My favorite post from quarter three is my post entitled "Gross National Happiness."
I think that this post did a successful job of combining succinct descriptions of unknown terms with links to more elaborate descriptions. I also think that I did a good job of mixing my own theories with those of the hosts of "Stuff You Should Know."
As we wrap up our unit on women and children, I have noticed a rather odd trend in the news.
Matt Lauer, on the earthquakes in Haiti said, "We have to wonder about the effect this will have on mothers and families." I understand that this was a terrible event, but this had a effect on everyone, not just women and children.
On NPR, when reporting ona suicide attavck in the Gaza Strip, the reporter went through the trouble to list the death toll, then the number of children killed and the number of women killed.
The children part I can understand (we see children as meek and in nead of our protection). I don't understand why we still put so much emphasis on women. Even though this is certainely not the worst case of sexism in our society, it is, to me at least, the most obvious. This type of blatant sexism is really unfair to both sexes. It, obviously, points out women as weak and makes it seem like their deaths are out of control. It also implies that we should have more sympathy for women. This is also kind of unfair to men, who have less emphasis put on their deaths and are meant to seem more justifiable to kill.
I heard a piece on NPR about pinball machines a few weeks ago. They talked about how pinball machines have grown throughout American history. Until the 90's, they were still illegal in parts of the US. (the picture is of a raid in the 1940's)
It got me to thinking about the way that changing laws can change public opinion. Homosexuality at a time when it was illegal was seen as dispicable, now it is seen as "a lifestyle choice." It makes me wonder, do laws decide what is considered moral or is it the other way around.
The area that now holds Plaza Del Lago (pictured in 1950's below) used to be a seedy place because alcohol was served there. After it was legalized the stigma surrounding the area and alcohol remained into the 60's ans 70's (this comes from my mother who grew up in wilmette). Nowadays, it would seem odd to go to a restaurant that doesn't serve alcohol. I wonder if Marijuana will be viewed in a similar way in the future.
Which do you think comes first, a law or the moral sentiment that surrounds it? Could we change our entire society's moral code, in a few generations, by changing our laws?
America is famous for using hideously inefficient cars. I, for one, drive my long wheel base Escalade to the bathroom when I am too lazy to walk. Now, times are changing. People are taking notice of small cars. People are tightening their proverbial belts.
The Ford F-series, for 33 years the best selling car in the world(really amazing when you consider that the US is its only market) has slipped from first.
We can all hope for small cars in the future, but I think NASCAR has shown the real importance of the oil crisis. They have started to look at ways to be green.
While F1 and the GP series in europe are using KERS and diesel and turbocharging, what are the Americans looking at: Injection. Not even direct injection, mere injection. To put this in perspective, the last production car to have a carburetor (the technology that injection replaced) was in the early 90's.
I think that this is a perfect allegory for what will become of American cars, we won't ever be in cars as small and efficient as our European counterparts. We will get better, but not by much. It looks like I'll start taking my short wheel base Escalade to the bathroom.
Republicans kep telling us that because it is snowing, global warimng is impossible. I don't understand how people believe this.
Not only are nearly all scientists in agrement that global warming is happening, but ontop of that, most scientists predicted that snowfall would increase. Warmer weather means more water vapor evaporates into the atmosphere, leading to more precipitation.
Beyond that, global warming is based on an average of what is happening across the world, not what is happening in one place. The Daily Show clip portrays this.
I just don't understand why people will ignore the facts so pointedly. For someone who doesn't believe in global warming, do you want to ruin the world for your ancestors, are you simply stupid, or do you think you are smarter than all of the experts?
John Mccain along with (it seems) the whole GOP believes that we should not lift the don't ask don't tell policy. The clip below, from infomania, is crude and not G rated (it appeared on cable TV but includes strong sexual reference and an excerpt from a piece of gay pornography). It does a good job of bringing up important points about the state of the don't ask don't tell policy.
I love the part where Brian says, "oh you're busy. I'll call you, no you call me." It sums up the dynamic of the relationship perfectly. These are people who are willing to die for our country (which I'm not sure if I would do) and we have the nerve to tell them that they aren't good enough unless they lie about themselves.
