When I was working on my computer when I realized, that the world was not what I thought it was. When we think of people, we fail to consider those who are not in our immediate circles. Why is it that when we hear reports of a war, only Americans are really mentioned. Is it that we don't consider those other people to be actual people, like us? Is it that they don't matter in our world view? How is it that reports of our wars only mention how those wars are humanitarian in interest, when in reality, they cause innumerable deaths on those we are supposedly helping?
In hindsight, I believe the reasons for the Iraq war are obvious. It was not to free the peoples that were there, or to oust a government that is dictatorial in nature. It was not even to attack the terrorists that attacked us. It was to support the greed of the powerful corporations in America. Somehow, those corporations have convinced us that the people in those countries don’t really matter. We hear of thousands of deaths on the other side and don’t even flinch. We hear how we are helping those countries and don’t even ask. This is not to say that our soldiers are fighting for a horrible idea. They fight for what they believe in, and to protect their fellow man. It is, however, those who watch from high above that are truly to blame, those who give the orders at the highest level, and those who tell us those decisions are right.
It is because we are told that these things are right that we went into the war. But we believed them because we forgot to ask the why. We forgot to ask why it was Iraq, and not Afghanistan. We forgot to ask why the proof that was offered us was so shaky. We forgot to ask why we would focus only on the countries we know had oil. We, most especially, forgot the question the motives of those making the decisions, and how they might profit from the war.
For this I blame myself, as well as the rest of the public, for not asking. But just as significantly, I blame the news organizations, that should have looked deeper into the sources, into the reasons for our desire for war. If they had done the necessary research, many lives could have been saved. But they forgot to ask those vital questions in their fervor.
This time, we must be willing to ask. With this health reform, we need to ask who really wants the reform to end, who would benefit from there being to public option. It is so easy to watch the advertising on the news, and forget from where it came, so we do not have to research. We cannot, however, forget again. We must look deeper into the reasoning behind the decisions our politicians are making. It is important this time, to not forget to ask.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
A little socialism is a good thing. (For Class)
I think everyone is aware of the fight for and against the public option. For those who are unaware, the public option is a program, much like Medicare, that operates by the amount that people pay into it (Flanagan). This acts as competition to the private insurance companies, and allows for more diversity within the system. The program, unlike the private insurers, would be held accountable to the public.
Private insurers are held to the demands of their stockholders, which in turn causes the company to run with a focus on profit. This is a system built to fail, as it provides incentives for the company to find any way to save money. In the insurance realm, this means not covering those who are already paying into the system. In normal competition, the need to provide a profit usually results in better products, as the companies compete for the money of the customer. In the health insurance industry, however, those some drives cause the companies to find ways to screw the customer, as it is simply cheaper not to cover the costs that the customer causes when the customer gets sick. Competition, in this case, reduces the quality of the product.
This would not be such a problem if there was more competition. There is, however, very little competition, as in each state there are only one or two health insurance companies, and usually only one available through any single business. This lack of option is another reason why the costs of health insurance is so high relative to the coverage it provides.
A public option thus would provide more diversity in the health insurance industry, and would allow for lower prices, thus people would be able to join it in larger numbers. It would also limit the number of times that the companies would drop people for inane reasons, because the customers would leave in droves for the public option. There is little reason not to have a public option, other than the insurance companies would suffer in their ridiculous profit margins.
I would argue for a harder line version. A single payer system, in which everyone is covered through a government run health care system. No one would be dropped, no extra money would be spent on lobbyists. With so many people suffering because they do not have health insurance, or have been dropped from their health insurance, there is very little reason for thereto not be a system that covers everyone. In other cases, such as fire fighters and police, there is very little argument for privatized industries for those areas. This is because such things are essential to the health and safety of the populous, and it is ridiculous that a person’s health is not to be considered as essential as those other institutions. Why do people have to die, just because they couldn’t afford to live?
Flanagan, Jerry. "What does the "public" in "public option" really mean? - Consumer Watchdog." Consumer Watchdog: Home. 31 Mar. 2009. Web. 01 Nov. 2009..
Private insurers are held to the demands of their stockholders, which in turn causes the company to run with a focus on profit. This is a system built to fail, as it provides incentives for the company to find any way to save money. In the insurance realm, this means not covering those who are already paying into the system. In normal competition, the need to provide a profit usually results in better products, as the companies compete for the money of the customer. In the health insurance industry, however, those some drives cause the companies to find ways to screw the customer, as it is simply cheaper not to cover the costs that the customer causes when the customer gets sick. Competition, in this case, reduces the quality of the product.
