At my school, it is custom to start out the morning with the pledge of alleigance before class starts every morning. Basically, after the bell rings, an announcer gets on the speaker, says the pledge, and then it's over. All four years when experiencing this, I've seen the same results: the kids around me stand up lazily, stare at the flag, don't say a word, and then sit back down. Maybe a few every here and there will put their hand on their heart or mutter a bit of it, but mostly, it's just awkward standing out of fear of a lecture from the teacher or being that one man out who doesn't stand, I don't know which.
I used to be that kid who'd put their hand on their heart and speak the words to the best of my ability. But a few months ago, I had an epiphany. This pledge doesn't raise nationalism or pride, it waters it down. By having students say the pledge on a daily basis, the words of the pledge become repetetive, lose their meaning. Not only that, but the pledge almost forces us to be proud. And when you force someone to feel a certain way, it takes away the choice. And when you take away choice, people lose enthusiasm for the task at hand. Just ask any 10 year old whos mom made them join band when they didn't want to.
So, I decided to stop standing with the crowd. Don't get me wrong, I'm very proud to be an American. Just the fact I'm American means I can make this blog post without having to worry about FBI agents swarming into my house and throwing me into some secret prison in Antartica. That's a gift I respect. But the pledge takes away the meaning of America. It takes away the meaning of being proud.
What bugs me is the implication that goes behind not saying the pledge. "What? Are you not proud to be an American? You're being silly." Our country isn't perfect. We have screwed up economics, corruption in government, still face discrimination, and continue to destroy the land we come from. We have some work to do. I acknowledge the progress we've made, fighting for freedom, gaining women's rights, losing school segregation, growing acknoledgement of global warming, and continuing to try to raise standards of living for everyone. But we have work to do. And that's fine. But forcing nationalism doesn't do anything. I love my country. I really do. But if even our pledge still says we're "under God" when we're in country that shold be promoting diversity amoung religions, there are still things that need to be changed.
As always, now I open the question to you. Do you think saying the pledge is smart or silly? What is your opinion on our country's nationalism (which, by the way seems to be taking a satirical turn, with new pictures such as this becoming norm on the internet)? What do you think of good ol' 'murica, whether you are from this country or not? Feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments below.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Monday, December 3, 2012
A Patriotic Duty
So recently, I read this article discussing some measures being taken by Greece to help with it's continually growing debt crisis. One strategy they discussed is "buying back" bonds to help Greece pay off it's loans. To do this, Athens is telling banks that it is their "patriotic duty" to help make sure this debt can be paid off. To some, this buy back of loans may be the only way to save Greece from this economic pit.
Though this analogy is a stretch, this idea sort of reminds me of back during WWII when our government worked hard to boost nationalistic moral so soldiers would enlist for the US Army, people back home would be willing to help out economically, and, generally speaking, the public would support this war that's taking place all the way in Europe.
To me, this raises a question: is propoganda, or even just the idea of saying something is a "patriotic duty", an acceptable way for government to get something done if, in the end, it is to benefit the people?
In other words, if the only way government can get a task necessary for the improvement of the country is to convince everyone, even through stretching the truth, guilt, or flat out lies, that they need to do a certain thing? Or should government remain honest at all times, even if that means having to deal with some hard issues, such as economic downfalls and extrenuous wars?
I believe this is a complex question with no one straight up answer. Obviously, a scenario when there is only one way to fix any issue is rare, but if this were to happen, I'd argue that yes, government has the right to lie if and only if it is the only way to solve the issue at hand. It's sort of like when a child doesn't want to brush their teeth, and the only way for the mother to get the child to brush is to say that the tooth fairy only gives money to those that brush. Again, this is an exaggeration, and Greece's situation is one that is also more complex than simply straight up lies or deceit by government. But if the only way to save the country is by jumping through a few hoops, I believe it is fair in the long run.
Now I open the question up to you. Do you believe government has the right to lie, if it is to benefit the country? What is your opinion on Greece's situation? What is your opinion of usage of War Propaganda in WWII? Was that necessary? Feel free to answer below.
For more information, check out the link above.
Though this analogy is a stretch, this idea sort of reminds me of back during WWII when our government worked hard to boost nationalistic moral so soldiers would enlist for the US Army, people back home would be willing to help out economically, and, generally speaking, the public would support this war that's taking place all the way in Europe.
To me, this raises a question: is propoganda, or even just the idea of saying something is a "patriotic duty", an acceptable way for government to get something done if, in the end, it is to benefit the people?
In other words, if the only way government can get a task necessary for the improvement of the country is to convince everyone, even through stretching the truth, guilt, or flat out lies, that they need to do a certain thing? Or should government remain honest at all times, even if that means having to deal with some hard issues, such as economic downfalls and extrenuous wars?
I believe this is a complex question with no one straight up answer. Obviously, a scenario when there is only one way to fix any issue is rare, but if this were to happen, I'd argue that yes, government has the right to lie if and only if it is the only way to solve the issue at hand. It's sort of like when a child doesn't want to brush their teeth, and the only way for the mother to get the child to brush is to say that the tooth fairy only gives money to those that brush. Again, this is an exaggeration, and Greece's situation is one that is also more complex than simply straight up lies or deceit by government. But if the only way to save the country is by jumping through a few hoops, I believe it is fair in the long run.
Now I open the question up to you. Do you believe government has the right to lie, if it is to benefit the country? What is your opinion on Greece's situation? What is your opinion of usage of War Propaganda in WWII? Was that necessary? Feel free to answer below.
For more information, check out the link above.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Why AP Classes Don't Work
As a student of a very competitive high school, I'm one of those kids who loves to fill herself up with AP, or Advanced Placement classes. Not only do they look great on a college resume and have the potential to give me some college credit, but they could allow me to stimulate my mind like never before, to experience a new level of thinking.
