A Chuck of a Different Color

I have chosen to do a semiotic analysis of Converse's Chuck Taylor All Stars. These sneakers have been around for the better part of the last century, first as a basketball shoe, progressing into a casual sneaker that can go with almost any outfit. Their logo is a simple star enclosed in a circle, with Chuck Taylor's signature sandwiched between the words "Converse All-Star", the same as it has always been which is a testament to the popularity of this truly all-American shoe. These shoes have been adopted by many different groups (and individuals) within American society from the quirky musician to the punk high-school kid. The simplicity of the All-Star is obvious in its design, yet the abundance of colors, patterns, and styles appeals to consumers and allows them to assert their individuality through their footwear.

The Converse All-Star was first produced only in black, but in the year 2008 there are hundreds of different Chucks to choose from. The majority of Chucks are made of canvas, a cheap material for sneakers thus making them affordable for almost anyone. In addition, the shoes themselves serve as a makeshift canvas on which artists can add their own personal touch. With the variety of All-Stars available, each person can head to the Converse website and sift through shoes looking for the pair they feel best represents who they are. I think this buys into Americans’ desire to make decisions about the aesthetic quality of the material goods they buy. As a society we love to have lots of choices so that we can pick items that concur with our own personal taste. In making these choices we are outwardly displaying an internal identity to those around us, communicating something of ourselves through what we wear and own.

This particular brand of shoe says a lot about my personal identity. For starters, I generally regard comfort as one of my highest priorities when shopping for shoes (and clothes, for that matter) and Chucks have always been some of the most comfortable shoes, in my opinion. Secondly, the shoes were originally produced as a basketball shoe, tweaked by Chuck Taylor himself to be more comfortable for players, so the shoe has a history that defines what it is today. In fact, the original design has stayed essentially the same for all these years, and it is still today an extremely popular shoe. Of course now its popularity is with kids, teens, and adults of all walks of life, rather than among professional basketball players, but I am impressed with the brand's resiliency and ability to remain appealing to consumers of all ages. My tastes when it comes to clothes are simple, and Chucks speak to this sense of simplicity: plain rubber-soled, lace-up sneakers that come in a wide range of colors and patterns to choose from. Also, it’s hard to think of just one type of person who wears Chuck Taylors; tons of people love them, dress them up or down, and wear them until they fall apart. I think my love of Chucks shows that I prefer not to be pigeon-holed into a “type”, instead I’m as versatile as my sneakers are.

I'll have turkey on wheat, with a side of today's election coverage.

My relationship with the media is extensive, but rather than going on about the various particulars of my daily interactions with television, radio, internet, newspapers, etc., I thought it might be more interesting to look at things from a particularly relevant perspective this time of year: election coverage. I'll freely admit that I am normally not someone who follows politics closely, but this particular election, aside from the fact that it is the first election I can vote in (I turned 18 about a month after the 2004 Kerry/Bush debacle), is becoming particularly legendary. For one thing, we might be heading towards the first black American president. For another, the hype that has been created revolving around Sarah Palin and her family seems to demonstrate the news media's tendency to lean towards the side of entertainment rather than information. I find this to be particularly disturbing in the heat of such an important election because the coverage that Palin-related gossip is getting is truly taking away from the actual issues that these candidates stand for. We're spending too much time as a country wondering if Bristol's baby daddy really did intend to marry her before it was confirmed that Sen. Palin was John McCain's choice for vice president. I personally don't want those reporters who are trying to get down to the nitty-gritty of a subject to be denied the chance to bring Americans the information they want and deserve. Just an example, Campbell Brown's interview with Tucker Bounds.

One particular blog that I've been familiar with since last year (I started reading it for Professor Snyder's MCS 222 class and continued for most of the year), the Daily Kos, was cited for a posting that discussed rumors about Palin's newborn son - that he was in fact her grandson and that they had covered up her daughter's previous pregnancy. Although these rumors were soon after proven to be false, I was still taked aback by the boldness of what I consider to be a generally trustworthy, albeit extremely liberal, news source. I try to remain objective about the things I see in the media, but it is hard for me to fully put aside my liberal-leaning tendencies. On the other hand, I do see it as almost impossible for anyone today to get the straight story without some sort of bias; we tend to gravitate toward what we know, or at least what we want to hear.

Though I am not a media addict, I am far from a Luddite. For most of my life my parents have listened to NPR in the car and at home, subscribed to The Washigton Post and the Wall Street Journal, and watched nightly news shows including PBS, MSNBC, CNN, and occasionally the major networks as well. This has pretty much meant that whether or not I wanted to be, I was constantly surrounded by information about what was going on in the world. I have gotten better about paying attention to the abundance of media sources around me in the years since high school, but I think I still have a long way to go before I am sitting down every day reading the Post through, front to back. I can only hope that in the future my habits will gravitate more towards hard news and away from the bored indifference I have occasionally been known to display. As long as there is something important being covered, on a national, local or even international scale, I will be a rapt listener.

Who am I? What does America mean to me?

My name is Susannah Parker, I'm 21 years old and I transferrred to UMBC last fall. I went to a private high school in Washington, DC and from there the University of Wisconsin in Madison, WI, but had some trouble getting my act together and after a year and a half came home again. I decided to go to Montgomery College while I figured out what I wanted to do about the rest of my college career, and eventually decided staying closer to home would probably be for the best, which is how I ended up at UMBC.

I have one younger brother who is just starting high school at St. John's in NW Washington, DC, and a fat Russian Blue cat named Slate (a.k.a. Slater). I lived on campus last year, but this year am living at home and commuting the half hour to 45 minutes it takes to get to campus from the College Park area. I'm double majoring in American Studies and MCS, and should (hopefully) be graduating by next summer.

To me, America means any variety of things, but if I were to try to put it into words, this is what I'd say: America is a melting pot of all different races and ethnicities; it is a place where individuality is valued and we are free to choose who we want to be. America means access to an abundance of opportunities, and the possibility for anyone who has the drive and determination to make something more of themselves. I might not always believe in America as a country, but I believe in the power of the American people to, if necessary, make changes for the better.