This would not be such a problem if there was more competition. There is, however, very little competition, as in each state there are only one or two health insurance companies, and usually only one available through any single business. This lack of option is another reason why the costs of health insurance is so high relative to the coverage it provides.
A public option thus would provide more diversity in the health insurance industry, and would allow for lower prices, thus people would be able to join it in larger numbers. It would also limit the number of times that the companies would drop people for inane reasons, because the customers would leave in droves for the public option. There is little reason not to have a public option, other than the insurance companies would suffer in their ridiculous profit margins.
I would argue for a harder line version. A single payer system, in which everyone is covered through a government run health care system. No one would be dropped, no extra money would be spent on lobbyists. With so many people suffering because they do not have health insurance, or have been dropped from their health insurance, there is very little reason for thereto not be a system that covers everyone. In other cases, such as fire fighters and police, there is very little argument for privatized industries for those areas. This is because such things are essential to the health and safety of the populous, and it is ridiculous that a person’s health is not to be considered as essential as those other institutions. Why do people have to die, just because they couldn’t afford to live?
Flanagan, Jerry. "What does the "public" in "public option" really mean? - Consumer Watchdog." Consumer Watchdog: Home. 31 Mar. 2009. Web. 01 Nov. 2009.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
A system in need of Aid. (For Class)
Now, I’m not really a socialist. I like capitalism in most instances, though like any system, I think it is quite flawed. Those flaws, however, are causing the education system to become less and less effective. There is no immediate money in education, since it is a long term investment, and in a system where profits need to be visible every year, that is a problem.
The system I am worried by is the education system. Specifically, the higher education system. Now, I’m not saying that the current system is totally bad. But it is heading in a troubling direction. As our economy sinks lower, the price for a college education rises higher. As less people can afford education, fewer people get the needed knowledge and qualifications for higher paying jobs, and thus can pay less into the system. As less money is paid into the system, the more a college education will cost. As this cycle continues farther and farther toward the ground, the United States falls behind. And then, we complain about our slipping in world status.
We focus on other things, because discovering that the United States is a beacon, slowly dimming, is a hard subject to broach. We blame it on the economy, on world events, on anything but the fact that other countries are starting to creep ahead because we look elsewhere for the source. Education, however, is at the heart of how well a country functions.
As a democracy, we depend on the ability for the public to make good, intelligent decision. In order to make such educated decisions, we need the public to have the knowledge to do so. That knowledge can best be gained by focusing on our schools.
By focusing, I mean spending more money. Hire more teachers. Make it a higher paying job. Cut costs for the average student. In fact, it would be great if everyone could attend college. This, in reality, is in keeping with the capitalistic and democratic ideal, which is the belief in an open market in which everyone can participate. If college was truly affordable, then more would attend, regardless of current economic class, and the cream would rise to the top. Given this focus, it would create lasting economic progress, as those graduates would bring innovations to all fields within the country.
Instead of this focus, we see less money spent on education, instead of more. As less money is spent on our education, the colleges have to let go of more and more teachers. Classes become bigger and bigger, and the level of education reduces. This is not even considering the talent that is dropped in the name of saving the bottom line. It reduces not only the quality of the education, but also the reputation of the education system.
Perhaps we need to attack the source of this problem. Perhaps it is time for those within the education to get loud about the issue. Politicians won’t push for change that isn’t strongly voiced by the public. Logically, why would they focus on a problem that has nothing to do with getting them elected? We need to make this issue one that is talked about everywhere, and bring education to prominence within the societal discussion.
The system I am worried by is the education system. Specifically, the higher education system. Now, I’m not saying that the current system is totally bad. But it is heading in a troubling direction. As our economy sinks lower, the price for a college education rises higher. As less people can afford education, fewer people get the needed knowledge and qualifications for higher paying jobs, and thus can pay less into the system. As less money is paid into the system, the more a college education will cost. As this cycle continues farther and farther toward the ground, the United States falls behind. And then, we complain about our slipping in world status.