At first, I was very excited for this mind stimulation. Don't get me wrong, I learned a lot, and the classes were definitely a challenge. But then I learned the structure of these classes. They're based on a single AP test taken on the end of the year, that combines multiple choice questions and a few written essays.In fact, a large amount of class time is dedicated to preparing for this test, learning how the essays are structured, taking practice tests, etc. When learning the material, we are taught it in the same fashion as it will appear on the AP test, so we best know how to succeed on the test.
Long story short: we are not learning about the subject at hand, we are learning how to take a test.
I strongly disagree with this ideology. I take AP classes in hopes to get a broader understanding of history, language, and the social sciences. But I instead find myself wasting precious class time writing practice essays. Yes, I feel that writing essays is important, but the amount of time spent learning how to write these essays and other bits and pieces for the test is unequal to the benefits they provide in the long run for learning the subject. Plus, the fact our entire score is based on an assortment of a few essays, and multiple choice questions is completely unfair. One test does not accurately measure one's ability.
A class for higher learning shouldn't be based on a single test. Credit for that class shouldn't be based on a single test(especially one that costs money, which puts lower income families at a disadvantage). A better way to structure AP classes would be to base college applicability on an average grade from both semesters. For example, if a student managed to get an average As for both semesters in the class, they should be awarded with a 5. An average of Bs would earn a student a 4, Cs a 3, etc. That way, a student can earn credit for performing well in the class itself.
Now I open up the question to you. What do you think of the way AP classes are currently structured? If you've had any prior experience with AP tests, what did you think of them? Which idea for structure do you think would work better, how it is now or with the "in class score" option? Let me know in the comments below!
At first, I was very excited for this mind stimulation. Don't get me wrong, I learned a lot, and the classes were definitely a challenge. But then I learned the structure of these classes. They're based on a single AP test taken on the end of the year, that combines multiple choice questions and a few written essays.In fact, a large amount of class time is dedicated to preparing for this test, learning how the essays are structured, taking practice tests, etc. When learning the material, we are taught it in the same fashion as it will appear on the AP test, so we best know how to succeed on the test.
Long story short: we are not learning about the subject at hand, we are learning how to take a test.
I strongly disagree with this ideology. I take AP classes in hopes to get a broader understanding of history, language, and the social sciences. But I instead find myself wasting precious class time writing practice essays. Yes, I feel that writing essays is important, but the amount of time spent learning how to write these essays and other bits and pieces for the test is unequal to the benefits they provide in the long run for learning the subject. Plus, the fact our entire score is based on an assortment of a few essays, and multiple choice questions is completely unfair. One test does not accurately measure one's ability.
A class for higher learning shouldn't be based on a single test. Credit for that class shouldn't be based on a single test(especially one that costs money, which puts lower income families at a disadvantage). A better way to structure AP classes would be to base college applicability on an average grade from both semesters. For example, if a student managed to get an average As for both semesters in the class, they should be awarded with a 5. An average of Bs would earn a student a 4, Cs a 3, etc. That way, a student can earn credit for performing well in the class itself.
Now I open up the question to you. What do you think of the way AP classes are currently structured? If you've had any prior experience with AP tests, what did you think of them? Which idea for structure do you think would work better, how it is now or with the "in class score" option? Let me know in the comments below!
Friday, November 16, 2012
The Logic of the Facebook Dislike Button
So a common question and Facebook "issue" that has been discussed is how it still lacks the much desired "dislike" button. In fact, the page that calls for a dislike button currently holds over 3,000,000 people, or roughly 4% of the total population of France. That's a pretty big number. Arguments that are pro-dislike button range anywhere from arguing it would discourage pointless posts to the logic that websites like Youtube have both a "thumbs up" and "thumbs down", so why not Facebook? And, logically speaking, since social media is arguably for it's users, why won't Facebook staff change it's formatting to meet their desires? (Especially with how quickly it changes it's formatting, anyway).
There are two main answers to this question: The first has more to do with business. Since many company's use this "like" button as a means of seeing who "likes" their product, they can promote their company through use of social media. If Facebook were to add a dislike button, people would also use this button for these company's pages, which would look bad on the company's part, and does damage to their business. Even if Facebook reformatted it's website so these businesses don't have a dislike button, it would probably draw complaints from the users, since this may come off as trying too hard to promote certain companies, not allowing for people to express their real opinion of them, etc. And Facebook programmers know that, to keep the website going, they need these company advertisements, so in order to keep them from going away, the dislike button has not been added. Also, part of it is the fear of it promoting bullying. People could easily use the dislike button to dislike statuses of people they don't like, and it could hurt self-esteem of those who receive many of these dislikes. With the idea of "trolling" and cyberbullying becoming a bigger issue in today's society, it's no wonder this fear has come about.
Now, to keep this blog post less complex, I'd mostly like to focus on the bullying-ideology of the "dislike" button. (Though I may do a future post on the more involved relations of social media/business). This idea raises one main questions: Does America try too hard to "filter" everything into a nice culture? Yes, Facebook itself is internationally used, but the company itself is based and created in America, thus the company runs on American ideas. Do we have the right to be rude? Does taking measures to reduce acts of bullying reduce rates of bullying or only cover up the problem?
It's a tricky question. In my opinion, I personally believe not installing a "dislike" button is a smart choice. I feel like it will serve nothing more than to make people feel anxious and self-conscious about their statuses and posts, and feel less comfortable expressing themselves online. Trolling does exist, I don't deny that, but when you actually create a button that tells people to be rude to others, that's enforcing this rudeness. This isn't desensitizing: it's avoiding an issue that's really unnecessary to bring about in the first place.For me, I personally dislike the idea of a dislike button.
Also, in terms of the Youtube argument, I feel it's more acceptable to allow a dislike button. Most people on Youtube use it not to interact with friends, but to post videos about, well, just about everything. Since many of these videos come from actual film-makers or people hoping to get more viewers to their videos, knowing what people like from your video can help you achieve this goal.
