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?