We focus on other things, because discovering that the United States is a beacon, slowly dimming, is a hard subject to broach. We blame it on the economy, on world events, on anything but the fact that other countries are starting to creep ahead because we look elsewhere for the source. Education, however, is at the heart of how well a country functions.
As a democracy, we depend on the ability for the public to make good, intelligent decision. In order to make such educated decisions, we need the public to have the knowledge to do so. That knowledge can best be gained by focusing on our schools.
By focusing, I mean spending more money. Hire more teachers. Make it a higher paying job. Cut costs for the average student. In fact, it would be great if everyone could attend college. This, in reality, is in keeping with the capitalistic and democratic ideal, which is the belief in an open market in which everyone can participate. If college was truly affordable, then more would attend, regardless of current economic class, and the cream would rise to the top. Given this focus, it would create lasting economic progress, as those graduates would bring innovations to all fields within the country.
Instead of this focus, we see less money spent on education, instead of more. As less money is spent on our education, the colleges have to let go of more and more teachers. Classes become bigger and bigger, and the level of education reduces. This is not even considering the talent that is dropped in the name of saving the bottom line. It reduces not only the quality of the education, but also the reputation of the education system.
Perhaps we need to attack the source of this problem. Perhaps it is time for those within the education to get loud about the issue. Politicians won’t push for change that isn’t strongly voiced by the public. Logically, why would they focus on a problem that has nothing to do with getting them elected? We need to make this issue one that is talked about everywhere, and bring education to prominence within the societal discussion.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Random Post: Part Two(For Class)
But I cannot lay the blame on only my teacher. ‘Teachers’ is a better description, as my writing habits were shaped by more then one person. I also blame my coaches as well. Always telling me to run, then watch the ball, then stop, then run again. Such habits leaped over into the other parts of my life. One such example is when I was in the house. I ran, I stopped to make sure the screen door was open, then ran right into the glass door. I’ve hated glass cleaners ever since. This is also apparent in my writing habits. I can write for long spaces of time, but as soon as I stop, I can’t write anymore. It’s like hitting that glass door. Knowing there is a beautiful word outside, yet unable to visit it because I have to sit down and wait for the world inside to stop spinning. Even when I am able to get past the glass door, something always distracts me, and again, I stop. Suddenly I am back within the home, unable to touch the beauty of my mind. Like that stupid singing above me right now. Sounds almost like a song I am familiar with, except the words are garbled. That probably has something to do with the walls between us. Suddenly I remember that I was supposed to do a post on racism. Thoughts are a big problem too, apparently. I’m writing, and suddenly I realize I am hungry. I get up, and then the computer falls into the water. After the shaking pain subsided, and my muscles unclenched, I realized that if I had not gotten hungry, I would never have been shocked. I would have spent my day gladly typing away, if not for that one, sinisterly disguised thought. It is like I am at war with my brain. Great warplanes whizzing about, chattering away as their machine guns blast at each other. See how the sound of the keyboard affects me even now? Those thoughts, sinister things, they conspire against me. Indeed, it is a conspiracy. My mind, body, and everything else in the world is determined to keep me from writing. If I have learned one thing in my days, it is that conspiracies exist. They are built to keep me in the chains of the mediocre, to never create anything that would wow the world. Yes, it all makes sense now, to be cliché. The world is out to get me, to stop me from writing interesting things. I will not stand for this tyranny, however. I have many times fought injustice. For example, when the bully started harassing me, I kicked him in the nuts. Everyone cheered, and I was the hero of the playground. At least for the ten minutes it took for the bully to get back up. Then everything hurt a lot, but for those few minutes, I was a hero to everyone. Perhaps it is time to be a hero again. I will stand up for-
Random Post: Part 1(For Class)
The hardest thing about writing is coming up with things to say. Often, it is easier to stick a fork in my eye then actually starting to write with a blank page before me. Perhaps this is because I have ADD. In laymen’s terms, that means I get distracted very easily. All that needs to happen is a sound creeping in from the outside. In fact, there is one happening right now. Sneaky bugger up stairs thinks that singing in the shower somehow will earn him rewards. Granted, I’m right below him soaking in the bath tub. It is, of course, my practice to sit in the bathtub with my laptop perched neatly on my knees. Adds needed danger to my writing, which helps grease the gears of my writing apparatus, my brain. But I must run back to the topic. Anyway, as I stated before, and stated out loud, the man upstairs is singing, and that his highly distracting. I’m thinking of getting my broom and hitting the ceiling. I’ve