And now I open up the question to all of you. Do you think the dislike button is a good idea? Do you think America tries too hard to "filter" what is good and bad? What do you think of concepts such as "trolling" and cyber bullying? Are these issues or overreactions? Also, just interesting, since Youtube allows dislikes and Facebook does not, do you think this speaks to the idea of it being easier to insult those we don't know as well? Let me know in the comments below.
For more interesting articles on the logic of the dislike button, check out the links below (there are also plenty more if you type in "why there is no Facebook dislike button" onto Google):
http://live.wsj.com/video/why-doesnt-facebook-have-a-dislike-button/11AB2B22-D8BA-4725-A0C2-4A47D16C910C.html#!11AB2B22-D8BA-4725-A0C2-4A47D16C910C
http://thenextweb.com/socialmedia/2010/10/10/facebook-dislike-button-why-it-will-never-happen/
There are two main answers to this question: The first has more to do with business. Since many company's use this "like" button as a means of seeing who "likes" their product, they can promote their company through use of social media. If Facebook were to add a dislike button, people would also use this button for these company's pages, which would look bad on the company's part, and does damage to their business. Even if Facebook reformatted it's website so these businesses don't have a dislike button, it would probably draw complaints from the users, since this may come off as trying too hard to promote certain companies, not allowing for people to express their real opinion of them, etc. And Facebook programmers know that, to keep the website going, they need these company advertisements, so in order to keep them from going away, the dislike button has not been added. Also, part of it is the fear of it promoting bullying. People could easily use the dislike button to dislike statuses of people they don't like, and it could hurt self-esteem of those who receive many of these dislikes. With the idea of "trolling" and cyberbullying becoming a bigger issue in today's society, it's no wonder this fear has come about.
Now, to keep this blog post less complex, I'd mostly like to focus on the bullying-ideology of the "dislike" button. (Though I may do a future post on the more involved relations of social media/business). This idea raises one main questions: Does America try too hard to "filter" everything into a nice culture? Yes, Facebook itself is internationally used, but the company itself is based and created in America, thus the company runs on American ideas. Do we have the right to be rude? Does taking measures to reduce acts of bullying reduce rates of bullying or only cover up the problem?
It's a tricky question. In my opinion, I personally believe not installing a "dislike" button is a smart choice. I feel like it will serve nothing more than to make people feel anxious and self-conscious about their statuses and posts, and feel less comfortable expressing themselves online. Trolling does exist, I don't deny that, but when you actually create a button that tells people to be rude to others, that's enforcing this rudeness. This isn't desensitizing: it's avoiding an issue that's really unnecessary to bring about in the first place.For me, I personally dislike the idea of a dislike button.
Also, in terms of the Youtube argument, I feel it's more acceptable to allow a dislike button. Most people on Youtube use it not to interact with friends, but to post videos about, well, just about everything. Since many of these videos come from actual film-makers or people hoping to get more viewers to their videos, knowing what people like from your video can help you achieve this goal.
And now I open up the question to all of you. Do you think the dislike button is a good idea? Do you think America tries too hard to "filter" what is good and bad? What do you think of concepts such as "trolling" and cyber bullying? Are these issues or overreactions? Also, just interesting, since Youtube allows dislikes and Facebook does not, do you think this speaks to the idea of it being easier to insult those we don't know as well? Let me know in the comments below.
For more interesting articles on the logic of the dislike button, check out the links below (there are also plenty more if you type in "why there is no Facebook dislike button" onto Google):
http://live.wsj.com/video/why-doesnt-facebook-have-a-dislike-button/11AB2B22-D8BA-4725-A0C2-4A47D16C910C.html#!11AB2B22-D8BA-4725-A0C2-4A47D16C910C
http://thenextweb.com/socialmedia/2010/10/10/facebook-dislike-button-why-it-will-never-happen/
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Lists of Happiness
So this post is a bit less political, and more on the philisophical end of things.
The other day, I was at TAB meeting for my local library, in which teens assemble to discuss how to improve the teenage literature and social atmosphere of the library. At this first meeting, the coordinator handed out this list of 40 things where, apparently if you can check off at least 20 as being relevant to your life, you have the ability to live a happy life. Some included living in an environment where you have adult friends for influence, a group of friends that influence you for the better, and reading for at least an hour a day. I was astounded at how hard I had to try and find those 20 things. I was almost upset. Does this mean I'm not happy? After a while, of deep, interpersonal thought and twisting the meaning of the sentences, I did manage to check off 20 things, but I realized very quickly how little this satisfied. And that's where my thoughts begin.
What trully defines what our happiness is? There is no one list or secret that tells you what YOU need to make you happy. I'm tired of this idea of a one-fix-everything cure for our problems in life, and as long as you live up to certain standards, you're okay. But that's not how the world works. People can lead perfectly good lives while never picking up a book, never wrting a single sentence on paper, and never speaking to those beyond their own set group of friends. Happiness has no one clear defintion, it comes in many forms, and reforms itself over and over to meet our day to day changes and styles. We as humans love to have answers to our problems, to be able to understand the world we live in, but it's not that simple. To find out what makes us content we must pick the things that get us excited. We must move past the influence of others and decide for ourselves if we are trully happy with where we are right now. No list is going to tell us if we're happy: we do. So what if I don't always have the time to read. Does that mean I'm unhappy?
Never let any form of happiness define you. Never let anyone tell you if you're happy or not. You decide if you're happy.