Brian also refutes the idea that if gays join the military there will be a sexualization of the battlefield. This statement has always confused me because aren't there women in the army. Beyond that, Brian says that it is ridiculous to think that people will join the army with the intention of 'sneeking a peak.'
I think that it is high time that we change this, even the joint chief of staff thinks so.
Yesterday in class we were talking about ways that people are qualified as crazy. By now you have probably heard of the man in Austin, TX, Joseph Stack, who crashed his plane into the building thgat houses the Internal Revenue Service.
Nearly every person that I have talked to thus far and every article that I have seen refers to the pilot as a 'crazy' man. I'm not sure if calling him that is fair (to us or him). This is a copy of a manuscript that he wrote (allegedly) and he makes some very interesting points. He talks about corporate big-wigs being bailed out as pertinent, but healthcare reform, which costs many more lives, is merely discussed. He was fighting to get financial equality for those disenfranchised by large corporations and the capitalist system. He is very well educated and is trained as an engineer.
I think that he may have been confused about how to make his argument but he was certainly not crazy. In fact, he didn't even choose the worst possible way to get his message across. You may say, "he injured (and possibly killed) 2 people. There is another person as of yet unaccounted for." My answer is that he was fighting for something that he believed would save many more lives. If you can justify war (especially the sort that targets civilians), surely you should be able to justify this.
In fact, this was probably the only way that he could get his idea across. If he had made a speech, no one would show up. He talked about fruitlessly writing letters to representatives. I don't think that this is the man is crazy, confused certainely, but not crazy. Calling him crazy is just easier...
I was looking at the human interest section the other day when it occurred to me, every article is Human Interest.
Every story nowadays uses an interview with a person who is relevant to the story. If you are writing a story about layoffs, it is imperative to get an interview with someone being laid off.
Is this good or bad:
On the one hand, this keeps mere statistics from being overwhelming: "one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." At the same time, it builds an extra, unnecessary layer of bias into stories.
Overall, I'm sure magazines and newspapers do this because it makes stories more interesting (meaning more money), but I can't decide if it is good for 'the state of journalism' or not.
I get it; decrease the deficit, allow more personal freedoms etc. But that isn't what most republicans believe.
I get it; help the disenfranchised, expand government, limit personal freedoms. Again, not exactly what democrats believe.
I agree with alot of democrat principles, but I am starting to wonder why we have a two party system. To me, it seems like the parties have strict rules about fiscal policy (that they ignore) and then they just randomly decide on everything else.
It is nice and easy to have a simple polar split between democrat and republican. If you supported the War on Terror, you are a republican. If not, you are a democrat. Though there was little evidence of a need to be looking in Iraq, I'm not sure if invading Afghhanistan was a bad idea. I don't know who decided that war was a republican's job, and where does this come from.
On the same token, republicans who, by definition, should be giving more freedoms to the people, are limiting it. This all goes down to the deal that the reublicans made with Evangelicals. I feel like both of the parties make no sense. They have changed the definition of republican to those who want to keep their money, and don't want gays to marry. I don't get it.
A few months ago I posted on the ironic child labor situation in Afghanistan in Fighting For Child Labor. In Iraq we face a similar ironic juxtaposition against freedom that makes me question what we are really fighting for.
Journalists in Iraq have nearly no freedom of the press. This story is so under reported that after googling, I could not find any acceptable articles to link to. If you want to hear about press restrictions in Iraq, listen to this War News Radio excerpt.
Most americans will agree that freedom of the press is a tenant of democracy. Why, then, would we allow a country in which we are trying to instill democracy to openly target journalists without so much as a peep from our journalist outlets let alone our government.
Obama has shifted our focus from Iraq, but this issue is much older than Obama's presidency. I think that, en masse, Americans have come to the conclusion that we don't care about freedom for Iraqis (despite calling it Iraqi Freedom) we just care about stability with a government that will secure low gas prices.