heard that makes people stop. But I don’t currently have a broom, so that means that I will have to go to the store to buy a broom. Perhaps I will go soon, but it is such a bother. I need to get that fork I talked about as well. Perhaps some aloe for my electricity burns, from the last time I decided to write. Burns do hurt quite a bit, which is why I have decided to soak, and thus have no option but to write. My computer was unhappy too, which is why it surprised me that it is working now. But, let’s get back to the subject. Writing is hard because often, I feel a need to say something grand. It is like my words are precious jewels, and each of them has to carry meaning. Meanings, a multiplicity of understanding and ideas bound and packaged neatly within a single utterance. That is what one of my earlier teachers once told me. I fully blame her for my current inability to write. Perhaps there are more people who carry the blame of my writers block. Of course, I am not to blame. One such person was my English teacher, and she would describe how each word has to not only have meaning, but also a place within the sea of other meanings. Simply moving the word over, under, or around its brothers and sister would result in an entirely new event within the reader’s mind. This, coupled with each word bringing new meaning when used in concurrence with certain others creates a maelstrom of confusion. How do I make a sentence when writing is such a delicate process. My teacher talked of beauty and roses, and all I heard was blood and thorns. I’m somewhat awkward, so I often would grab at meaning with fumbling grace, and impale the thorns in my hand. My teacher often would discourse on this after class. She would state how my words tripped over each other, and had characteristics like the humans I knew.
Friday, October 23, 2009
The Dog
Once upon a time, there was a family, and it had a happy, tail wagging dog.
Now that dog, though it was good, watched for people who would break in, and was generally friendly to those who lived within the house. It was the best of watch dogs. Though it was bound by the views of the leaders of the family, it would do its best to bark when it thought those people were working against the rest of the family.
But then the family hired new caretakers, for the time not exceeding eight years. And they brought their own dog. Yes, that dog existed before, but it was not as strong. But the new caretakers stopped feeding the old dog, and made sure to fatten up the new dog. And the new dog beat up the old dog, and the old dog limped to the corner and shivered in fear.
It was during the new caretakers' watch that the house was vandalized, but worse, some of the family members were killed. It was the Jacobsons, an angry family that felt they had been ignored and crushed by the head family. And the caretakers were angry, and rightly so. The dog also yipped and growled and barked its own declaration of war. And so, after some considering, they decided to attack the Thompsons' house. This was because the Thompsons looked sort of like the Jacobsons, and they had some nice jewels that the caretakers desired. And the new dog did not get angry that they were going after the wrong family. So after the caretakers went over to the Thompsons' house and killed a bunch of their family, destroyed their house, and, admitedly, got rid of their nasty leader, they did not get the jewels. They also never found the vandals.
The caretakers had used a lot of the family's money to attack the Thompsons, and the house was left in disrepair, with a new family feud. Thus, after the eight years passed, the family elected new caretakers, but the new dog stayed. And it hated how the newer caretakers did not feed it as much as the old caretakers did, so it started to attack the caretakers, after the caretakers tried to repair the house, and replace the money that the old caretakers stole.
After a year, the new caretakers were upset, and they decided to get the old dog back into shape. They denounced the new dog, and the old caretakers. And the new dog was angry, and it kept calling the new caretakers traitors. And thus, the family came home, and decided what to do...
Now that dog, though it was good, watched for people who would break in, and was generally friendly to those who lived within the house. It was the best of watch dogs. Though it was bound by the views of the leaders of the family, it would do its best to bark when it thought those people were working against the rest of the family.
But then the family hired new caretakers, for the time not exceeding eight years. And they brought their own dog. Yes, that dog existed before, but it was not as strong. But the new caretakers stopped feeding the old dog, and made sure to fatten up the new dog. And the new dog beat up the old dog, and the old dog limped to the corner and shivered in fear.
It was during the new caretakers' watch that the house was vandalized, but worse, some of the family members were killed. It was the Jacobsons, an angry family that felt they had been ignored and crushed by the head family. And the caretakers were angry, and rightly so. The dog also yipped and growled and barked its own declaration of war. And so, after some considering, they decided to attack the Thompsons' house. This was because the Thompsons looked sort of like the Jacobsons, and they had some nice jewels that the caretakers desired. And the new dog did not get angry that they were going after the wrong family. So after the caretakers went over to the Thompsons' house and killed a bunch of their family, destroyed their house, and, admitedly, got rid of their nasty leader, they did not get the jewels. They also never found the vandals.
