My Final Post to Say Thank You

As there is only one week remaining of my junior year of high school, I would like to reflect on how I've grown as a student through blogging in my American studies class. To start let's rewind back to August...

"A huge part of this class is blogging. You're expected to write a thoughtful blog post at least once a week". These words were said on the  first day of school by our American studies teachers as 49 high school juniors sat anxiously waiting to learn more about  the class expectations. I have never blogged, read a blog or written short pieces weekly, so I must admit, I was quite nervous to enter the "blogging" world.

As days turned into weeks, and weeks turned into months, not only was I looking forward each week to write my weekly blog post(s), but I was really making my blog my own and improving my mediocre writing. Throughout my high school career I have had English teachers who teach the typical five paragraph paper. I was always just an okay writer who never pushed myself to excel and was never pushed by my teachers to look at my writing critically.

This year with the help of Mr. Bolos and Mr. O'Connor, I have blossomed from a student who has to write, to a student who enjoys to write. I have learned things that will definitely stick with me for years to come like corroborating different sources and getting straight to the point without having any "fluff".

Being honest with myself, this will probably be my last blog post because of my busy summer schedule, so I would like to thank everyone who contributed to my 3,554 page views. For anyone who doesn't like to write, if you have the right teacher and try to approach writing from a different point of view (like blogging), you can have just as a rewarding experience as me and enjoy a life skill that will stick with you forever.

Happy Summer!

The Cost of a Cigarette

 "Tobacco's older than gummut (the government) itself"

        -Unknown present day tobacco farmer


In my american studies class yesterday we looked at the quote above and thought about this tobacco farmer's statement. It is true that  tobacco cultivation  has been around long before our country had established a government, yet there is such a large tax now on cigarettes put into effect by the government. In fact, President Obama "Has proposed a 94-cent-per-pack increase to the federal excise tax".

Smoking is the number one cause of preventable  deaths, yet people are still willing to spend so much money and risk their lives just to get their "fix". In this blog post I would like to look at how much it costs to produce a pack of cigarettes, the tax on a pack of cigarettes in Illinois (the tax varies state to state), and the profit margin that cigarette companies gain . Since the company Marlboro (made by Philip Morris) accounts for almost 50% of the total cigarette market, I thought they would be a good company to analyze.

In general to produce one pack of cigarettes before taxes in 2002, Health Canada found that it costs  98 cents per pack (Adjusted for US dollars) in 2002, which includes all the production, labor, purchasing of tobacco etc... Yet these products are being sold for over 10 times their production cost (which includes taxes).

I called my local Walgreens and found that one pack of marlboro cigarettes costs $10.25. $4.66 of that is strictly taxes. That my friend is a lot of money to spend on something that will last you maybe a day or so.
If you're wondering how much Marlboro profits, their operating margin is 30% despite all the taxes, which makes them the 2nd most profitable product in America.

If you're a smoker, maybe next time you think about smoking a cigarette, you'll think about spending that hard earned money somewhere else.

The Great Gatsby: Book vs. Movie

Warning: contains spoilers

Friday night I could not wait until 7 o'clock to see "The Great Gatsby" because after just finishing the novel, I was excited to see how director Baz Luhrmann was going to adapt the classic american novel into a movie. I would like to compare and contrast the two works and then pose a question: Why do you think Luhrmann chose to add, cut or emphasis certain scenes from the novel?

Comparisons:

Some critics think that the movie was almost "too similar" to the book. Fox News reports that the
"characters’ skewed perceptions of reality, love and distraction of materialism and their hollow notion of love" was quite similar to how they were portrayed in the book. For example, we see just like in the novel how Tom tries to win Daisy's love by giving her $350,000 pearls. That to me seems more like materialistic love than true love.
Also, the plot line is very similar, to sum it up in a nutshell: Gatsby longs for Daisy--throws lavish parties to try to win her back, Tom has an affair with Myrtle, Nick helps Gatsby in pursuit of Daisy, Daisy and Gatsby have an affair, Daisy runs Myrtle over in her car and Gatsby takes the blame, Mr. Wilson kills himself and Gatsby...You get the point the plot line was very similar. However, there were a few things left out.


Contrasts: 

There were four things that really stood out to me as different from the novel. First, There is a lack of Wolfsheim in the movie. In the novel it is emphasized quite frequently that Wolfsheim is Jewish and Nick seems to have some antisemitic viewpoints...not so much in the movie though. Let's also remember that the book was written before World War II.  Second, Tom Buchanan seems a little "too nice" in the movie rather then the book. In the movie when Tom comes to greet Nick, he is open arms and welcoming. However in the novel, Tom is described as "Arrogant...[with] a cruel body"(7) when Nick first sees him. Thirdly, Nick is narrating the movie in a psychiatric ward, making him seem like an unreliable narrator because he isn't mentally competent. Compare that to the book, Nick is just reflecting on his time in New York during his narration. Lastly, There is no relationship between Nick and Jordan in the movie, when clearly there is one in the novel. Perhaps Lurhmann wanted us to think that Nick could have had some love for Gatsby...? Maybe.

Why do you think Luhrmann chose to add, cut or emphasis certain scenes from the novel?I s there a bigger theme trying to be highlighted in the film that wasn't in the book? All comments are welcome.

"The Gatsby Collection"

   In my american studies class today we discussed different high end designers such as, Tiffany's and  Brooks Brother's creating a "Gatsby Collection" in honor of the hit remake of The Great Gatsby that is coming to theaters tomorrow across america. Now I like movies, don't get me wrong, but I am not a diehard fan of any movie that I will go out and buy clothing from a "movie collection". However, there are movie buffs all over who want to show their love of a movie by expressing it in the clothes they wear. For example,  when the  "Twilight Saga" first came out in theaters you could go to any target, walgreens, or walmart to get your "team Edward" or "team Jacob" fan gear. Sorry guys, looks like all the Gatsby fans are out of luck. Tiffany's is selling a "Daisy Buchanan" headpiece for a small price tag of $200,000. For those of you who just have some spare change laying around the house, try out Brooks Brother's collection. You could buy "Gatsby's complete look" for $1867.5.


Are these signs that we are reverting back to the 1920's way of conspicuous consumption that F. Scott Fitzgerald tried to steer us away from? Notice too that many other movies "clothing collections" are represented by walmart and target rather then the highest end of luxury like Brooks Brothers and Tiffany's.

Why do you think expensive stores are creating "Gatsby Collections"?

Empathy: the Rich vs. the Poor

Empathy. A word defined as the experience of understanding another person's condition from their perspective. Many would think that people's wealth has no correlation to empathy, but in reality

 it does. 

To test this theory, Adam Galinsky, a professor at Northwestern University, along with a research team, used the "E" test. This test is very simple. As shown in the picture above, the subjects are asked to draw an "E" on their forehead. If the subject draws it like the man in the picture to the right did, it usually means they have a lot of power and wealth with a "Reduced tendency to comprehend how others see, think, and feel". The people who draw it "forwards", so the surrounding people can read it, tend to have more empathy, less power, and less money. Why is this?

Dacher Keltner, a professor of psychology at UC Berkley, found that the rich, "Think that economic success and political outcomes, and personal outcomes, have to do with individual behavior, a good work ethic". In other words, in general the rich tend to think more about themselves and not other people, while in general the poor tend to think more about each other and not about themselves. 

What do you think your peers would do if you asked them to take the "E" test?