At the beginning of second semester, our class did presentations on civil liberties violations during different wars in our country's history. My group did our presentation on the War on Terror, and some of the topics we discussed were the USA Patriot Act, the NSA's involvement in our lives, and Edward Snowden. So when I saw an article about the Patriot Act's expiration, I was immediately intrigued, and a little confused.
The Patriot Act was passed after 9/11 to "justify collecting reams of telephone metadata--information about phone numbers called the times of the calls". The NSA (National Security Agency) is allowed to receive this information from phone companies, like Verizon and AT&T, if they present a search warrant. This has been a controversial act ever since Edward Snowden released information regarding how much information the government was allowed to see, and how much of it was actually useful in finding terrorist activity. Recently, a federal appeals court ruled that the telephone records program is illegal. "The same authority that has been used to collect the bulk telephone data allows national security investigators to obtain court orders for records that pertain to an individual". The debate on whether or not this bill is a violation of our civil liberties has been ongoing ever since. In order to stop the bill from continuing, there needs to be a unanimous consensus from the senate on Sunday, May 31st.
In an editorial I read about the topic, the author argues that the debate "should be allowed to continue" and be able to reach a compromise that gives Americans information on what exactly the government is able to see. When Snowden released his information in 2013, the Obama administration started reviewing intelligence techniques and said they would reform the program. This also caused lawmakers to look at the Patriot Act more closely, leading a federal appeals court to rule that the NSA's collection of phone data was unlawful.
Although I believe that the government should be able to investigate and collect information about possible terrorist threats to the United States, I think there needs to be more evidence showing us how the collection of our phone records has helped them find suspected terrorists. If the NSA is not able to present that information, I think it will be hard for them to continue their actions, especially now that this has been brought to our attention. I don't know what the verdict will be, but I predict that this will be an ongoing debate for the next couple of years. I wonder how the next president will feel about this issue.
Monday, June 1, 2015
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
Means To an End
In American Studies, we have been discussing social class with regards to the upper-class characters and lifestyle in the Great Gatsby. In our class, most students felt that their families were of the upper-middle and upper class. For many of the upper-middle and upper class, they have the luxury of furthering their education. Most of us will continue our education after high school at a university of our choosing (with exceptions of course). However, I believe college is viewed as a means to an end in our society; students attend college to further their education so that they can find a job easily and pursue a career. I dream big in terms of my career, as I'm sure most students at our school do, but not everyone my age feels the same way. In an article I read, the author discusses the problem that faces almost all of her students: underemployment.
Brittany Bronson, the author of this article, is an English instructor at the University of Nevada. 95% of students at the University of Nevada live at home or off campus so they can save money, and they attend the school for in-state tuition. She finds that her students are very modest when she asks them what they hope to achieve after college, for example taking over a family manufacturing uniform business. In my opinion, the "dream" jobs students hope to achieve seem small. I don't think many students in my community dream of a middle class job after college. Students at our school plan for wealthy and remarkable careers, and our school encourages that. Just look at the wall of New Trier Alumni, aka some of the most "successful" graduates of our school. I wonder how the school determined and recognized the most successful alumni out of the thousands of graduates.
It seems sad, however, that we focus so much on what is coming after college. Many students don't pursue majors or studies that truly interest them; they just pursue majors they can make money from in the future. Among the highest paying college majors to study are engineering, computer science, and economics. This is not shocking at all; these are also some of the most popular majors at major universities. In class, we discuss how many will pursue business majors in college, instead of english or humanities majors. Students and their families want security in knowing that they will be able to find a job after college. I understand where they are coming from, but I still find it a little sad that college has become a transition to what's next. We work so hard to get there, then once we get there we work equally, if not harder, to set up the rest of our lives. Why can't we stop and enjoy it anymore?
Brittany Bronson, the author of this article, is an English instructor at the University of Nevada. 95% of students at the University of Nevada live at home or off campus so they can save money, and they attend the school for in-state tuition. She finds that her students are very modest when she asks them what they hope to achieve after college, for example taking over a family manufacturing uniform business. In my opinion, the "dream" jobs students hope to achieve seem small. I don't think many students in my community dream of a middle class job after college. Students at our school plan for wealthy and remarkable careers, and our school encourages that. Just look at the wall of New Trier Alumni, aka some of the most "successful" graduates of our school. I wonder how the school determined and recognized the most successful alumni out of the thousands of graduates.