The caretakers had used a lot of the family's money to attack the Thompsons, and the house was left in disrepair, with a new family feud. Thus, after the eight years passed, the family elected new caretakers, but the new dog stayed. And it hated how the newer caretakers did not feed it as much as the old caretakers did, so it started to attack the caretakers, after the caretakers tried to repair the house, and replace the money that the old caretakers stole.
After a year, the new caretakers were upset, and they decided to get the old dog back into shape. They denounced the new dog, and the old caretakers. And the new dog was angry, and it kept calling the new caretakers traitors. And thus, the family came home, and decided what to do...
Monday, October 19, 2009
A Life Lost (For Class: Mandatory)
After reading Sander Scott's "Under the Influence", I immediately became aware of who the intended audience was. I know that many people will think that this essay was written with the general public in mind, to create awareness of a painful reality. It is not. It was written for those who shared his grief in some form, when watching someone destroyed by addiction, and to express the helpless anguish shared by those who have been touched by this evil.
In his essay, he creates a very close first person view. This very personal essay gives him the feeling of a journal writer, the audience witnessing his internal struggles. His reality becomes the reader's reality. Without having experienced some of the things that he describes, a reader would understand in a limited light, but would not be able to fathom the true pain that hides behind the words. For example, when he describes the feinting hope that would come every time it appeared that his father might have decided to stop, only one who has played witness to such hope can feel the true tug, and hear the tears in his words. This cycle of reaching for a dream one is helpless to enact, see it like a mirage, then watch it disappear, can only be understood by those who have watched someone dig their own grave with helpless commitment.
I can no longer hold back my bleeding heart. The main reason I know the pain he experienced is that I have felt it too, though on a lesser level, been hopeful and then watched my hopes crashing into splinters on the rocks of reality. Except, for me, it was my grandfather who drank, in fact drank himself to death.
I remember as crisp as yesterday, my early childhood with my grandfather. I was unaware of his drinking problems. I only remember then, he would spin me like a helicopter blade, his actions as graceful as any ice dancer. His laughs and my own shared a common tingle, one of mutual love.
It wasn't until we moved in with my grandfather, that I learned the deadly secret. My family sold our old house, and could not find a new one. While searching for a new home, I learned things I wish I never did.
There were not enough beds, so I would end up sleeping in the same bed as my grandfather. He did not abuse me, yet at night, with fetid breath, he would poke my back, thinking it was funny. After several weeks without sleep, my family moved me into another room, with a cot, as I was no longer able to sleep in his presence. It would not be until latter, that I learned what drove his actions.
Then, my grandfather had a stroke. This was the first time I learned of his drinking problems. My father would lament that he drank socially, but that it had become an addiction. I could see in my father what Sanders described, a hidden bitterness that colored his every description of his father. And as I had to care for my grandfather at times, I too started to share this bitterness.
When he was sent to the hospital, I dreaded every visit. No longer did I remember the joy of memories. I blamed him for his circumstance, and almost hated him for his mistakes. Even while in the hospital, a dying man, I heard rumors that he still asked for alcohol. While the hospital would not supply the six packs of bottles of beer for him, his addiction raged within his mind. For this I did not forgive him. As I watched him slowly dying, my father witness someone much closer pulling away, and his pain became my own. I almost did not know the man laying in the bed, covered with the flimsy white hospital gown.
It would not be until his death that I would see my own folly. I do not know if my memory is false, but it seems so real to me. He lay in the bed in his old house, rasping gasps as he stared into the ceiling. It seemed so long before his breathing finally stopped, his having drowned in his own saliva. In a family where everyone lived to be a hundred, he died young.
It would not be until a year or more latter that the personal shame would come. The memories flooded back, of happier times. And then came the most painful realization of all, that in the end, I never told him I loved him. That he gave me years of happiness, and that I never thanked him for it. In my own bitterness I took away the gift that I should never have stolen. And forever after, to this very day, I feel the anguish in my heart. And death does not forgive.