The other day, I was at TAB meeting for my local library, in which teens assemble to discuss how to improve the teenage literature and social atmosphere of the library. At this first meeting, the coordinator handed out this list of 40 things where, apparently if you can check off at least 20 as being relevant to your life, you have the ability to live a happy life. Some included living in an environment where you have adult friends for influence, a group of friends that influence you for the better, and reading for at least an hour a day. I was astounded at how hard I had to try and find those 20 things. I was almost upset. Does this mean I'm not happy? After a while, of deep, interpersonal thought and twisting the meaning of the sentences, I did manage to check off 20 things, but I realized very quickly how little this satisfied. And that's where my thoughts begin.
What trully defines what our happiness is? There is no one list or secret that tells you what YOU need to make you happy. I'm tired of this idea of a one-fix-everything cure for our problems in life, and as long as you live up to certain standards, you're okay. But that's not how the world works. People can lead perfectly good lives while never picking up a book, never wrting a single sentence on paper, and never speaking to those beyond their own set group of friends. Happiness has no one clear defintion, it comes in many forms, and reforms itself over and over to meet our day to day changes and styles. We as humans love to have answers to our problems, to be able to understand the world we live in, but it's not that simple. To find out what makes us content we must pick the things that get us excited. We must move past the influence of others and decide for ourselves if we are trully happy with where we are right now. No list is going to tell us if we're happy: we do. So what if I don't always have the time to read. Does that mean I'm unhappy?
Never let any form of happiness define you. Never let anyone tell you if you're happy or not. You decide if you're happy.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Gay Blood
The article that inspires this blog post a bit outdated, but the content within is still very relevant today. According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), homosexual men are not allowed to donate blood in the United States, for fear of spreading HIV/AIDS. The belief is that since homosexuals have higher rates of HIV, they are more likely to spread the disease. If you ever donate blood, you'll notice one of the boxes to check off with a "yes" or "no" states something along the lines of, "I have had sexual intercourse with a man who has had sexual intercourse with another man", your blood will not be used.
I have many problems with this law. First off, their reasoning is completely false. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), rates for homosexual couples with AIDS is actually lower than that of heterosexual couples. Yet they seem to have no trouble denying heterosexuals access to donation.
This is beyond simple safety, this is ideology. This law is based off assumptions made back when AIDS was still GRID, or "Gay Related Immune Deficiency". Even if homosexuals did have higher rates of AIDS, the FDA also states that men who have slept with prostitutes, whom also have higher rates of HIV/AIDS, are allowed to donate blood after a year of the encounter.
This is an unnecessary law. If someone wishes to give their blood to save another, this decision shouldn't be based on whom they love. The United State's hospitals already has less blood than they need, and we deny an entire group of people the ability to help this problem? Yes, people can choose to lie when checking off the box asking about their sex-life, but just the fact this rule is in place shows a lack of progress for equality towards all. I firmly believe this law should not be in place: if our country wants to see progress, we have to show it.
But as always, I open up the question to you. Do you feel this law should be in place? Why or why not? How do you think the idea of homosexuality stands in America today? Feel free to give me your opinions below.
For more information, feel free to check out the links above.
I have many problems with this law. First off, their reasoning is completely false. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), rates for homosexual couples with AIDS is actually lower than that of heterosexual couples. Yet they seem to have no trouble denying heterosexuals access to donation.
This is beyond simple safety, this is ideology. This law is based off assumptions made back when AIDS was still GRID, or "Gay Related Immune Deficiency". Even if homosexuals did have higher rates of AIDS, the FDA also states that men who have slept with prostitutes, whom also have higher rates of HIV/AIDS, are allowed to donate blood after a year of the encounter.
This is an unnecessary law. If someone wishes to give their blood to save another, this decision shouldn't be based on whom they love. The United State's hospitals already has less blood than they need, and we deny an entire group of people the ability to help this problem? Yes, people can choose to lie when checking off the box asking about their sex-life, but just the fact this rule is in place shows a lack of progress for equality towards all. I firmly believe this law should not be in place: if our country wants to see progress, we have to show it.
But as always, I open up the question to you. Do you feel this law should be in place? Why or why not? How do you think the idea of homosexuality stands in America today? Feel free to give me your opinions below.
For more information, feel free to check out the links above.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Sluts
So this goes out to really anyone. How many times have you seen a girl at school, at work, or really anywhere, with a low cut shirt, maybe some short-shorts, or even just a lot of make up, and thought to yourself, "My God, that girl is skanky. She really needs a bra or something." This idea, this stereotype, is wrong, extremely backwards in terms of women's rights, and very offensive to women. So why do even we as women, especially we as women, do it?
To an extent, I can understand why. Part of it is a protective instinct. When we see another female coming towards our men, it's seen as an attack on our relationship with that man, even if this person is only a crush. But that excuse can only go so far. We as a society desperately need to get out of this funk of calling women "sluts" or "whores" simply for how they dress or how they act. First off, one can't assume right off the bat that because a girl wears a very "showing" outfit, she's trying to get men to come after her. Perhaps she felt really warm, and put on a tank top so she could cool down. Perhaps she just likes how the shirt looks on her. To put her down for her own pride in self goes against basic morals we teach our own children. Shouldn't we allow other women to be proud of themselves for who they are? I personally wear low cut shirts all the time. I'm proud of my girls, man! My boobs have the right to be shown.
And second, what's wrong with a girl being sexual? Why is it okay for men to brag about their sexual encounters, but women have to keep them hidden? We as women have to embrace sex and sexuality.Maybe the girl is, in fact, wearing a low cut shirt to get men's attention. So what? A girl wants to have sex. That's her decision, not ours. Maybe it makes her feel good. Maybe she just likes having sex. And that's okay. She has the right to that happiness. Girls have the right to be horny, too.
Just in general, I think America as a country needs to open up to sexuality, especially that of women. We women need to embrace that we have the right to be sexual, too. To put down fellow women for her beliefs and her life is backwards against feminism. She is our fellow woman, and to discriminate her labels women, forces us to conform to society's strict norms. That simply isn't fair. Women are not victims. Women are human beings.
This is a topic I love to discuss, so please, comment in the comments below.