It seems sad, however, that we focus so much on what is coming after college. Many students don't pursue majors or studies that truly interest them; they just pursue majors they can make money from in the future. Among the highest paying college majors to study are engineering, computer science, and economics. This is not shocking at all; these are also some of the most popular majors at major universities. In class, we discuss how many will pursue business majors in college, instead of english or humanities majors. Students and their families want security in knowing that they will be able to find a job after college. I understand where they are coming from, but I still find it a little sad that college has become a transition to what's next. We work so hard to get there, then once we get there we work equally, if not harder, to set up the rest of our lives. Why can't we stop and enjoy it anymore?
Monday, May 18, 2015
A Lack of Black Doctors
My favorite show of all-time is Grey's Anatomy. I love every part of the show, especially the characters and relationships on it. So when I saw an article about African American doctors, it immediately caught my eye. Off of the top of my head, I can count around 6 black surgeons and main characters on the show. The show has explored some race issues in episodes regarding black surgeons and white patients, but I don't think it has ever really emphasized the problem that seems to be present in our society. "In virtually every field of medicine, black patients as a group fare the worst". Why is this the case?
The author of this article says that although the usual reasons are valid, like poverty, lack of access to proper medical care and unhealthy lifestyles, another reason may be the low percent of black doctors. Black patients, in general, feel more comfortable with black doctors. They are less trusting of physicians and medicine than any other race. This may be because of their history with medicine, as stated in the article, but I personally do not know enough about the subject to make any inferences as to why they might be less trusting. However, as you can imagine, this often hurts them in the long run. By refusing medical treatment and being suspicious of their doctor's intentions, they are only hurting themselves.
An easy solution to this problem seems to be to increase the amount of black doctors in black communities. In the 2011-2012 school year, only 7% of medical students in America were black. Shockingly, this is progress for America; there were only 2% enrolled in med school in 1968-1969. I wonder if social class and wealth is a factor in this as well, possibly because of the high cost in medical school and the people that can or cannot afford it. Here lies the problem: black patients want black doctors, who rarely exist in black communities. "More black doctors practice in high-poverty communities of color, where physicians are relatively scarce". This doesn't leave many doctors for the middle class African-American community, which may be the source of this problem.
So is there a solution? I don't know if there is. It's a little startling to me to see that people would risk their health and safety just because they might have negative suspicions about their doctor. However, I can see the other side as well. I don't think there is a clear answer here, but I hope in the future that our society can move past these still-present race issues. Having a personal, trusting relationship with your physician is important, and I don't think anything should be in the way of this relationship.
The author of this article says that although the usual reasons are valid, like poverty, lack of access to proper medical care and unhealthy lifestyles, another reason may be the low percent of black doctors. Black patients, in general, feel more comfortable with black doctors. They are less trusting of physicians and medicine than any other race. This may be because of their history with medicine, as stated in the article, but I personally do not know enough about the subject to make any inferences as to why they might be less trusting. However, as you can imagine, this often hurts them in the long run. By refusing medical treatment and being suspicious of their doctor's intentions, they are only hurting themselves.
An easy solution to this problem seems to be to increase the amount of black doctors in black communities. In the 2011-2012 school year, only 7% of medical students in America were black. Shockingly, this is progress for America; there were only 2% enrolled in med school in 1968-1969. I wonder if social class and wealth is a factor in this as well, possibly because of the high cost in medical school and the people that can or cannot afford it. Here lies the problem: black patients want black doctors, who rarely exist in black communities. "More black doctors practice in high-poverty communities of color, where physicians are relatively scarce". This doesn't leave many doctors for the middle class African-American community, which may be the source of this problem.
So is there a solution? I don't know if there is. It's a little startling to me to see that people would risk their health and safety just because they might have negative suspicions about their doctor. However, I can see the other side as well. I don't think there is a clear answer here, but I hope in the future that our society can move past these still-present race issues. Having a personal, trusting relationship with your physician is important, and I don't think anything should be in the way of this relationship.