I do not like to drink. Like Sanders, I avoid drinking when possible, sometimes coming up with the lamest of excuses. Perhaps I am reading his intentions wrong, perhaps he meant to speak to everyone. But through the red veil of my emotions I cannot see it. All I can feel is that life I lost, an experience that, it seems, I share with others.
Sanders, Scott R. "Under the Influence." The Art of the personal essay; an anthology from the classical era to the present (1994): 732-44. Print.
In his essay, he creates a very close first person view. This very personal essay gives him the feeling of a journal writer, the audience witnessing his internal struggles. His reality becomes the reader's reality. Without having experienced some of the things that he describes, a reader would understand in a limited light, but would not be able to fathom the true pain that hides behind the words. For example, when he describes the feinting hope that would come every time it appeared that his father might have decided to stop, only one who has played witness to such hope can feel the true tug, and hear the tears in his words. This cycle of reaching for a dream one is helpless to enact, see it like a mirage, then watch it disappear, can only be understood by those who have watched someone dig their own grave with helpless commitment.
I can no longer hold back my bleeding heart. The main reason I know the pain he experienced is that I have felt it too, though on a lesser level, been hopeful and then watched my hopes crashing into splinters on the rocks of reality. Except, for me, it was my grandfather who drank, in fact drank himself to death.
I remember as crisp as yesterday, my early childhood with my grandfather. I was unaware of his drinking problems. I only remember then, he would spin me like a helicopter blade, his actions as graceful as any ice dancer. His laughs and my own shared a common tingle, one of mutual love.
It wasn't until we moved in with my grandfather, that I learned the deadly secret. My family sold our old house, and could not find a new one. While searching for a new home, I learned things I wish I never did.
There were not enough beds, so I would end up sleeping in the same bed as my grandfather. He did not abuse me, yet at night, with fetid breath, he would poke my back, thinking it was funny. After several weeks without sleep, my family moved me into another room, with a cot, as I was no longer able to sleep in his presence. It would not be until latter, that I learned what drove his actions.
Then, my grandfather had a stroke. This was the first time I learned of his drinking problems. My father would lament that he drank socially, but that it had become an addiction. I could see in my father what Sanders described, a hidden bitterness that colored his every description of his father. And as I had to care for my grandfather at times, I too started to share this bitterness.
When he was sent to the hospital, I dreaded every visit. No longer did I remember the joy of memories. I blamed him for his circumstance, and almost hated him for his mistakes. Even while in the hospital, a dying man, I heard rumors that he still asked for alcohol. While the hospital would not supply the six packs of bottles of beer for him, his addiction raged within his mind. For this I did not forgive him. As I watched him slowly dying, my father witness someone much closer pulling away, and his pain became my own. I almost did not know the man laying in the bed, covered with the flimsy white hospital gown.
It would not be until his death that I would see my own folly. I do not know if my memory is false, but it seems so real to me. He lay in the bed in his old house, rasping gasps as he stared into the ceiling. It seemed so long before his breathing finally stopped, his having drowned in his own saliva. In a family where everyone lived to be a hundred, he died young.
It would not be until a year or more latter that the personal shame would come. The memories flooded back, of happier times. And then came the most painful realization of all, that in the end, I never told him I loved him. That he gave me years of happiness, and that I never thanked him for it. In my own bitterness I took away the gift that I should never have stolen. And forever after, to this very day, I feel the anguish in my heart. And death does not forgive.
I do not like to drink. Like Sanders, I avoid drinking when possible, sometimes coming up with the lamest of excuses. Perhaps I am reading his intentions wrong, perhaps he meant to speak to everyone. But through the red veil of my emotions I cannot see it. All I can feel is that life I lost, an experience that, it seems, I share with others.
Sanders, Scott R. "Under the Influence." The Art of the personal essay; an anthology from the classical era to the present (1994): 732-44. Print.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Sexism Dead? (For Class: Not Mandatory)
I have often heard from the people I know that sexism is dead. I'll get to racism in the next post. Now, I'm going to admit that I am no feminist. But have to admit, on this issue, they are right. Sexism is all but dead. It is alive, well, and gone invisible.
By invisible, I do not mean that it is truly gone. What has happened, is that it has turned into a form that is not seen as an issue within our American culture. It has disappeared behind the curtains of the norm. It is this norm that rules our views on gender issues.
The first and most obvious, is how we view the young mothers within our country. Right now, they are viewed as examples of why sex during the teenage years is awful, and how important abstinence education is. People, especially the religious right, view these young mothers as problems.
