America and Soccer

      I've always wondered why Americans aren't interested in soccer. Most of the people I know who love following soccer are either people who play the sport or people who have lived in another country. I was surprised to find an article on CNN today that covered the topic, and apparently i'm not the only one to realize; few Americans are actually interested in soccer. Why?
     The CNN article's theory is that when soccer was being spread widely in Britain, America was a new country and wanted very little to do with anything British. Instead, Americans created our own version of football based off of rugby; and American football is rarely played in the rest of the world. America has essentially avoided soccer in the attempt to create our own identity. To what extent can sports shape the identity of a country?
             I personally believe that America has formed it's own identity. My reasons why are for another day, and I'm fairily positive that many others out there disagree with me. Either way, would a universal American embrace of soccer enhance our identity, change our identity or prevent us from forming one? I feel that a lot of the world's countries bond through the support of their soccer teams, and that America could better connect with the rest of the world if more of us payed attention to it. Here's a metaphor for you; Sports are a universal language, and soccer is spoken frequently through the rest of the world. Would America benefit from being more multilingual?

How will our decade be remembered?

       Whenever I look at specials or features honoring certain decades, I wonder; How will our decade be remembered? Most recently, I saw a video on the twenties, which featured things such as Model-T Fords and flapper dancers. What will our decade documentaries be on?
      When it comes to technology, I would mention the rise of touch-screen phones and devices, such as the Iphone and smart board. For music, definatley the Ipod and how itunes has changed the music industry. For movie and televison figures, I would mention Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Hillary Duff, Miley Cyrus, and Zac Afron. For Political icons, I would mention President Bush and President Obama. For economy, I would mention the recession and the events leading to it.
      One time at camp, my friends and I were talking about how people will dress when they try to dress as people from our decade. For a girl, we suggested a jean mini skirt (shorter the better), UGGs, two tanktops in neon colors (one worn over the other, but both visible), a North Face, big sunglasses, a wristlet or clutch purse, and an ipod. We didn't talk about guys, but I would suggest baggy pants or shorts (worn low), skater shoes, and a t-shirt. What do you think the 2000's costume outfit will look like?
    What am I missing? If you saw a documentary on the 2000's meant for future generations, would you be proud of what you see? How was this past decade different from others? 
    One of the ways our generation has separated itself from others is by it's growth alongside the internet; the internet is an integral part of young people's interactions, and boomed to an overwhelming extent in this past decade. Do you think this is a positive change, or not?
     

WASPs Finally Honored

     The Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASPs) that are still alive were honored for their service today by recieving Congressional Gold Metals. 65 years ago, these women took care of flying duties within the U.S. so their male counterparts could fly on WWII's front lines. Their salaries were less than the men's, they did not receive benefits or honors, and if they died during service, the U.S. flag would not be put on their coffins. Is this metal ceremony a modern-day form of reparations?
       I think that this is a modern day form of reparations. Although I orignally did not approve of reparations, upon understanding that they were not always monetary, I changed my mind. I don't know what effect the metals will have on the WASPs themselves, but I know that I know more about them because of it, and that in itself is valuable. These women are probably ecstatic to finally be honored for their service. If if that isn't the case, anything that spreads the word about the contributions of these women is very valuable. As an American female, I was proud when I found out about their role and their accomplishments, and I think it's safe to say i'm not the only one, men and women alike.
      However, how long is too long to wait for reparations? If we should have given the WASPs medals (or other forms of reparations) earlier, is now too late? Because these women are still alive, I think it's not too late; even if their sons or daughters were given medals in their honor, I think it's not too late. How do you feel?
      Should the American goverment give reparations? If so, to whom and for what?
       

Luxury=Inaccessible?

     While watching the academy awards last night, I saw a Hyundai ad that captured my attention. It featured basketball players shooting hoops with a Louis Vuitton designer brand basketball (which I didn't even know existed), police eating caviar, and average looking people eating lobster at a cafeteria table. The question asked in the ad is, "What if we made luxury available to everyone? Would it still be called luxury?"
      How do you define luxury? Is luxury an object of high quality, or and object only a few can afford? The Hyundai ad suggested that it's brand name should be the word for "luxury but affordable." Does a such thing as luxury and affordable exist? My dictionary describes luxury as "the state of great comfort and extravagant living." Great comfort could imply high quality, and extravagant living is inaccessible to many, so that definition doesn't answer the question. What do you think?
        This is a big question, so i'll keep it to the subject matter of cars. According to Wikipiedia, luxury vehicles have "pleasant or desirable features beyond strict necessity- at increased expense." From this definition, it looks like luxury is both quality (extra features) and inaccessibility (increased expense). Perhaps, then, Luxury means both high quality and expensive. Do you know of anything you would consider luxury that is only one of the two? If so, let me know.
      Well, if luxury must be expensive, than luxury and affordable does not exist. This ties into our class  discussions on class; owning luxury items can be added to our definition of the higher class. Luxury items would add to a person's wealth, too, and higher wealth equals higher class, so it all makes sense. What do you think?

Dissecting Dominick's

   For a teenager, I go to the grocery store a lot. For example, when I was told to get milk, I checked the expiration dates and picked the milk with the expiration date farthest away. Of my own accord. Anyways, when Mr. Bolos said that sometimes grocery stores had "exotic aisles" I didn't recall seeing any but decided that I would keep my eyes open for one. It turns out, this particular Dominicks had an aisle labeled as kosher food, Mexican food, and rice.

    Correct me if I'm wrong; in order for food to be kosher, it has to be made a certain way and adhere to certain cleanliness standards. If that's right, I think it makes sense to have a kosher isle so that customers can be sure that their food adheres to the kosher guidelines. In the same category, I think that Gluten free or Vegetarian isles are a good idea.

     However, I'm not so sure why Mexican food in particular has it's own category. Mexico is one country; if Dominicks has part of an aisle that is devoted to one country, shouldn't there be more aisles for other countries? Or, maybe expand that to continents; Asian food, European food, South American food, etc.

    If most stores are arranged according to food groups (produce, dairy, wheat, poultry/meat, etc) why do many of these stores spontaneously have an aisle arranged for nationalities?

     Why do you think the store was organized this way? Is it helpful for customers or demeaning? How would you arrange a grocery store?