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
Correcting the Correctioners
For my fourth and final blog post about my junior theme, I found an interesting article in the New York Times about physical abuse and mentally ill prisoners. The relevant news regarding this article is the Human Rights Watch report that has recently been released, which includes different incidents regarding the correctional staff at prisons. "In some cases, the force used has led to their death", according to the press release report for HRW. The force used by the prison guards include chemical sprays, electric weapons, and severely broken body parts. The study also found that the mistreatment of mentally ill prisoners occurs throughout the country and is increasing in more than 5,100 jails and prisons. Through my junior theme research, I found similar startling statistics and information about this problem, leading me to question why this is happening. Why is it becoming more and more "acceptable" to treat the mentally ill this way? Even if they are in prisoners, do they deserve to be treated terribly?
I can only imagine that it takes time to adjust to living in prison for non-mentally ill prisoners. For mentally ill prisoners, I assume that it's almost impossible. There are extensive and firm rules set by prison officers and guards that prisoners must follow. If they don't follow the rules, they should expect punishment, physical or not. But in most cases, usually mentally ill prisoners aren't doing harm to themselves, other prisoners, or guards; they are only trying to adjust to life imprisoned. Their behavior is usually a result of their mental illness, therefore unintentional. Some examples of this behavior found was using inappropriate language, refusing to come out of their cell, or urinating on the floor. I understand that these behaviors might be considered against the rules, but I don't think they are an excuse to physically harm these prisoners. These prisoners are struggling to survive in prison and live a different life than they are used to, making it difficult for them to always behave. I don't think it's fair to blame the prison guards either, however. They aren't trained in knowing how to deal with these prisoners and often don't have the facilities to help treat them.
The National Institute of Corrections, "a federal agency that provides funding and offers support programs to corrections agencies", claimed that mental health for prisoners was one of their highest priorities. They are planning on trying to find ways to create mental health treatment facilities in prisons so that this physical abuse will decrease. Hopefully they will find ways to stop the problem before it results in prison, but I don't think we will come to that decision anytime soon. I don't think there is an easy answer to the problem, and I don't know how much emphasis will be put on trying to solve it for the time being. I hope that we see a decrease in mentally ill prisoners, but I think this problem needs to move a step at a time. If the first step is ending the physical abuse, then I support it.
I can only imagine that it takes time to adjust to living in prison for non-mentally ill prisoners. For mentally ill prisoners, I assume that it's almost impossible. There are extensive and firm rules set by prison officers and guards that prisoners must follow. If they don't follow the rules, they should expect punishment, physical or not. But in most cases, usually mentally ill prisoners aren't doing harm to themselves, other prisoners, or guards; they are only trying to adjust to life imprisoned. Their behavior is usually a result of their mental illness, therefore unintentional. Some examples of this behavior found was using inappropriate language, refusing to come out of their cell, or urinating on the floor. I understand that these behaviors might be considered against the rules, but I don't think they are an excuse to physically harm these prisoners. These prisoners are struggling to survive in prison and live a different life than they are used to, making it difficult for them to always behave. I don't think it's fair to blame the prison guards either, however. They aren't trained in knowing how to deal with these prisoners and often don't have the facilities to help treat them.
The National Institute of Corrections, "a federal agency that provides funding and offers support programs to corrections agencies", claimed that mental health for prisoners was one of their highest priorities. They are planning on trying to find ways to create mental health treatment facilities in prisons so that this physical abuse will decrease. Hopefully they will find ways to stop the problem before it results in prison, but I don't think we will come to that decision anytime soon. I don't think there is an easy answer to the problem, and I don't know how much emphasis will be put on trying to solve it for the time being. I hope that we see a decrease in mentally ill prisoners, but I think this problem needs to move a step at a time. If the first step is ending the physical abuse, then I support it.
Monday, May 11, 2015
No More Professors
While simultaneously scrolling through Naviance in preparation for my upcoming college counselor meeting, an article about college professors caught my eye (I know, shocking). The article argues that professors "will fall low on the ladder of meaningful contacts" as college graduates reflect on their education. At first, this was very startling to me. As a high school student, I couldn't imagine not having a connection with one of my teachers; I'm not sure I could have survived the year without speaking to teachers outside of class and getting extra help. I realize that high school class sizes are smaller than the average college course, but I still found this a little surprising.