To an extent, I can understand why. Part of it is a protective instinct. When we see another female coming towards our men, it's seen as an attack on our relationship with that man, even if this person is only a crush. But that excuse can only go so far. We as a society desperately need to get out of this funk of calling women "sluts" or "whores" simply for how they dress or how they act. First off, one can't assume right off the bat that because a girl wears a very "showing" outfit, she's trying to get men to come after her. Perhaps she felt really warm, and put on a tank top so she could cool down. Perhaps she just likes how the shirt looks on her. To put her down for her own pride in self goes against basic morals we teach our own children. Shouldn't we allow other women to be proud of themselves for who they are? I personally wear low cut shirts all the time. I'm proud of my girls, man! My boobs have the right to be shown.
And second, what's wrong with a girl being sexual? Why is it okay for men to brag about their sexual encounters, but women have to keep them hidden? We as women have to embrace sex and sexuality.Maybe the girl is, in fact, wearing a low cut shirt to get men's attention. So what? A girl wants to have sex. That's her decision, not ours. Maybe it makes her feel good. Maybe she just likes having sex. And that's okay. She has the right to that happiness. Girls have the right to be horny, too.
Just in general, I think America as a country needs to open up to sexuality, especially that of women. We women need to embrace that we have the right to be sexual, too. To put down fellow women for her beliefs and her life is backwards against feminism. She is our fellow woman, and to discriminate her labels women, forces us to conform to society's strict norms. That simply isn't fair. Women are not victims. Women are human beings.
This is a topic I love to discuss, so please, comment in the comments below.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Controversial Comics vs Freedom of Speech
So I've found yet another article involving France, Islam, and the controversy involved. Recently, a French newspaper called "Charlie Hebdo", known for it's satirical comics and caricatures, created a series of comic panels that parodied the whole anti-Islam film controversy and Muhammad himself. It features, fore example, Muhammad in sexual positions with captions such as "Muhammad: a star is born!" and a scene of filming the actual film, with an actor askign as to why he needs to have sex with the head of a pig, with the director replying "I don't have the money for a 9-year-old hooker!" (This could be slightly off, as I only am using a rough translation from google and the translation of a friend who took a few years of French. But you get the main idea.) These comics, too, used the face of Muhammad.
Obviously, these comics have only added to the anger and riots down in the Middle East.
This comic has raised some questions on freedom of speech. Should comics as offensive as this be banned/censored? They have the potential to cause extreme anger, and potentially even injuries and death, like the original film did. These comics were made for the purpose of causing controversy. Should this be restrained, even if it means going against basic principles of freedom of speech? This can even relate to trolling on the internet. Should we allow for vulgar and disrespectful statements even if their is no clear purpose beyond the fact it sparks controversy and discontent?
I believe that the comics should be allowed. Even though I think that making the comics just to add even more tension to an already upsetting controversy is a really poor decision on the editor/illustrator's part, whether or not it was their purpose, it is a strong reminder that we can say such things. Restraining the ideas of others takes away from their ability to express their beliefs. Perhaps there was an underlying, stronger purpose for the comics beyond controversy. And even if there wasn't, to not allow someone to voice an opinion goes against basic, fundamental ideas of democracy, basic principles of what was fought for (And is still fought for). People have the right to be offensive. Though I believe rudeness and offensiveness should be fought, to simply take the freedom to be offensive solves nothing. It's like the 1920s prohibition all over again. People will continue to voice opinions, despite restraints. People like to say things.People like to have, and deserve their freedoms. We can steer people to go along with what is right, but to force it won't solve the issue. I think the comics were a poor choice to publish, but I don't think because of that they shouldn't have been published at all. In a positive sense, the comics are a reminder of fights fought for freedom of expression in the past, and of the issues we face today with Islam Extremists.
But what do you think? Should there be a ban on offensive comics, and if so, why? Do you think they should at least be censored? What to you defines the balance between safety and freedom? If you know more about this Charlie Hebdo newspaper, do you know of what their other comics are like and if it has sparked controversy in the past? Feel free to post any comments below.
For more information, check out: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2012/0919/Charlie-Hebdo-s-Muhammad-cartoons-a-headache-for-Hollande
Obviously, these comics have only added to the anger and riots down in the Middle East.
This comic has raised some questions on freedom of speech. Should comics as offensive as this be banned/censored? They have the potential to cause extreme anger, and potentially even injuries and death, like the original film did. These comics were made for the purpose of causing controversy. Should this be restrained, even if it means going against basic principles of freedom of speech? This can even relate to trolling on the internet. Should we allow for vulgar and disrespectful statements even if their is no clear purpose beyond the fact it sparks controversy and discontent?
I believe that the comics should be allowed. Even though I think that making the comics just to add even more tension to an already upsetting controversy is a really poor decision on the editor/illustrator's part, whether or not it was their purpose, it is a strong reminder that we can say such things. Restraining the ideas of others takes away from their ability to express their beliefs. Perhaps there was an underlying, stronger purpose for the comics beyond controversy. And even if there wasn't, to not allow someone to voice an opinion goes against basic, fundamental ideas of democracy, basic principles of what was fought for (And is still fought for). People have the right to be offensive. Though I believe rudeness and offensiveness should be fought, to simply take the freedom to be offensive solves nothing. It's like the 1920s prohibition all over again. People will continue to voice opinions, despite restraints. People like to say things.People like to have, and deserve their freedoms. We can steer people to go along with what is right, but to force it won't solve the issue. I think the comics were a poor choice to publish, but I don't think because of that they shouldn't have been published at all. In a positive sense, the comics are a reminder of fights fought for freedom of expression in the past, and of the issues we face today with Islam Extremists.
But what do you think? Should there be a ban on offensive comics, and if so, why? Do you think they should at least be censored? What to you defines the balance between safety and freedom? If you know more about this Charlie Hebdo newspaper, do you know of what their other comics are like and if it has sparked controversy in the past? Feel free to post any comments below.