By 2020 there will be 24 million more boys than girls in China. The reason for this is that parents who see that they will have a daughter decide that they prefer to have a son. They get the daughter terminated, as a result of China's controversial one-child law. I'm all for a woman's right to choose, but this seems really wrong. It is not only wrong from the viewpoint that people are choosing their children based on statistics, but it also says alot about the way that men are valued over women in Chinese society. Do you think that America would face a similar statistic if we implimented a one child law?
In Zimbabwe, about fifty percent of women believe that being beaten is justified if they burn a meal or leave the house without telling their husband. We rarely think of women accepting being beaten, yet this study lays out some pretty strong evidence that women can justify it to themselves. Is it more or less justifiable to beat a woman who considers it acceptable?
That's just the start, think of the rape rates in developing Africa and their connection to AIDs. Think of the way that women are treated in Iran.
Why, if there are so many clear exsamples of sexism throughout the world, do Americans try so hard to fix our double standards without once considering nthose of other countries. There are some charitites that help women in developing countries, but for the most part woman are left alone. Our government is more than happy to put pressure and sanctions on a country for seeking nuclear weapons or encroaching on a neighbor, but we rarely do anything about the women of the world. Is it a product of our sexism?
You've probably never sat and watched C-Span. Neither have I. At least not alot. I do regularly see clips from C-Span and I find it rather amusing.
People will use graphs that look appropriate for second graders. It isn't just the graphs and ridiculous presentations, it is the juvenile quality of the discourse.
People don't seem to argue about important things, politicians make comments that they know will make good sound bytes. Making an eloquent argument about the way that public healthcare will lead to a lower quality of life may seem like a good way to convince people of your point, but shouting, "Hitler-Bama wants to kill your grandma" is actually much more commenly employed.
In a country with near hundred percent literacy and relatively high levels of education, why do we belittle all of our arguments to stupid one-liners.
I think we enjoy the comfort of the beliefs that our parents had, if we come from a democrat family, we will be democrats. But there is more than that, it makes the politicians job, something that should be very difficult, rather easy.
Bush waon the 2004 election amidst a questionable war by continuing to say that "the homosexuals want to steal your marriage." Well alot of good christians got scared and voted for GWB. It is easier to get angy and yell your points than to actually create a menaingful dialogue. God Bless America...
A little while ago, John Edwards admitted that he had a baby with his mistress. My first question is how is this going to effect the life of that poor child? My second question is why do we elect these people?
Why do we elect people like Rod Blagojivich who we can now see are totally corrupt. Do people become corrupt after getting into politics or do corrupt people get into politics?
There is some evidence that people give in to politics and corruption as their lives continue. There are lots of people who stuck by their guns early in their lives, then gave in to the politics of America. John McCain may have been a free thinking independent for the 2000 race who believed in helping Americans, by 2008, he chose Sarah Palin as his VP.
I was talking with one of my friend's fathers and he said that McCain did seem to actually do politics because he loved America. He said that most people get into politics to have their egos stroked.
Barak Obama, I believe, loves America. If he gets caught up in a real scandal (I'm not talking about Acorn garbage made up by right wingers) I don't think I will ever be able to trust American politicians again. The way that his voice is so compelling, his rhetoric so beautiful, I feel like he cares for reasons other than his political career. If he is lying, I don't know how I will ever be able to discern between political lies and sincere discourse.
As I start my college search, one of my major factors is the scholarly mix of education that I will receive at a certain institution. Essentially, I want a liberal arts education.
I was thinking about how lucky I really am. Of course I realize that college is expensive, but I do not have as much pressure to succeed and earn money after college as many other college students. I was talking with kids at Kenwood Academy. I heard of the things that they were studying and they were all very specified (buisness or premed).
I realized just how lucky I am to get to en joy my undergraduate education and major in whatever my heart desires. I really have to remind myself, from time to time, that I won't have to worry about graduate school (except for keeping my grades up). What are you thinking about studying?
coming from a third generation of college grads, I feel like college is simply the next step in my life. I don't feel any pressure, and I have to feel lucky for that.
People always say that families and groups of friends are important to live a socially viable life. In fact, it is a commonly upheld myth in our society that sociopaths spend their days alone in their basements.
This could not be more false. In fact, some of the greatest extroverts of all timer have been psychopaths. Hitler, Mussolini, and Al Capone were by no means introverts.
