The Problem with Service Trips

              With summer slowly approaching, I have begun thinking about plans for what I am going to do.  Something I was briefly but keenly interested in the New Trier in India trip.  This trip consists of two weeks of traveling around India, at the whooping expense of 5,322 dollars.  The trip is considered a service trip because students contribute to building a school in a poverty stricken village.  I believe that students who go on this trip and teachers or sponsors involved in trips like these have the greatest of intentions, but should stop to consider whether or not they are making the greatest impact possible. 

Malnourished man in India 

             While doing research on the cost of living in India, I discovered that on average a decent meal ranges from 10 to 20 rupees, which is 0.37 cents in American Dollars.  This means that if you put the 5,332 Dollars toward feeding India, one could supply over 14,410 meals to hungry human beings.  This amount of money could also supply three meals over the course of twelve years for one individual.  So whose lives are we implying are ‘worth more’?  Is it the students who pay an outrageous amount of money purely to experience India or the starving malnourished Indians who could benefit tremendously by the money the students pay?  A trip to India consists of leisure and fun.  One is introduced to a new culture. Students may interact with a few needy children at an orphanage, but in a matter of days these students get to go back to their privileged lives, and leave these malnourished deprived people in the dust. This story even appeared in the Chicago Tribune.  The point of view of one of the New Trier board members is very similar to my own "(he) said the travel costs would be better suited as a donation to the cause, rather than to give a small group of students an international experience".  Clearly he believes that in the bigger picture the cause is more important than an individual's experience. The graph below shows the soaring rates of poverty, and highlights the needs many people in India are facing. 

          These needs should not be ignored.  There is a great irony here, Wealthy American students pay a ridiculous amount of money to view the deprived community, but the money they are using could have reduced some of this poverty.   I’m not trying to discourage travel or one's desire for exploration but instead to raise awareness and possibly encourage individuals to change travel habits.  Instead of paying outrageous amounts of money to stay in fancy Western styled hotels and restaurants, why not engulf your self in the culture? Live like the locals.  This will not only keep the cost of the trip down but allow the Americans to really relate to the locals.  

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.