In my opinion, the goal of any teacher is to help their students learn and grow while receiving a good education. I think that most teachers want to have meaningful connections with their students, or at least reflecting on all of my teachers in the past I feel that they do. I can't speak from experience about college professors, but I assume they are similar. Yet only 1/3 of freshman students speak to their professor outside of class, and 42% meet with them on occasion. Freshman year is the scariest year of all; everything is new and different than you are used to, and there is a heavier workload. It seems that freshman year should be a logical year for students to meet with professors and possibly start connections that will continue with them for the rest of their schooling. How else would students know more about the subject they are learning, or decide if it is a possible subject they wish to pursue the following year?
The lack of student involvement with professors may be a result of our society's beliefs. The author of the article argues that it's barely the students fault; many of them are involved in numerous extracurriculars and have more distractions, especially with technology, than ever before. I feel like this relates well to students at my school, since in general we strive to do as much as possible and become a "well-rounded" person. However, the purpose of attending college is to further your education and make these important connections, which is something we may be losing. In a study reported in this article, in 1967 86% of students objectives in college was to "develop a meaningful philosophy of life" while around 40% reported that their objectives was to be "very well-off financially". In our world today, the percentages have reversed. Is this what our society has come to? Do we really only hope to gain money and "success" out of an education?
In my opinion, the goal of any teacher is to help their students learn and grow while receiving a good education. I think that most teachers want to have meaningful connections with their students, or at least reflecting on all of my teachers in the past I feel that they do. I can't speak from experience about college professors, but I assume they are similar. Yet only 1/3 of freshman students speak to their professor outside of class, and 42% meet with them on occasion. Freshman year is the scariest year of all; everything is new and different than you are used to, and there is a heavier workload. It seems that freshman year should be a logical year for students to meet with professors and possibly start connections that will continue with them for the rest of their schooling. How else would students know more about the subject they are learning, or decide if it is a possible subject they wish to pursue the following year?
The lack of student involvement with professors may be a result of our society's beliefs. The author of the article argues that it's barely the students fault; many of them are involved in numerous extracurriculars and have more distractions, especially with technology, than ever before. I feel like this relates well to students at my school, since in general we strive to do as much as possible and become a "well-rounded" person. However, the purpose of attending college is to further your education and make these important connections, which is something we may be losing. In a study reported in this article, in 1967 86% of students objectives in college was to "develop a meaningful philosophy of life" while around 40% reported that their objectives was to be "very well-off financially". In our world today, the percentages have reversed. Is this what our society has come to? Do we really only hope to gain money and "success" out of an education?
Saturday, May 2, 2015
Clinton's Criminal Justice System
During Hillary Clinton's speech at Columbia University last Wednesday, April 29, she spoke about reforming the criminal justice system. Not only did she speak about the prison system in general, but she spoke about how prisons have become mental health institutions as well. Clinton recently announced that she is running for president, and has already begun her campaign. Once I read that she had made a speech about the criminal justice system, I immediately wondered what prompted her to discuss this controversial topic at the beginning of her campaigning.
In her speech, she addressed the recent events in Baltimore as well as other similar events that have happened over the last year, like Michael Brown. Clinton claimed that, "we have allowed our criminal justice system to get out of balance" and "our legal system can be and all too often is stacked against those who have the least power". I find both of these statements very interesting because she seems to be siding against the prison and justice system, something that politicians like herself have influenced. I agree with both of her statements, especially after my research for the junior theme, but I still wonder if this was too risky of a move for her in her presidential campaign. She seems to want to "undo the mass incarceration system" that has evolved and grown over the past couple of years, especially during her husband Bill Clinton's presidency. Although Bill Clinton did not start the mass incarceration, it grew during his presidency.
