting is the amount of participation for the event from the non-religious alike.  A blogger for Metro puts it that "Although part of Christian tradition, religion doesn’t come into it for many these days, with the practice of giving something up for 40 days having evolved into a general office-based will power competition." 

A Jewish friend of mine informed me on her aspirations to go until Easter without eating any chocolate. Despite the deep Christian roots, many non-religious participate in the event, focusing on the time as just another challenge. Like the article mentioned, an "office-based will power competition" is what many see lent to be. As I see it, whoever can really restrain from M&M's or cut back on the coffee for a whopping 40 days has a new thing they can brag about around the water cooler. I suspect there are many other things that people to equip themselves with things to speak on at the "water cooler", such as parents to pushing their children in school and sports for more "bragging material". What other things do you think that Americans put themselves to in spite of better bragging material about their own and their families achievements? Do you agree that Lent has become a time for people to try to do a little something to show up their co-workers? 

Blame it on the Label?

While sitting at the counter in my kitchen this morning enjoying a bowl of my favorite Honey-Nut Cheerios, I overheard the voice of a familiar newscaster in the other room. The reporter noted on what apparently has been a hot topic in the news the past day, new requirements regarding food labels to help cure America's obesity epidemic. This made me think. Is America's obesity problem the responsibility of the box's label? Further research lead me to learn that starting in a few years, food labels will become less "cluttered" and "more user-friendly" says NPR. Among many things that the new food labels will aim to change, one thing in particular that struck me is the new serving sizes. The article suggests that the serving sizes listed on packages have "long been misleading, with many single-serving packages listing themselves as multiple servings, so the calorie count appears lower." Noting that the new serving sizes would be more realistic for what people eat. 

I looked at the food label on the brightly colored box of Cheerios. It read that the current serving was 1 cup for 120 calories. But who are we kidding, no one can simply just eat one cup of Cheerios. I looked at my bowl thinking that maybe the new food labels would be better. If the box actually suggested a realistic serving, cereal lovers like myself could see the real facts on the amounts that they were actually consuming. 

Michelle Obama advocated for these new food labels to fight obesity in America. While I agree that making more realistic serving sizes can help consumers understand how many calories they are really ingesting, I began to wonder if just by doing this people would really eat less? To me, regardless of what the box says, I feel as if I would eat the same amount of Cheerios wether or not the serving size was one cup, or two cups. It seems to me that obesity is caused more by people's personal decisions on how much they eat, rather than mislabeling. What do you think? Are we just blaming our problems on labeling when really we are the only ones who can cure the epidemic?

 

Processed Culture?

         With what seems like the majority of the country enduring a record breaking cold winter, it is prime time for advertising industries to hit their cold, pale and worn-down customers with ads of beautiful white sand beaches and sunny blue skies. One of these ads that particularly made me ready to jump on a plane to the nearest port of call was one for a Caribbean cruise. Although I have never been on a cruise myself; I know that it is a huge industry, so I did some digging o One contributor, William Chalmers, to the Huffington Post thought critically about the of the genuineness that the cruise experience provided and posed the question, is this really traveling? He argued that "Cruise ship lines have turned travel into nothing more than just another shopping-spree experience aboard a floating hotel. Is a four-hour port visit (aka tourism villages) on a guided prepackaged highly sanitized outing through restored historical districts with processed on-demand culture."

He brought up an interesting point I had never really thought about. Are cruisers, and people on prepackaged travel tours really experiencing the countries they visit? Or
are they only experiencing, as Chalmers puts it, "processed culture". I feel like these travel companies do put these kinds of trips through some sort of filter. The people who work for the travel agency have to specifically pick which sites to see, and which to leave out. By choosing which ones they want to include in their tour, they are filtering what the travelers see and ultimately think about a certain location. Most of the time, as Chalmers notes in his articles, the sites that the tourists are led to are very manufactured. Places that are made for tourists, and not raw cultural experiences. 

With this said, I still believe that taking cruises and other packaged tours is a very meaningful experience. Touring places that are filtered by a travel company still gives the traveler more experience in another country than they would have had at home, but I think it necessary that the traveler understand that their tour may not immerse them in the true culture of a country in the way that they originally thought. 

Repeating History?

