Stop the Impulses

Just in the past week Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg proposed a law that would demand that all stores to keep cigarettes that are for sale out of sight.  I completely support this law; I think a law like this would have great potential to decrease the amount of smokers in America.  Mayor Bloomberg says; “The campaign is intended to shield children from tobacco marketing and to keep people who have quit smoking from buying cigarettes on impulse”.   This has tremendous potential to improve the quality of life for many Americans, yet there is still opposition.  This opposition is rooted in money and comes from advertisers and convenience store owners.  These are the people who make a profit off buyers.  As James Calvin the president of the New York Association of Convenience Stores says, “We think it’s patently absurd”.  Well I think it's absurd that there are 7, 000 New Yorkers a year dying from smoking cigarettes. As with anything else that is not illegal, Americans have the freedom to do things that are bad for their health, but in the end it is beneficial to limit the accessibility of those vices.  Additionally, with the emergence of universal health care the health of all Americans is an even more important national issue.  Why wouldn’t we do everything possible to reduce this number?  This dilemma of profit vs health says a lot about our society, and where Americans are placing their values.  Americans such as James Calvin clearly care more about their own profit than the well being of fellow human beings. 

The Standard of Our Society

               As Junior year continues to pick up and the stress of grades and ACT scores increases, so does the topic of Adderall.  It has been evident to me that the amount of my peers who take or are subscribed to Adderall is on the increase. Furthermore research shows that “34.5% of college students admitting use (of Adderall) in 2012” these observations and statistics show that a large amount of students depend on this drug.  It is important to note that 53.5 percent of these Adderall users attain the drug from a peer, meaning they are not prescribed, therefore these individuals don’t truly need the drug since it is meant for kids with ADD.  I asked my classmate her reasoning for taking Adderall; “It helps me a lot when studying for big tests and when I have to write really long papers, it helps me focus”. We can conclude that these individuals use Adderall to keep up with high demands imposed by society.   A situation where students are unable to keep up with the demands of a society doesn’t suggest that an individual is faulty, but instead that the society is faulty.   A society should be based on the capabilities of individuals; individuals should not be obligated to use “smart” drugs just to meet standards a society sets.  This shows a serious fault in our society since, its demands are outweighing our capabilities.  Clearly there is a problem if the only way we can keep up with society is through drugs.  Therefore I believe that schools regardless of prestige should offer more engaging and active ways of learning.  I think schools should offer hands on learning that engages students in an active way rather than imposing hours of memorization that is improved by assistance from drugs like Adderall.   

The Ban has been Lifted

Just in the past week the U.S. military leaders formally lifted the ban on women serving in combat positions.  This is a turning point for our country and shows how far we have come regarding woman's rights and equalities.  There are a variety of reactions to the lift of this ban.  A common viewpoint that was vocalized by Roma Amundson a Lancaster County Commissioner; "It’s natural. Women have performed in combat duties and so this distinction of all combat jobs seems a little moot...it (the lift) just takes away these artificial limitations".  The word 'moot' means; to have little or no practical value or meaning, therefore Amundson is saying that prior to the ban woman were participating in the same jobs as men, and so to have rules in place that appose this seem meaningless.  When she says we are 'taking away these artificial limitations' we are taking away 'fake' limits therefore she believes nothing is actually changing. Even if this is the case there is still a lot of opposition.  

The opposition is not directed at gender equality but at the timing.  As Allan West says; "Unless the Obama administration has not noticed we are fighting against a brutal enemy and now is not the time to play a social experiment with our ground combat forces". He says 'now is not the time' because we are currently in a perilous time.  All efforts should be aimed at successfully finishing the war not gender equality.  West goes on to say; "This... could potentially lead to the demise of our military".  Which is very extreme and harsh but holds an element of truth.  If the military and Obama are focused on this social act then focus will be taken from the battle field, at a crucial time, we can not afford this.  Therefore, when do you believe such a crucial ban like this should be lifted?  