Clinton wants to change the way our criminal justice system works. Crime rates are not increasing, but incarceration rates are. She doesn't seem to have a plan yet, but I find it admirable that she is addressing this controversial issue during currents events. I don't know if there is a right answer, or any answer that will solve the problem completely, but I think it is good that a presidential candidate is bringing the question to the table. However, in the future I wonder if she will address the mentally ill imprisoned more than she did for this speech. Can our criminal justice system be "fixed"?
In her speech, she addressed the recent events in Baltimore as well as other similar events that have happened over the last year, like Michael Brown. Clinton claimed that, "we have allowed our criminal justice system to get out of balance" and "our legal system can be and all too often is stacked against those who have the least power". I find both of these statements very interesting because she seems to be siding against the prison and justice system, something that politicians like herself have influenced. I agree with both of her statements, especially after my research for the junior theme, but I still wonder if this was too risky of a move for her in her presidential campaign. She seems to want to "undo the mass incarceration system" that has evolved and grown over the past couple of years, especially during her husband Bill Clinton's presidency. Although Bill Clinton did not start the mass incarceration, it grew during his presidency.
 |
| Increased 225% over this amount of time while population only grew 1/3 |
Monday, April 20, 2015
Since it's prison, it's OK
While continuing my research for my Junior Theme, I found an article about rape and sexual assault in prisons. I'm not a professional on this issue, and I have never been to prison so I do not know what prison is really like, but I know it's not a place where I would like to live. I wasn't surprised, however, when I saw that around 80,000 male and female prisoners report sexual assault each year. This number isn't completely accurate, since many prisoners don't report sexual assault and harassment with a fear of being punished, yet it is still very high.
In 2003, a law was passed (the Prison Rape Elimination Act) to stop sexual assault in prisons. There were rules passed with the law, for example screening the prisoners to see if they were a possible threat before placing them in a cell, but only two states actually listened and followed the law. The ACLU estimated that around two million prisoners were sexually assaulted during the time it took to finalize the law (around 9 years), yet states have not changed their opinion on disobeying the law. The article states that "prisons protect rape culture to protect themselves", which is interesting to me. In fact, 50% of prison rape occurs between a prison guard and a prisoner. In my opinion, this is the most alarming fact in the article. Why do prisons employ men and women who hurt prisoners? I realize that prison guards main job is to keep the prisoners in line, but part of their job is protecting them as well. They are supposed to look out for the prisoners and make sure they aren't being further harmed while in prison, which is why I was shocked that such a high percent of rape was from them.
I realize that people are arrested for a reason. I like to believe, as many Americans do, that prisoners deserve to be in jail. However, I don't think it is okay to let horrible things happen to them while in prison; they are already being punished for what they did. I don't think our society should be fine with prisoners being raped since they did something bad so they "deserve" it. I think that rape and sexual assault is something that should never be wished upon anyone, no matter the person.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
The Curse of Rikers Island
While exploring and researching mental illness in prison, my topic for the junior theme, I came across an article about a specific prison inmate. Michael Megginson is a prisoner at Rikers Island and was arrested for stealing a cell phone. In comparison to other prisoners and the crimes they committed, his didn't seem like a big deal. However, Megginson has become one of the most violent inmates at Rikers since his arrest. Why is that?
Megginson was diagnosed with mental illness from early on in his childhood. Although the article doesn't state his specific diagnosis, he is said to have had behavioral problems leading to violence for a long time. He came from a damaged family with many victims of mental illness themselves. He had been in and out of mental institutions, and while at Rikers he seemed to worsen, becoming very violent to himself and others. If he hadn't been so violent while in jail, he would've been released by now, according to his lawyer. He has been transferred to a state psychiatric prison hospital for the meantime, but no one can agree on where he should reside. Does he belong in prison again, or at a psychiatric hospital?
I think the argument over where to "keep" Megginson is interesting. Does he need to be kept anywhere? It seems as though his family and officials are arguing over a boat or a car, not a human being. I understand that he is violent and dangerous at times, but isn't there something to be said about healing with your family? I think everyone believes that being in prison worsened his condition, so I wonder why they're so eager to keep him away again, even if it is in a hospital.
