The controversial Minuteman Project encourages citizens to volunteer their time guarding the U.S./Mexico border against illegal immigration.  Well, if you are disinclined to wander the border desert, you can now be a virtual Minuteman.  Sandra H. N. sent us a link to BlueServo where you can click on a series of webcams.  Each webcam is pointed at a spot where there may be illegal border crossings.  Here’s a screenshot of the webcams you can select from:

Here’s a video about the project:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCxXlPrxV7c[/youtube]

Here’s a description of a virtual border guard from an NPR story:

[He] pops a Red Bull, turns on some Black Sabbath or Steppenwolf, logs in to www.blueservo.net — and starts protecting his country. “This gives me a little edge feeling,” Fahrenkamp says, “like I’m doing something for law enforcement as well as for our own country.”

This is a fascinating convergence of patriotism, masculinity, class, and (likely) race.   Minutemen protect (white) America by putting their bodies on the border, but now men can do so without the trappings of masculinity that Minutemen can lay claim to.  Instead, if they have a computer with a (quick)  internet connection, they can defend America from behind a computer screen and, perhaps, lay claim to at least some of the masculine capital that Minutemen on the border earn by putting their bodies on the line.

From another angle:  I wish Foucault were alive today.  Any Foucauldians out there who want to comment on this virtual panopticon?

Below are screenshots of the Degree Men, Degree Women, and Degree Girl websites.

Degree genders their deodorant with color (turquoise and lavender versus blue and yellow), pattern (bold lines versus curving spirals), language (women are “emotional” and men “take risks”).  Really, Degree? We’re still going there? 

Even the scents are gendered and, further, they reveal how we place men and women in a hierarchy (e.g., “Extreme Blast” versus “Summer Rain”).  Men even get a scent called “Power.”

Degree also markets their product differently towards adult and t(w)een girls.  Women are “emotional,” girls are “OMG!” let’s dance!!! 

OMG!  Let’s take a look!

“DEGREE MEN. PROTECTS MEN WHO TAKE RISKS.”

“Absolute Protection.”
“Responds to increases in adrenaline.”
“Proven at the hottest temperature on earth.”
“Unbeaten in competitive dryness testing.”

Scents include “Cool Rush,” “Extreme Blast,” “Arctic Edge,” “Intense Sport,” “Clean Reaction,” and “Power.”

“DEGREE WOMEN. DARE TO FEEL.”

“Emotional sweat can cause body odor more than perspiration from physical activity… you need extra odor protection to kick in when you’re stressed or emotional.”

Scents include “Classic Romance,” “Spring Fusion,” and “Fresh Oxygen,” “Pure Satin,” “Delicious Bliss,” and “Sexy Intrigue.”

“DEGREE GIRL. PROTECTION FOR EVERY OMG! MOMENT.”

“Crazy, exciting or embarrassing, OMG! moments happen to everyone.”

“Sign up 4 Cool Stuff! OMG SIGN UP.”

Scents include “Fun Spirit,” “Tropical Power,” and “Just Dance.”  See also “Pink Crush.”

Also in dumb gendered marketing:  Redken for men, make up for men, Frito Lay targets the ladies, nature versus the beast, it may be pink, but it’s not girly, gendered vitamins, and RISK (for men only).

Also in marketing towards tweens: “My Life” involves getting a boyfriend, teenager+colonialism = weird, and Nair for tweens.

In the wake of the embarassing incident where car company executives were called out for flying in private jets to beg Congress for money, Cessna, manufacturer of private jets, is fighting back.  At their new website, www.cessnarise.com, they’re framing the attack as skeptical hyperbole that doesn’t take into account the facts and recommending that potential purchasers of private jets “rise” above it all.  Some screenshots:

Notice that Cessna frames the resistance to private-jet-flying chastisement as a “challenge” that should be overcome.

I don’t know whether private jet ownership is, in fact, economically smart.  I am rather sure that it depends on the company/person.  I do, however, think it’s interesting the way that Cessna is framing a rejection of the point made by Congress (that it is, perhaps, indulgent to insist upon private jet travel) in moral terms.  Customers should “rise” above, take on the “challenge,” fight the “naysayers,” beat the “skeptics.”    Real economics, then, appear to take a backseat to resisting the accusation that some of us enjoy extreme class privilege that is not necessarily justified by the books.

Miriam at The Oyster’s Garter offered a nice discussion about fragile ecosystems and human intervention.   She uses Macquarie Island (located between Antarctica and Australia) as an example (based on an article in the New York Times).  She writes:

Like on many isolated islands, the native birds evolved without predators and live in burrows.  Introduced cats were eating the birds and running amuck. So researchers embarked on an intensive cat-elimination program…  The only problem is that there [were] also introduced rabbits and introduced plants. With no more cats, the rabbits bred like rabbits and ate all the native plants. Introduced plants took over the bare slopes and prevented the native birds that this was all supposed to help in the first place from nesting in the best burrowing sites. 

Human intervention, then, changed the landscape (before on the left, after on the right):

(Of course, human intervention had also shaped the landscape on the left. )

This before and after picture is useful for thinking about the interaction of humans with their environment, the way in which humans are part of ecosystems, and the difficulty of figuring out how to manage environments once we’ve taken on the role of custodian.

(Image from Discover magazine.)

Amanda M. submitted this commercial for a bikini razor and trimmer. Notice how order, beauty, and civility in horticulture is linked with taking the razor and scissors to your pubic hair. God forbid it be unruly, as bushes are in nature.

I suppose I should be glad that none of the bushes just shriveled up and disappeared entirely. And I am.

Via Alas A Blog.

The solutions for parentless (and unparented) children have varied tremendously over history and they vary, in part, based on the particular technological, economic, and cultural realities of the time.  For more than 75 years, one answer was the orphan train.  

In the 1850s,

…thousands of children roamed the streets of New York in search of money, food and shelter–prey to disease and crime. Many sold matches, rags, or newspapers to survive.  For protection against street violence, they banded together and formed gangs. Police, faced with a growing problem, were known to arrest vagrant children–some as young as five–locking them up with adult criminals (PBS).

At the same time, farmers in the country were having as many kids as they could because kids were great farm labor.  They could use as many hands as they could get. 

So, in 1853, a minister named Charles Loring Brace started the orphan train.  Brace believed that farmers would welcome homeless children, take them into their homes, and treat them as their own.  So he rounded up the kids, got parental permission when he needed it, and took the city kids to the country.  Between 1854 and 1929, the trains took over 100,000 children to adoptive parents in 47 states and Canada.

On the orphan train (image here):

Children lined up to board the train (1920) (image here):

The orphan train in Michigan:

Orphan train children (images here):

Howard with his adoptive parents, the Darnells (1910) (image here):

Orphan train children with their chaperones in Bowling Green (1910) (image here):

An ad and a news story from the Tecumseh Cheiftan (1893) and Nehama County Herald (1915) respectively (found here):

We may have flight attendants instead of stewardesses these days, but the call button on this Greyhound bus (on its way from Sioux Falls to Omaha) reminds us that the serving class is figuratively, if not literally, female:

Also see this post on sexism in aviation (then and now) and this contemporary Continental ad with sexual innuendo.

Thanks to Stephen W. for the picture!