           The use of chemical weapons in Syria caused a huge out roar in 2013. It was one of the hottest topics during the year. And while our government has made other issues more public lately, the topic of Syria still lies unresolved. The other day I came across an interesting article on foxnews.com. The article immediately grabbed my attention by its pretty "to the point" title, "Like it or not, Constitution allows Obama to strike Syria without Congressional approval."  The article states that "The White House again has decided it does not need Congress’s blessing to bomb targets in Syria related to the chemical weapons attack."

           Recently in my American Studies class, we have been studying past wars and conflicts in American history. One war in particular that fascinated me was the Vietnam war, not actually a war at all. That is because congress didn't actually declare war. The article reminds us that Article 1 Section 8 of the US constitution gives only congress the power to officially declare war. However, during Vietnam the Gulf of Tonkin resolution gave the president power to put troops in Vietnam. Some considered this the president declaring war, but technically this is not an official war because it was not declared by congress. Giving the executive branch the power to send troops to occupy an area, and carry out basically a war, was a very controversial thing. Millions of opposers nationwide gathered in anti-war rallies and unions across the nation (as shown in the video here). 

            The Vietnam war incident seems to sum up perfectly the public opposition caused when the government invests all power to take military action in the excessive branch. It seems odd that after such reaction before, now the government is giving Obama the power to do the same. To me, it seems odd that what so many people opposed before, could happen again. What if Obama was to start an unofficial war in Syria? I would argue that we would see such violent protests as during the Vietnam war. I wonder if our government, or Americans in general, really take history in account when making decisions. Or, if they choose to focus on certain successes and forget about some of the bad associated with it. What do you think? Do Americans really learn from their history? 

 

Have You Heard About It?

This week I was overjoyed when I was the first "like" on a Humans of New York Instagram post. With a screenshot proving that I, in fact, was the first like, I bragged to many of my friends and classmates about this amazing feat. For those of you who haven't heard of Humans of New York, I urge you to check it out, because it is truely amazing. 

  A few years back a man named Brandon moved to New York as a photographer, without much money and being unemployed, Brandon decided to start taking photos of random people on the streets of New York. As time went on, he began to ask the people simple but provoking questions, and turned their responses into the caption of the photo he took of them. Using these photos and quote captions, he began to publish them to Facebook, Tumbler, and Instagram, and compiling them into a book. Now with over 470,000 followers on Instagram, and 2.8 million likes on Facebook, Humans of New York has really become a trend.

 What really attracts me to the page, and what others say attracts them as well, is that the quotes are so intriguing but come from such everyday looking people. A man sipping casually on a coke in a restaurant after he has just been heartbroken. Or an young boy who admits that to him, grown-ups are grumpy. It reminds me, and all Humans of New York followers alike, that everyone has a story. And while you may just pass hundreds of these people on the street, some of the most ordinary people can say the most extraordinary things. 

Humans of New York Photographer, Brandon

          I believe that the blog and the success of the blog in general revel many things about American culture. The fact America is so fascinated by the words of everyday people shows how much we like to hear from others, maybe this is because when we listen to others' stories, we connect with them and feel like we can relate. Or maybe there is another reason why people are so intrigued by such a blog. What do you think is so fascinating to the American public about such a blog? What does the name of the blog do for your understanding of the blog in general? 

America's Favorite Genre?

Being a huge country music fan myself, I was happily surprised to see that in a poll taken by the NDP group country music was selected as "America's favorite genre" in 2012. While this was just one poll done, I think that the results may be telling us something. And of course I am bias to the wonderful genre of country, but maybe the poll revels something deeper, perhaps about what makes country music so appealing. It is the lyrics of everyday rural farm-boys loving life, and upbeat simple tunes prove to appeal to me, and I hypothesis that this is the same thing that allures other Americans as well. 

       The NDP group claims in their article that "Country music has become America’s favorite genre, mostly because of its diversity and the accessibility of its artists to young and old alike." While I agree with this statement, I think it is also really interesting to consider classic American stereotypes. Apple pie, farm boys driving Chevy trucks, "Main Street" USA, all things that people think about when picturing the US, and also the things primarily sung about in country music. I find an interesting parallel between these two. Is it the "diversity in artists" that makes country music so popular? Is it the way it fits into so many stereotypes? Or do you disagree with the survey in the first place and feel that country music is not America's favorite genre. Or maybe you think that since this survey was taken in 2012, things have changed. Please comment below with your thoughts.