According to the US Justice Department, there are 21,000 gangs in the US with 70,000 members. It seems that social groups can be just as psychopathic as singular people, especially gangs. I don't know about you, but I don't see most things that gangs take part in (murder, extortion, rape etc.) are not socially healthy.
As I touched upon in my post, A Society of Evil Faces, many groups of people can believe in the same 'wrong' thing. Why, then, do we believe that groups are good when they can do so much wrong. Is it better to have a group of people all believing in something evil or have everyone come to their own conclusions about morality.
The other day in ELS one of the special needs students mentioned that she was going to vote today. I was rather distraught by this.
On the one hand, every one clearly deserves the right to vote. It would be unfair to tell certain Americans that they could not vote. The ADA makes it very clear that everyone has equal rights in the US.
On the other hand, I can't help but think that the girl I am talking about does not have the mental capacity to discern who aligns with her beliefs.
On the other hand, do most "fully functioning" (if I can use that term) citizens really consider different candidates carefully. No, the best dressed and most eloquent speaking candidates always win.
I don't know what to think about this. If you have a thought, leave a comment.
In my last post, I looked at the way that people love hybrids. Now, just think of the way that people love to tell us the world as we know it is ending.
I love car magazines, especially the editorial section. A popular topic of late is the impact that the economy has had on the absorption rate of cars, both expensive exotics and small, economical compacts. Everyone has come to the same conclusion: we will never buy expensive cars again, and we will all be driving cheap eco-boxes. I don't buy it.
Now I wasn't alive in the seventies, but from the vintage magazines that I have read, everyone said that we would stop buying expensive cars during the oil crisis. Everyone has said the same thing throughout every economic collapse since the birth of the car. From the great depression to the recession after the computer bubble burst. We westerners seem so oblivious to the fact that we just need to look to the past for patterns of the future.
The clip below is from the British show, Top Gear. Jeremy Clarkson laments the state of the expensive car in his review of the Aston Martin V12 Vantatage.
The next month three cars, each costing over a million dollars were revealed. The Lamborghini Reventon (pronounced rebenton) Roadster, Bugatti 16c Galibier, and Pagani Zonda Cinque. Beyond that, just before his review, the Bugatti Veyron Grand Sport Aston Martin One-77 had just been revealed. Until a few years ago, the idea of a multi-million dollar car would have seemed ridiculous. Now, in the middle of a recession, five new million dollar cars have been revealed. That is not even to mention the tens of cars in the six figure range that have recently been revealed, including the Rolls Royce Ghost, Mclaren MP4-12C, Bentley Mulsanne, Ferrari 458 Italia to name a few.
It seems that capitalist countries, especially America, will never lose our love with expensive, ridiculous cars. We will continue to spend money on ridiculous cars and other objects we don't need. Simply calm down and wait for everything to get better. While you are waiting, buy something expensive... you'll feel better.
Recently, the supreme court ruled 4-5 to loosen restrictions on the way that corporations and unions are able to spend on campaigns. I get texts from CNN and when I got this, my heart sunk.
I'm not bothered by free speech, but corporations aren't people. Corporations are considered people by the law, hence the ruling. I don't buy it. A corporation is solely driven by profit. People aren't. A corporation is made up of a series of people who may have a large spectrum of political beliefs. A person is but one mind. A corporation has billions of dollars at its disposal. 99.99% of people do not.
According to the law, a corporation has to be driven to make as much money as possible. A corporation is therefore compelled, by the law, to support politicians with the express intent of loosened restrictions on their sector of the market. In America, it turns out that politicians already vote based on their political contrbutors. For instance, as shown by the graph, politicians are much less likely to support a public option if they get money from health care companies.
The last thing that we need in a world where nearly no one trusts politicians is a law that allows politicians to be literally bought off. If we want to restore trust in our politicians, we need to put strict caps on the way that corporations can contribute to campaigns.
I do not subscribe to the idea of a two party system, though my ideas tend to align more left than right.
I am a junior at NT high school and this blog is for my AIS class.
As we wrap up our unit on women and children, I have noticed a rather odd trend in the news.