If you still want to know more about the ban, check our the video below! 

http://www.nytimes.com/video/2013/01/24/us/100000002023433/band-of-sisters.html?ref=us 

The Cost of An American Lifestyle

              This image of sixteen-year-old Rubel is an important contemporary image because it is the face that exhibits the suffering behind the American life style. I discovered this picture in TIME Magazines ‘A Year in Photos’. I believe this photo was chosen to represent the year since it is what made our year possible. It is the hidden ‘back bone’ to our year. Without slave labor the Americans way of life would be more expense and less comfortable. One of the most intriguing elements displayed in the photo is the child’s glowing skin. This metallic covering draws a parallel to this boy and a machine. It is symbolic, for this boy is treated like a machine, and he is not valued as a human being.              

            Although the boy may be viewed as a machine, a sharp contrast exists because of the eye contact he is making with the viewer. The boy’s eyes are the only defined and clear aspects of the photo, therefore they stand out. The image is forcing us to make eye contact with Ruble. It is forcing us to look directly into the eyes of another human being who is suffering at our own expense. This puts the ‘machine’ in more human light. It also compels us to grasp that there is a human being behind our lifestyle. A NPR radio pod cast that we listened to in class reported from a sweatshop in Jordan, “As soon as you walk by, they (the workers) put their heads down”. This action by workers at a sweatshop in Jordan greatly contrasts the actions of Ruble. ‘Heads down’ is an action of avoiding eye contact, which communicates that, they feel inferior and intimidated. This is because they are working for us and suffering for us. 

            Another element that this photo conveys is confinement. The darkness of the photo communicates that the boy is confined in a small area with little hope. The sliver of light is a distant thought of freedom, but it is unattainable for these workers. Similarly in the story The Ones Who Walk Away From Omalas, a young boy is sacrificed to suffer in confinement so that the rest of the town can live full and prospering lives. The child sacrificed dwells in a closet with“...one locked door, and no window. A little light seeps in dustily between cracks in the boards”. The light that is seeping into the darkness shows the boy a distant idea of freedom, but highly improbable for him. Ruble pictured in my artifact as well as the child in Omalas, are both suffering at the expense of the affluent. The children are both restricted to their living conditions, the option of freedom is possible, but unrealistic. Ruble needs to make money in order to survive, and employments like working in an aluminum factory are his only options. Due to the fact the Americans demand cheaper items. This child could be set free and enrolled in school, but this would fail to support the American lifestyle. Therefore the only resolution is Americans alter their lifestyle, to a poorer quality of life. The boy from Omalas could be set free and properly feed but then the townspeople’s would have inferior quality lives. 

           Suffering for affluent people has been a theme in history, especially during slavery. As Fredrick Douglass says: “I was… wipped by my old master… I suffered much from hunger... in (the) hottest summer and coldest winter, I was kept almost naked”. The reason for Douglass’s suffering was solely a result of the effluent’s privileged lives. Douglass was not feed or clothed properly, because if he had been than his labor would have been more costly. Merely because lower class people have suffered for affluent people in the past, and currently, it is not an excuse for this to continue to occur in the future.

Guns In America

Ever sense the Thursday before break the topic of ‘gun laws’ has been churning in my mind.  There is undoubtedly no easy solution, but there is definitely a solution.  Well doing some research I learned that; “Children ages 5 to 14 in America are 13 times as likely to be murdered with guns as children in other industrialized countries”.  There is a clear problem, guns have too much potential and are killing too many people. Based on this fact one could draw a conclusion that gun regulations are too lax in America.  It is easier to purchase a gun in America than adopt a pet. A gun, a machine that is made for killing, is on the market for all Americans and is easy for us to get a hold of.  We were originally given these gun rights in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.  It protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But this was established in 1791, which is over two hundred years ago, so how could it possibly be relevant today? Times have changed immensely and therefore the laws should be revised to support the current world.  If guns are doing more harm than good in America today then we should start revising the regulations instead of abiding by a law made more than two hundred years ago.  What do you think should we revise the laws and make gaining access to guns more difficult of should we continue to abide by the Bill of Rights?  

Is it your Choice?

              On today’s news its been reported that "more than 100 people died on Saturday and Sunday in a fire at a garment factory outside Dhaka, Bangladesh, in one of the worst industrial tragedies in the country”. The majority of the bodies were severely charred.  My first thought when hearing this story was why would anyone work in factory if something as deadly as this was even in the realm of possibilities?  But did these people really have a choice in the first place?