Megginson was diagnosed with mental illness from early on in his childhood. Although the article doesn't state his specific diagnosis, he is said to have had behavioral problems leading to violence for a long time. He came from a damaged family with many victims of mental illness themselves. He had been in and out of mental institutions, and while at Rikers he seemed to worsen, becoming very violent to himself and others. If he hadn't been so violent while in jail, he would've been released by now, according to his lawyer. He has been transferred to a state psychiatric prison hospital for the meantime, but no one can agree on where he should reside. Does he belong in prison again, or at a psychiatric hospital?
I think the argument over where to "keep" Megginson is interesting. Does he need to be kept anywhere? It seems as though his family and officials are arguing over a boat or a car, not a human being. I understand that he is violent and dangerous at times, but isn't there something to be said about healing with your family? I think everyone believes that being in prison worsened his condition, so I wonder why they're so eager to keep him away again, even if it is in a hospital.
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Is It OK?
Last week in class, we examined an article from the New York Times about the only thing on upperclassman's minds: college. The day after we discussed the article, both of my parents sent me the article. After reading the article a second time, I decided I had some of my own thoughts, because who doesn't like talking about college?
In the article, Bruni examines the application process of two students, one being a past NT graduate. Both students were very successful in high school, in terms of grades, and were rejected from their top choice of colleges. They ended up going to their "safety" schools, and thrived at college. The article states that Peter Hart, NT graduate, felt that he was a "very competent person" once he arrived at Indiana, one of his safety schools. To me, this is very interesting. I think our school is so competitive and I don't think it's common to feel competent in all of your classes. We strive for perfection at our school, and are easily disappointed. All teachers and parents tell students that our school is unlike any other, and I think that most students have a hard time believing them, or at least I know I do. How is a student supposed to step back and look at the big picture, realizing that levels don't mean anything or making varsity isn't the end of the world, if it's all they've ever known?
In the article, Bruni examines the application process of two students, one being a past NT graduate. Both students were very successful in high school, in terms of grades, and were rejected from their top choice of colleges. They ended up going to their "safety" schools, and thrived at college. The article states that Peter Hart, NT graduate, felt that he was a "very competent person" once he arrived at Indiana, one of his safety schools. To me, this is very interesting. I think our school is so competitive and I don't think it's common to feel competent in all of your classes. We strive for perfection at our school, and are easily disappointed. All teachers and parents tell students that our school is unlike any other, and I think that most students have a hard time believing them, or at least I know I do. How is a student supposed to step back and look at the big picture, realizing that levels don't mean anything or making varsity isn't the end of the world, if it's all they've ever known?
I also think it's a little unfair of Bruni to use Hart as an example for his article. After college, he quickly found a job, and is now "in graduate school — at Harvard". My biggest problem with this statement is the fact that Harvard is emphasized by being separated from the sentence. It seems that Bruni is trying to show that although he didn't go to an Ivy League for undergrad, as long as he ended up at one at some point he is "successful". But how do we define success...by having lots of money? Does going to an Ivy League school automatically mean a student will be rich when they're older? I don't think so, in fact, I believe that what you do at college is more important than what school you actually attend. But I think that's hard for us high school students to realize, especially at a place as competitive as New Trier. Don't get me wrong, I love most aspects of my school, but I think there is an added pressure to the students who attend, whether its from teachers or parents, or sometimes the worst ones, themselves.
 |
| A photo from Bruni's article |
It's hard to believe that "It's Ok" if you don't get into any of the schools you want to go to. I haven't gone through the process yet, but I find it unlikely that I will feel completely okay if I don't get in to a school I really want. Bruni states that 70-95% of applicants are declined from elite colleges every year. So how do we change our philosophy, or our parents philosophy, into believing that going to an elite school isn't crucial to our future?
Sunday, March 15, 2015
Stop the Yakking
I remember the first time I heard the words "Yik Yak". I was in Chemistry class, and someone in my class asked me if I had posted anything on the app yet. At that point in the morning I didn't know what it was, but by the time I saw my friends at lunch it was all anyone could talk about. It was all the rage until teachers found out and quickly shut it down, blocking it from the schools wifi. We had discussions in advisory, and a week or so after that first day, no one really talked about it anymore. It was old news.