For more information, check out: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2012/0919/Charlie-Hebdo-s-Muhammad-cartoons-a-headache-for-Hollande
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Paranorman and the Homosexuals
First off, if you're planning on seeing the new film Paranorman, I suggest you stop reading this blog post now, as it will have a few spoilers.
Recently, a friend and I went to go see the new kid's film Paranorman, about a young boy who has the capability to see and talk to dead people (I know right? What a description for kid's movie). Anyway, it ends up this kid has to go on a journey to save the town from an evil witch ghost, and in the process his girly teenage sister and his friend's jock teenage brother get involved. The teenage girl develops some feelings for the teenage boy, and at the end, tries to ask him on a date, to which he replies, " Yeah, yeah, I think this could work! Oh, man, I can't wait until you meet my boyfriend, you two would get along great!"
After that line, much of the audience erupted into laughter, myself included. But I also felt a wave of excitement. To me, this is progressive. Whereas when I was a kid, the idea of homosexuality was so hidden in society, I honestly didn't even know the idea of it could exist, this kids movie easily brings it up lightly as a way to annoy an overly-whiny teenage girl. That's right, it's no socially acceptable to bring up homosexuality in films. It's normal, it's okay. And it's okay for kids to understand it, too. Gay is simply love for someone of the same gender. It's not blasphemous, satanic or strange, it's simply a detail about a human being, like brown hair or blue eyes. And the idea of the guy you like being gay isn't a sign of OH MY GOD GET AWAY! It's more a "God dammit. Gotta find someone new, then."
Though some could interpret this joke as offensive towards homosexuals, I disagree. The joke in no way insulted his character. The boy himself was nowhere near the stereotypical homosexual male. He was an airhead, football loving sports dude. The only reaction from the movie was a look of annoyance from the teenage girl, over losing her "love" so quickly.
Slowly, slowly in society, I'm seeing the idea of gay being more okay. It's evident in politics, as more states are allowing gay marriage legally and Obama himself has claimed to support it, but even more than that it's becoming evident in pop-culture and local culture. The end of Carly Ray Jepsen's new hit "Call Me Maybe" ends in a similar way as the relationship between the two teens in Paranorman, new TV series such as "Modern Family" and "The New Normal" display homosexual couples as part of the comedic team, and even at school, physical abuse against homosexuals has declined dramatically (granted, verbal abuse is still high, but that for me is a different blog post on it's own). In short, Gay is Okay.
So what do you think. Do you think Paranorman is a sign of progress in social acceptance of homosexuality, or was the joke crude? Do you think gay rights in general is moving forward? What's your opinion on gay marriage? And if you've seen the film Paranorman, did you like it?
Thanks for reading!
Recently, a friend and I went to go see the new kid's film Paranorman, about a young boy who has the capability to see and talk to dead people (I know right? What a description for kid's movie). Anyway, it ends up this kid has to go on a journey to save the town from an evil witch ghost, and in the process his girly teenage sister and his friend's jock teenage brother get involved. The teenage girl develops some feelings for the teenage boy, and at the end, tries to ask him on a date, to which he replies, " Yeah, yeah, I think this could work! Oh, man, I can't wait until you meet my boyfriend, you two would get along great!"
After that line, much of the audience erupted into laughter, myself included. But I also felt a wave of excitement. To me, this is progressive. Whereas when I was a kid, the idea of homosexuality was so hidden in society, I honestly didn't even know the idea of it could exist, this kids movie easily brings it up lightly as a way to annoy an overly-whiny teenage girl. That's right, it's no socially acceptable to bring up homosexuality in films. It's normal, it's okay. And it's okay for kids to understand it, too. Gay is simply love for someone of the same gender. It's not blasphemous, satanic or strange, it's simply a detail about a human being, like brown hair or blue eyes. And the idea of the guy you like being gay isn't a sign of OH MY GOD GET AWAY! It's more a "God dammit. Gotta find someone new, then."
Though some could interpret this joke as offensive towards homosexuals, I disagree. The joke in no way insulted his character. The boy himself was nowhere near the stereotypical homosexual male. He was an airhead, football loving sports dude. The only reaction from the movie was a look of annoyance from the teenage girl, over losing her "love" so quickly.
Slowly, slowly in society, I'm seeing the idea of gay being more okay. It's evident in politics, as more states are allowing gay marriage legally and Obama himself has claimed to support it, but even more than that it's becoming evident in pop-culture and local culture. The end of Carly Ray Jepsen's new hit "Call Me Maybe" ends in a similar way as the relationship between the two teens in Paranorman, new TV series such as "Modern Family" and "The New Normal" display homosexual couples as part of the comedic team, and even at school, physical abuse against homosexuals has declined dramatically (granted, verbal abuse is still high, but that for me is a different blog post on it's own). In short, Gay is Okay.
So what do you think. Do you think Paranorman is a sign of progress in social acceptance of homosexuality, or was the joke crude? Do you think gay rights in general is moving forward? What's your opinion on gay marriage? And if you've seen the film Paranorman, did you like it?
Thanks for reading!
Badgers and Philosophy
So today I read this article, about a controversy in England over whether badgers should be killed to stop infections of tuberculosis among cattle. Since badgers have a high rate of TB, many believe licenses should be issued allowing farmers to kill badgers if seen on their property.
Now, logically speaking, the two main arguments are that badgers should be killed so we have bovine to eat, and thus killing would serve a greater purpose both for us and economically, and the other side stating that it's inhumane to kill them, and would be expensive anyway.