Alan Watts, a British philosopher and writer, gave a lecture about the choices he believes Americans have.  He started out by asking college students what they would do if they could pursue any job “Well, we’d like to be painters, we’d like to be poets, we’d like to be writers’ but as everybody knows you can’t earn any money that way!” It’s common for Americans to choose a job based on money alone not desire or passion.  Watts encourages these students to pursue their dreams and desires. I have concluded that it is very narrow-minded because this philosophy is attainable mostly  for the upper class.  Only people whom already have money can take risks about where they will invest their time.  Watts continues by saying; “Why would we spend our whole life doing something we don’t like,…You’ll be doing things you don’t like doing in order to go on living – that is to go on doing things you don’t like doin!”  Watts is describing a pattern he has noticed in people who spend their life doing something that they dont really like.  He is sayin that it is not worth doing something you dont like to do, just to insure that you will continue to do something that you dont like to do.  This very quote seemed to define for me something we have been talking about in class: Sweatshop workers.   

Sweatshop workers are not working at these factories because they are passionate about making clothing for wealthy Westerners.  No, instead they are working at these factories solely to make money in order to survive.  Arifa a woman from Bangladesh began working at the young age of 10 because her father could no longer work.  Therefore Arifa was practically forced to work, twenty years later she reflects on her job; “(Afria) would like to leave her job. The work is exhausting and hard on her body, causing frequent pain". The labor of her job is in high demand by Americans who benefit from the products of her labour. Jobs like Afrias support our comfortable life style in the United States (but that is for another post).  The sad truth is that this, and jobs with equal or more grueling labor are the only ones available to Arifa.  Therefore she has little to no choice. 

Yet, do Americans really have a choice?  Comparatively speaking some Americans have more choices than others.  The American youth whom are supported financially by parents are able to make riskier choices.  Choices, that could turn out to be a complete failure.  Yet the American youth who are not supported financially by their parents perhaps could not afford to take risks like this.  For they have no one to catch them if they fall.  For example if someone whom is lower class decided to take a risk like the ones Watts recommended, maybe a painter, and failed miserably they would end up on the street.  They are better off working at factory or fast food restaurant where they are guaranteed a steady income.  Therefore, although Watt’s argument is thought provoking and interesting it is only attainable and realistic to affluent people.  In what ways do you agree or disagree with Wattes philosophy?  And too what extent do you agree that his philosophy only applies to the affluent?  

Above is Alan Watt's lecture I would really recommend taking three minutes out of your busy day too watch it! Its worth it. 

Reality TV

Reality TV shows have always fascinated me, why do we feel the need to put our lives on hold and watch someone else live theirs?  It is estimated that “The average American over the age of 2 spends more than 34 hours a week watching live television...plus another three to six hours watching taped programs”.  That is a total of 40 hours a week, wow.  This is equivalent to an average work week for an American.  Therefore a reasonable claim would be; the average American spends the same amount of time watching TV each week as they do making a living. 

There was such a high demand for reality TV shows that “the number of reality programs went from four in 2000 to about 320 a year today”.  What makes these shows so intriguing to the average American?  There are multitudes of theories.  One that S. Shyam Sundar, a professor of communications and co-director of the Media Effects Research Laboratory at Penn State University Park holds “(reality TV is) much more seductive [than other types of programming] because it seems much more real, much less orchestrated.” Americans like this sense of authenticity, and that what is going on, on the TV could possibly happen to them. 

James Wiltz from Ohio State University conducted a study and found that "the more reality TV shows a person likes, the more concerned he or she is with their social status” This goes along with the fantasy of what’s going on, on TV could actually happen to them.

Another viewpoint supports this is; “Reality shows are just a way of living what you wish you lived throughout watching someone else doing it”.  In a sense this is very sad, we get pleasure out of watching someone else living his or her life, as we would like to live ours.  These shows should influence Americans to live their lives to the fullest.  Yet I believe it hinders our motivation, for we can get the same amusement or delight from an action done on TV than doing it our selves.  What is your theory on why reality TV is so heavily watched?