Let's forget, for a second, that this is a tilted view. Looking back, during early times, marriage came much earlier. During the teenage years. At that time, it was the young woman's duty to have children. Now, there are all sorts of wrong things that are going on with that view. But it does point out that, biologically, both sexes are ready for sexual activities during such years. It should come as no surprise that they do have sex. With birth control, it is no longer necessary for teenagers to have kids, but when these measures fail, the community should become supportive, instead of indignant.
Now taking on the tilted nature of the view itself. It is certainly strange that people look down on the mothers, but do not even consider the fathers. In our society, it seems the common view to encourage men to have sex, and women to be abstinent. This is obviously a system built to fail. What is worse, is that the men don't seem to be held to the same responsibility as the women. Why is it not the responsibility of the fathers to supply as much support for the children? It all seems to go back to the religious view that women are the root of sin, and thus they are seen as the responsible party for such "societal evils" such as young pregnancies. Instead of building families, this view destroys lives.
Another slanted view that destroys lives is the view of prostitution. While men can be prostitutes as well, it is a common view within our society that prostitutes are mostly women. While I do not specifically condone the practice of prostitution, because the sex slavery that hides behind it, I do not believe in blaming the women. If the US government is to make policies on the subject, though I believe such things should be left to the community to decide and not a few politicians in Washington, it should be targeting the men. People will always go into undesirable jobs do to economic pressure. It is, therefore, the most logical action to target those who actually have the most choice when participating: the patrons. However, because sexism is still present, this is not the policy that we currently have, and we are wasting tax money and police force patrolling areas, looking to attack prostitutes, instead of trying to make an actual difference. This goes back to the view that women are responsible for such "evil", instead of those who patronize, and thus create, the industry.
It is important to recognize that there are many forms of racism that still exist. It is often invisible to those who do not examine their views. It is the questioning of such views that is most important, as many barriers to people's happiness could be removed through an investigation of society.
By invisible, I do not mean that it is truly gone. What has happened, is that it has turned into a form that is not seen as an issue within our American culture. It has disappeared behind the curtains of the norm. It is this norm that rules our views on gender issues.
The first and most obvious, is how we view the young mothers within our country. Right now, they are viewed as examples of why sex during the teenage years is awful, and how important abstinence education is. People, especially the religious right, view these young mothers as problems.
Let's forget, for a second, that this is a tilted view. Looking back, during early times, marriage came much earlier. During the teenage years. At that time, it was the young woman's duty to have children. Now, there are all sorts of wrong things that are going on with that view. But it does point out that, biologically, both sexes are ready for sexual activities during such years. It should come as no surprise that they do have sex. With birth control, it is no longer necessary for teenagers to have kids, but when these measures fail, the community should become supportive, instead of indignant.
Now taking on the tilted nature of the view itself. It is certainly strange that people look down on the mothers, but do not even consider the fathers. In our society, it seems the common view to encourage men to have sex, and women to be abstinent. This is obviously a system built to fail. What is worse, is that the men don't seem to be held to the same responsibility as the women. Why is it not the responsibility of the fathers to supply as much support for the children? It all seems to go back to the religious view that women are the root of sin, and thus they are seen as the responsible party for such "societal evils" such as young pregnancies. Instead of building families, this view destroys lives.
Another slanted view that destroys lives is the view of prostitution. While men can be prostitutes as well, it is a common view within our society that prostitutes are mostly women. While I do not specifically condone the practice of prostitution, because the sex slavery that hides behind it, I do not believe in blaming the women. If the US government is to make policies on the subject, though I believe such things should be left to the community to decide and not a few politicians in Washington, it should be targeting the men. People will always go into undesirable jobs do to economic pressure. It is, therefore, the most logical action to target those who actually have the most choice when participating: the patrons. However, because sexism is still present, this is not the policy that we currently have, and we are wasting tax money and police force patrolling areas, looking to attack prostitutes, instead of trying to make an actual difference. This goes back to the view that women are responsible for such "evil", instead of those who patronize, and thus create, the industry.