While at our school Yik Yak seems to be a thing of the past, different college campuses have been experiencing what we did a year later. At Eastern Michigan University, for example, students in a lecture hall were "yakking" during a lesson and the teaching assistant showed the professor the posts about her after class, many of them rude and inappropriate. The professor went to the university officials, showing them the posts, but the officials couldn't really do anything about it in the end, since Yik Yak is anonymous. While at our school, it was easy to track down students who posted it through the schools wifi information, it's not as easy for college campuses to do the same (many use their phones wireless data instead of the school).
Yik Yak was created in 2013 with the intention of creating a different kind of social media network that wasn't based on friends or followers, and you could see others posts within a 1.5 mile radius. However, in my opinion, more bad than good has come out of the app. At our school, the biggest issue from the app was that it created anonymous cyberbullying, even more hurtful than other social media sites. Our school wasn't the only school to ban the app; many other schools and students have petitioned against the app. 78,287 people support the petition to stop Yik Yak on change.org (a petition started by a victim of the app). While the app may not be deleted, I think it should be banned in college campuses as well.
I know someone who was written about on the site, and I saw the damage it caused. I don't think it was ever used for good at our school, and although I don't have experience anywhere else, I can't imagine a school where no bullying occurred. No one should have to suffer anonymous cyberbullying; regular cyberbullying is bad enough.
While at our school Yik Yak seems to be a thing of the past, different college campuses have been experiencing what we did a year later. At Eastern Michigan University, for example, students in a lecture hall were "yakking" during a lesson and the teaching assistant showed the professor the posts about her after class, many of them rude and inappropriate. The professor went to the university officials, showing them the posts, but the officials couldn't really do anything about it in the end, since Yik Yak is anonymous. While at our school, it was easy to track down students who posted it through the schools wifi information, it's not as easy for college campuses to do the same (many use their phones wireless data instead of the school).
Yik Yak was created in 2013 with the intention of creating a different kind of social media network that wasn't based on friends or followers, and you could see others posts within a 1.5 mile radius. However, in my opinion, more bad than good has come out of the app. At our school, the biggest issue from the app was that it created anonymous cyberbullying, even more hurtful than other social media sites. Our school wasn't the only school to ban the app; many other schools and students have petitioned against the app. 78,287 people support the petition to stop Yik Yak on change.org (a petition started by a victim of the app). While the app may not be deleted, I think it should be banned in college campuses as well.
I know someone who was written about on the site, and I saw the damage it caused. I don't think it was ever used for good at our school, and although I don't have experience anywhere else, I can't imagine a school where no bullying occurred. No one should have to suffer anonymous cyberbullying; regular cyberbullying is bad enough.
Monday, March 9, 2015
Secret Email Gone Viral
Recently, newspapers have exposed that secretary of state Hillary Clinton has a private email which she has been using for her work--government work. Federal officials are supposed to use emails that are given to them, ending in ".gov", so that the government can see their activity. This information has led to questions about whether or not it is okay for government officials to have their own email, and if they should be allowed to use it for their work.
According to the NY Times, Clinton released over 55,000 pages worth of information obtained from her email. The problem, however, is that she could have deleted important information or anything she wanted to hide. Since she was the one to release certain emails, she obviously chose what to expose to the media and what to keep for herself. A personal email lets her delete certain emails as well, without the government having access to all of her emails. It's also a little dangerous to her because hackers and spies could have easily gotten into her private email, while government's emails are heavily guarded and very secure. This raises the question, should she have been able to have her own private email?
I see both sides of the argument. I realize that it was against government policy, and that it makes her seem a little more shady, but I also think she should be able to have her own email for personal information. In my opinion, even government officials should be able to have a private life separate from their work and what the media sees. I can see why she would want her own email, but I think I don't think she should have used it for her work. If she had just used her personal email for family and friends, I don't think that would have been a problem. Since she was using it for government work, however, I can see why this raises concerns about her privacy. Also, the number of pages of emails she submitted is a little surprising to me; it seems like a lot of information, which means she used that email for a lot of her work. I think this may hinder her campaign at running for president in the next presidental election, because enemies will use it to their advantage and some may not trust her. Overall, I think it was a mistake to have one and use it for her job, when it's clear that most government officals did not.