But I think this debate goes much deeper than that. It's a question of who deserves to live. Granted, it's on a much smaller scale, but it does raise the question. If you had to kill someone to save someone elses life, would you do it? Who deserves to live in the first place? We even see it in the military, as men who have kids and family tend to be positioned in easier, less dangerous jobs while the young teens tend to be put in the front-lines, as it is seen that the married men have greater responsibilities back home. Is this fair? Are all lives equal in importance, or are some people the Badgers, and the other the Bovine?
Now I know usually when I post these blog posts, I state my opinion. But for this one, I struggle to for two main reasons. 1. It's an extremely complex matter I see both sides of, and 2. I honestly don't know. Ideologically, I'd like to say we all are equal in importance, thus we all deserve to live. But then again, what if one life costs the lives of tens of of others? Heck, I could go as extreme as Hitler. Did he deserve to live, even as a child when he had no affect on politics whatsoever? Playing devil's advocate, I could argue overpopulation, how we've come to a point where we have so many people, soon enough we may not even have enough Irishmen on our planet to let all of us survive. Do we then have to pick who survives?
And now I open up the question to you. Do you think we are Badgers and Bovine? Do you think certain people deserve to live more than others? What defines importance of life? Would you kill someone to save someone else's life, even if you had no idea who you were saving? And on a less dramatic note, after reading the article, do you agree with killing the badgers to save the cows? Let me know in the comments below.
For more information, check out: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/16/badger-cull-government-go-ahead
Now, logically speaking, the two main arguments are that badgers should be killed so we have bovine to eat, and thus killing would serve a greater purpose both for us and economically, and the other side stating that it's inhumane to kill them, and would be expensive anyway.
But I think this debate goes much deeper than that. It's a question of who deserves to live. Granted, it's on a much smaller scale, but it does raise the question. If you had to kill someone to save someone elses life, would you do it? Who deserves to live in the first place? We even see it in the military, as men who have kids and family tend to be positioned in easier, less dangerous jobs while the young teens tend to be put in the front-lines, as it is seen that the married men have greater responsibilities back home. Is this fair? Are all lives equal in importance, or are some people the Badgers, and the other the Bovine?
Now I know usually when I post these blog posts, I state my opinion. But for this one, I struggle to for two main reasons. 1. It's an extremely complex matter I see both sides of, and 2. I honestly don't know. Ideologically, I'd like to say we all are equal in importance, thus we all deserve to live. But then again, what if one life costs the lives of tens of of others? Heck, I could go as extreme as Hitler. Did he deserve to live, even as a child when he had no affect on politics whatsoever? Playing devil's advocate, I could argue overpopulation, how we've come to a point where we have so many people, soon enough we may not even have enough Irishmen on our planet to let all of us survive. Do we then have to pick who survives?
And now I open up the question to you. Do you think we are Badgers and Bovine? Do you think certain people deserve to live more than others? What defines importance of life? Would you kill someone to save someone else's life, even if you had no idea who you were saving? And on a less dramatic note, after reading the article, do you agree with killing the badgers to save the cows? Let me know in the comments below.
For more information, check out: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/16/badger-cull-government-go-ahead
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
And So They Walked Again
So today I read this article about how a new "bionic" suit has been created that allows paraplegics, and other patients who are paralyzed, to not only stand up straight, but to walk smoothly and firmly. This new medical technology is being used to treat these patients, and has even been used in circumstances such as helping people in the US Army with heavy lifting and paralyzed runners finish marathons.
It's hard to deny the fast moving technology we see in our generation, such as the innovative ipads, broadening the spectrum of teaching and communication. But honestly, this is just astounding. As much as I hate the idea of us relying more on technology to do stuff for us (such as the belief that soon teachers will be replaced with websites, but that's a different story) I can't help but be both fascinated and proud of and by our generation's progress. The fact that someone can walk naturally without the ability to even feel their legs is nothing short of a miracle. We live in a time of innovation and rapid change. What goes on in those fancy laboratories is incredible. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if by the time I'm old and grey, cancer will be as curable as the common cold. The doctors will probably just point a laser at them and, wala! Cured!
As much as we hear in the news about how bad the world is, and how everything just seems to be taking a downwards turn, it's good to hear we are seeing progress in the world. It reminds us that, though we face hard times, we are lucky to live in a time period when such fascinating progress can be seen.
So here's my question for you all. Do you think all this new technology is good for society, relating back to my "teachers being replaced" idea? Is it good to give these suits to the patients, or do you think they should first be distributed to a separate cause, such as the army, and if so, which cause and why?
For more information, here's the video again: http://www.nytimes.com/video/2012/09/12/technology/100000001778614/bionic-suits-aid-paraplegics.html?smid=tw-nytimes
It's hard to deny the fast moving technology we see in our generation, such as the innovative ipads, broadening the spectrum of teaching and communication. But honestly, this is just astounding. As much as I hate the idea of us relying more on technology to do stuff for us (such as the belief that soon teachers will be replaced with websites, but that's a different story) I can't help but be both fascinated and proud of and by our generation's progress. The fact that someone can walk naturally without the ability to even feel their legs is nothing short of a miracle. We live in a time of innovation and rapid change. What goes on in those fancy laboratories is incredible. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if by the time I'm old and grey, cancer will be as curable as the common cold. The doctors will probably just point a laser at them and, wala! Cured!
As much as we hear in the news about how bad the world is, and how everything just seems to be taking a downwards turn, it's good to hear we are seeing progress in the world. It reminds us that, though we face hard times, we are lucky to live in a time period when such fascinating progress can be seen.
So here's my question for you all. Do you think all this new technology is good for society, relating back to my "teachers being replaced" idea? Is it good to give these suits to the patients, or do you think they should first be distributed to a separate cause, such as the army, and if so, which cause and why?
For more information, here's the video again: http://www.nytimes.com/video/2012/09/12/technology/100000001778614/bionic-suits-aid-paraplegics.html?smid=tw-nytimes
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
What's Your Story?