It is important to recognize that there are many forms of racism that still exist. It is often invisible to those who do not examine their views. It is the questioning of such views that is most important, as many barriers to people's happiness could be removed through an investigation of society.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
The Descending Spiral of Idiocy. (For Class, not mandatory)
It seems a mystery that the US is descending in the world of education. It seems that other countries, like India, are overtaking the US in that realm. How could such a superpower be lagging behind? The blame should not be shot at the teachers, or the students. It is not the fault of the immigrants. It is a lack of priorities within the government that is to blame.
The backbone of any system is the power it has to affect change. Within the capitalist system, that power is money. Money, shunted into programs, determines how far those programs go. The best analogy is that of a jet plane. Just imagine the money as being fuel. When the program runs out of money, it and the ground get friendly. It may be able to sail for a little while on fumes. And the government seems to be determined to suck spending out of education, so it is not surprising the direction that the United States system is taking.
It is easy to blame this trend on the times. War, the economic plunge, and the medical insurance debate seems to make the education downturn a small and insignificant issue. The American government has, in the past years, spent so much money on a war. Then they spend it on things like billion dollar bailout for banks, who then spend large portions of those bailouts on their executives. Then the country gets caught up in a debate about an issue whose solution should be obvious, considering the percentage of Americans that are for a public option. The reason for this focus is troubling.
The reason is that all those other issues are short term, obvious threats now. The US has been drawn into the problems of today, unaware of the danger looming just a few years away. The country may be facing the last years of its supremacy within the world.
Education should be one of the main issues within America. It determines where the country stands, both commercially and technologically. Without a good education system, high paying jobs will be shipped out to other countries, as they will have the populous with the necessary skills to perform those jobs. Even more important, the technology developed by countries who have a good education system will stay within those countries for a time, as such countries will have the priority on such advancements. Thus by losing the leadership in education, the US is starting to lose its strength within world politics, as money equals power.
More disturbing, is the cyclical nature of a lag in education. As less money is poured into education, that education, which includes college, becomes more expensive, and less comprehensive. As less money is given to qualified teachers, as well as those teachers who are already within the system being let go because of cut budgets, the education that the next generation is given is destabilized as expertise flees from the system. The less comprehensive the education given to those going through the system, those who complete their high school years are less likely go to college. The less college graduates that a country has, the less high paying jobs stay within the country. Which equals less taxes and less money within the economy. With that drop of input, the amount of money put into education drops. And that continues the cycle. It is therefore of the utmost importance, when the economy collapses, to put more money into education, not less, to secure the future.
The backbone of any system is the power it has to affect change. Within the capitalist system, that power is money. Money, shunted into programs, determines how far those programs go. The best analogy is that of a jet plane. Just imagine the money as being fuel. When the program runs out of money, it and the ground get friendly. It may be able to sail for a little while on fumes. And the government seems to be determined to suck spending out of education, so it is not surprising the direction that the United States system is taking.
It is easy to blame this trend on the times. War, the economic plunge, and the medical insurance debate seems to make the education downturn a small and insignificant issue. The American government has, in the past years, spent so much money on a war. Then they spend it on things like billion dollar bailout for banks, who then spend large portions of those bailouts on their executives. Then the country gets caught up in a debate about an issue whose solution should be obvious, considering the percentage of Americans that are for a public option. The reason for this focus is troubling.
The reason is that all those other issues are short term, obvious threats now. The US has been drawn into the problems of today, unaware of the danger looming just a few years away. The country may be facing the last years of its supremacy within the world.
Education should be one of the main issues within America. It determines where the country stands, both commercially and technologically. Without a good education system, high paying jobs will be shipped out to other countries, as they will have the populous with the necessary skills to perform those jobs. Even more important, the technology developed by countries who have a good education system will stay within those countries for a time, as such countries will have the priority on such advancements. Thus by losing the leadership in education, the US is starting to lose its strength within world politics, as money equals power.
More disturbing, is the cyclical nature of a lag in education. As less money is poured into education, that education, which includes college, becomes more expensive, and less comprehensive. As less money is given to qualified teachers, as well as those teachers who are already within the system being let go because of cut budgets, the education that the next generation is given is destabilized as expertise flees from the system. The less comprehensive the education given to those going through the system, those who complete their high school years are less likely go to college. The less college graduates that a country has, the less high paying jobs stay within the country. Which equals less taxes and less money within the economy. With that drop of input, the amount of money put into education drops. And that continues the cycle. It is therefore of the utmost importance, when the economy collapses, to put more money into education, not less, to secure the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)