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?  

Woman in the MIlitary

When flipping through the New York Times this morning I came across an article about woman’s role in the military.   Maud Newton says that around 400 women “(fought) in the Civil War wearing disguises”.  These woman had to wear dinguses’ otherwise they would not have been allowed to fight.  The first thought that popped into my head about this was “wow, how outdated” yet when I thought more about it I realized that this law still applies today.

 Women today are still prohibited from combat; “During World War II female soldiers were taught to wear girdles, high heels and makeup that matched their uniforms. Since the 1990s, policies have focused more on prohibiting women from positions that involve direct ground combat, physically demanding tasks and lack of privacy”.  Clearly we have come a long way, yet woman our still being restricted.  I believe it is unfair that woman are not allowed in combat.  This decision should be up to the individual.  Women also go through the same demanding and physically exhausting training.

A number of woman that served in the army were interviewed. One in particular expressed a lot of anger about the fact that woman are prohibited from combat.  As she says "women need to be acknowledged as being in combat because they're out there putting their lives on the line."  Even thought woman may not be fighting they are still on the battlefield facing similar risks to those who are fighting.   She also adds "women really need to have the fact that they are engaging in combat acknowledged so they can keep moving up the ladder". This is true, for if woman are so restricted than they have less to strive for and may not improve much.  I think it’s really important that woman can fight in combat, it will take away the gender inequalities and allow woman to have more to obtain.  What do you think of this pressing issue?  What does it say about our society today?

Kelvin Park High School

I’m currently involved in a program called “Kelvin Park”, the program allows New Trier Students and Kelvin Park students to interact, and compare and contrast the differences in our school, our education and most importantly why these differences occur.  Prominent American values are equality and the right to an education.  Every child in America is required to attend school up until high school.  Yet, education differs depending on where you are.  Poorer education meaning lack of involvement from teachers, and lack of resources is common in poorer neighborhoods.  Why should something as important as education; the key to your future, be jeopardized by lack of money?  

          Here at New Trier we very fortunate our school ridiculously well funded, due to the higher taxes on our houses we are able to spends 19,415 dollars per pupil.  Yet in North Chicago (where Kelvin Park is located) houses are very small and the funding is really lacking, they can only afford to spend 13,025 per pupil.

Due to the lack of funding Kelvin Park had to fire multiple teachers from the KW and Art programs.  Mrs. Katie is a former Art teacher at Kelvin Park, she attended the Art Institute of Chicago and art has always been her passion.  Now Mrs. Katie is working in the Special Education Department, her frustration is understandable. 

        The school had four principals in the last year, because they continued to fail to find the right match; this creates an unstable environment for students, which does not support a quality education.  With different principals come different regulations and rules so students have to constantly keep up with the change.  Students admitted that this was “very distracting”.

Due to the lack of administration its common for students to have had up to seven schedule changes so far this year!  That’s another unnecessary change students have to deal with.  This also does not support and quality, focused education.   These are just a few of the areas CPS education is lacking.   To what extent do you think schools should differ depending on if they are located in wealthy of poor neighborhoods?  Do we pay for our education or is it a right?

The Importance of Voting

           I have always viewed voting as a great privilege, it gives us a voice in how our Country will be run.  A great pride should be associated with voting.  Therefore I was shocked to learn that in the 2008 election only 58 percent of our population voted.  What about the other 42 percent?  In a recent study the California Voter Foundation discovered that; “28 percent of infrequent voters and 23 percent of those unregistered said they do not vote or do not register to vote because they are too busy”.  Although these are relatively small numbers, it is important to take into account that California has the largest population in the US.  These Americans are “too busy” to vote, therefore they are prioritizing something else in their life above voting.  Which means that their Country is not coming first.  Instead jobs, family, friends or other obligations are being prioritized. I believe that this evidence points to the fact that America is an individualist society. 

            America has become an individualist society, and therefore we are busy improving our selves, and fulfilling personal tasks.  Therefore do you believe that there are indeed more important obligations people may have than voting for president?  In what situations do you believe it is right for Americans to put themselves before their Country?  

Banned Books

Our discussion in class about banned children books got me thinking about where freedom of speech came in.  Shouldn’t authors have the right to write what they want without the fear that it might be taken off the shelves?  And should kids be limited in what they can read?  Many of the books that have been banned have been banned for very minor details or were heavily influenced by a bais opinion.  For example The Diary of Ann Frank was banned because it is “too depressing”.  Yet, all the components of depression in the book are realistic.  I do not think children should be sheltered from this; they should at least have the option to read it. 

            One of my favorite childhood book; Sylvester and the Magic Pebble, by William Steig represents characters as animals.  The book was banned because the policemen were pigs.  I read this book dozens of times as a child and I never noticed this minor detail. 

            Some people may argue that there should be stricked rules on what kids are exposed too because they are unable to make the right decisions for themselves. I agree that censoring material that children have access to is necessary to a degree, but the above examples are very extreme and unnecessary.  According to the ALA President Carol Brey-Casiano, "Not every book is right for every person, but providing a wide range of reading choices is vital for learning, exploration, and imagination. The abilities to read, speak, think, and express ourselves freely are core American values."  This suggests that there should be less intense bans on books. I completely agree, what do you think?

A school or a cave?

While browsing on CNN's website an article titled 'Cave Becomes Classroom for Syrian kids' caught my eye.  The cave is carved to into tiny cube-shaped rooms, and the lighting quality is very poor.  They have to revert to caves because as a teacher says; "in the city, there is always this imminent danger that the regime choppers or planes will bomb us or drop the TNT barrels".  This is a horrible situation and as one of the young students say; "Enough killing and destruction. We've had it. We can't get close to our schools" this shows his desire to learn.  Also in the video the children are excited and eager to learn as the reporter observes; "They are calling out boisterously, raising their hands eagerly, clamoring to answer questions."  This is striking, even thought these children have been forced to fled from their old school due to extreme danger, and are currently learning inside a cave where students have to shine flashlights to brighten the room they are still excited to learn. 

This really contrasts with New Trier, here students are constantly complaining about school and a lot of kids cut classes.  Yet the building is in no danger of getting bombed, we have huge classrooms and the lights are normally a little too bright.  Kids here have everything a Syrian kids could imagine yet we are not satisfied, nor are we excited and eager to learn.   Why are we so unappreciative? I believe we are this way only because we know nothing else.  Education has never been taken away from us like It has been to these kids so we are not longing for it.