I'm not sure if this counts as a blog post, but I'm putting it up anyway. So whenever I see a blog, forum, or really any internet device that lets me post stuff, I always like to ask this question, since it's both interesting and important to me.
Now I'm someone who loves people. Yes, we suck sometimes, but as individuals and a community we share beautiful thoughts and moments that we sometimes never get to share because no one listens. I believe it is good, healthy to share your story, to tell your perspective of life. Stories are what make us human, make us alive, make us connected.
Here's my question. What's your story? Answer the question however you feel is most appropriate to you.
Now I'm someone who loves people. Yes, we suck sometimes, but as individuals and a community we share beautiful thoughts and moments that we sometimes never get to share because no one listens. I believe it is good, healthy to share your story, to tell your perspective of life. Stories are what make us human, make us alive, make us connected.
Here's my question. What's your story? Answer the question however you feel is most appropriate to you.
Teachers of the United States
So when asking friends at school what career path they want to go into, an astounding majority tend to tell me they want to go into teaching some sort. But for economic reasons, is this the best idea?
Amidst the new Chicago Teacher's Strike, some attention has been paid to the conditions a regular primary or second school teacher has to go through. Not only, when compared to other developed countries, do they tend to have the lower salaries, but they also tend to have higher amounts of hours worked annually. So not only is it stressful, but you don't have much of a paycheck to show for it!
Teachers are what educate the next generation. Personally, I believe they should be given more economic benefits. It's a tough profession, having to work 5 days a week with all kinds of students, and not all of them are the little-miss-goody-two-shoes. It's consistent flexibility, empathy, and of course an understanding of the field they teach! And, as shown by the article read in class, (We're #1! We're...Uh...Not?) other countries that give more respect to teachers tend to have better performing education systems. Teachers are what help the next generation work for jobs, make a living, keep our country going. To not have them is to dramatically hurt the future.
So what's your opinion? Do you feel teachers deserve higher pays? Why or why not? Also, do you think it is good or bad that the Chicago public school teachers are on strike? Post in the comments below.
For more information, check out http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/does-it-pay-to-become-a-teacher/?smid=tw-nytimes
Amidst the new Chicago Teacher's Strike, some attention has been paid to the conditions a regular primary or second school teacher has to go through. Not only, when compared to other developed countries, do they tend to have the lower salaries, but they also tend to have higher amounts of hours worked annually. So not only is it stressful, but you don't have much of a paycheck to show for it!
Teachers are what educate the next generation. Personally, I believe they should be given more economic benefits. It's a tough profession, having to work 5 days a week with all kinds of students, and not all of them are the little-miss-goody-two-shoes. It's consistent flexibility, empathy, and of course an understanding of the field they teach! And, as shown by the article read in class, (We're #1! We're...Uh...Not?) other countries that give more respect to teachers tend to have better performing education systems. Teachers are what help the next generation work for jobs, make a living, keep our country going. To not have them is to dramatically hurt the future.
So what's your opinion? Do you feel teachers deserve higher pays? Why or why not? Also, do you think it is good or bad that the Chicago public school teachers are on strike? Post in the comments below.
For more information, check out http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/does-it-pay-to-become-a-teacher/?smid=tw-nytimes
Burqa (Niqab) Ban
So currently in France, there is a law that bans women from veiling their faces in public. This law, though not stated directly, is intended towards Muslim women's face veils. According to the French Government, this law is in place so that women can be released from the religious oppression faced by them. But many of these women argue that this is an act of defiance against their religion, believing it infringes of their right to freedom of religion, and expression of this religion. Have their minds been corrupted? Or are we just being intolerant?
Personally, I agree with the latter. Yes, this is progressive for women, letting them free themselves, but this does not mean we can infringe on the religions of others. That's for the religion and the society itself to work out, not us. If they are facing discrimination for their beliefs, they are not facing equality. Some women have even reported being honked at, spat at, and beaten for their veils and Muslim beliefs. This law only furthers discrimination in their name. Let them express their beliefs. If they are in no way hurting themselves or others, it should be no threat to France, either. Sure, they may be overheated in summer, but that's their choice, not ours. Though I strongly agree that the Muslim belief of the face veil is extremely sexist towards women, putting a law up that bans it does nothing to help their case. It only makes their situation harder to deal with. There are other means of fixing this issue, and for the most part, as mentioned earlier, it is up to them if they want to work it out.
But I'd like to hear what you think. Do you think this law is progressive or backwards? Is France liberating women or discriminating against religion? Tell me your thoughts.
For more information, check out: http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/02/has-the-burqa-ban-worked-in-france/
Personally, I agree with the latter. Yes, this is progressive for women, letting them free themselves, but this does not mean we can infringe on the religions of others. That's for the religion and the society itself to work out, not us. If they are facing discrimination for their beliefs, they are not facing equality. Some women have even reported being honked at, spat at, and beaten for their veils and Muslim beliefs. This law only furthers discrimination in their name. Let them express their beliefs. If they are in no way hurting themselves or others, it should be no threat to France, either. Sure, they may be overheated in summer, but that's their choice, not ours. Though I strongly agree that the Muslim belief of the face veil is extremely sexist towards women, putting a law up that bans it does nothing to help their case. It only makes their situation harder to deal with. There are other means of fixing this issue, and for the most part, as mentioned earlier, it is up to them if they want to work it out.
But I'd like to hear what you think. Do you think this law is progressive or backwards? Is France liberating women or discriminating against religion? Tell me your thoughts.
For more information, check out: http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/02/has-the-burqa-ban-worked-in-france/
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Test...
So this post is just a test to see what the formatting is for this backround. I want to see if it's readable and I like it.
Technically, I already have a blog, but it's old and hasn't been used in a while, so I'd like a clean new slate. Let's see how this goes!
Technically, I already have a blog, but it's old and hasn't been used in a while, so I'd like a clean new slate. Let's see how this goes!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)