According to the NY Times, Clinton released over 55,000 pages worth of information obtained from her email. The problem, however, is that she could have deleted important information or anything she wanted to hide. Since she was the one to release certain emails, she obviously chose what to expose to the media and what to keep for herself. A personal email lets her delete certain emails as well, without the government having access to all of her emails. It's also a little dangerous to her because hackers and spies could have easily gotten into her private email, while government's emails are heavily guarded and very secure. This raises the question, should she have been able to have her own private email?
I see both sides of the argument. I realize that it was against government policy, and that it makes her seem a little more shady, but I also think she should be able to have her own email for personal information. In my opinion, even government officials should be able to have a private life separate from their work and what the media sees. I can see why she would want her own email, but I think I don't think she should have used it for her work. If she had just used her personal email for family and friends, I don't think that would have been a problem. Since she was using it for government work, however, I can see why this raises concerns about her privacy. Also, the number of pages of emails she submitted is a little surprising to me; it seems like a lot of information, which means she used that email for a lot of her work. I think this may hinder her campaign at running for president in the next presidental election, because enemies will use it to their advantage and some may not trust her. Overall, I think it was a mistake to have one and use it for her job, when it's clear that most government officals did not.
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
#NoGirlsAllowed
Welcome to the Oscars, an awards ceremony highlighting middle aged white men for their work in films this year. Just kidding...but not really. It's 2015, and females are still scarce in categories that are not Best Actress, Best Supporting Actress, or Best Dressed. Kathyrn Bigelow won the award for best director in 2010, which was the first and only time a women has won that category. This year marked the 87th Oscars, yet there has only been one female ever to take home the Oscar. Is it because there hasn't been female directors worthy of the title?
Although Selma was up for best picture, most critics say it got snubbed for the other categories, including best director. The director of Selma was Ana DuVernay, an African American female. The problem isn't that there weren't enough "Oscar winning movies" directed by females, clearly, so what is it? I can't say I know why this is still happening in 2015, but I can guess a few reasons, one being that the majority of the Academy's Board of Governors (the people who chose who gets to vote) are male. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is 94% white, as of 2012, and 77% male. Do they believe that females aren't intelligent enough to vote on the best films of the year? In my opinion, this may be the case.
However, I noticed a couple of empowering moments for women during the awards show. During Patricia Arquette's acceptance speech for supporting actress, she said (regarding women), "It’s our time to have wage equality once and for all and equal rights for women in the United States of America." She received backlash for this quote, and responded by saying she "doesn't care if people are pissed. The truth is that wage inequality adversely effects women". I think this was an important message to spread, and even though some think it might not have been the right time for this speech, it did reach millions of people. I wonder if most of her critics are females or males, because I think there would be a different reaction depending on the gender of critics.
Reese Witherspoon, an actress nominated in the Best Actress category, also shed light on how women are perceived at the awards show. While she was interviewed on the Red Carpet (social media's favorite part), she told viewers to #AskHerMore. Instead of just being asked who she was wearing and details about her appearance, she wanted to be asked about her work in her latest movie. Although I had never thought of this before she brought it up, I soon after realized how true it was. Women are always praised and questioned about what they are wearing on Red Carpets as well as tabloids and television shows (Fashion Police is dedicated to criticizing celebrities fashion). For male celebrities on red carpets, reporters might ask who they are wearing, but it's not as big of a conversation topic. They are more interested on their work in films and life outside of the wardrobe.
In the future, I hope that we look past what women are wearing and focus more on what really matters, on the inside (I know, cheesy). Hopefully Arquette and Witherspoon are just the beginning to a new kind of awards show.
Although Selma was up for best picture, most critics say it got snubbed for the other categories, including best director. The director of Selma was Ana DuVernay, an African American female. The problem isn't that there weren't enough "Oscar winning movies" directed by females, clearly, so what is it? I can't say I know why this is still happening in 2015, but I can guess a few reasons, one being that the majority of the Academy's Board of Governors (the people who chose who gets to vote) are male. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is 94% white, as of 2012, and 77% male. Do they believe that females aren't intelligent enough to vote on the best films of the year? In my opinion, this may be the case.
However, I noticed a couple of empowering moments for women during the awards show. During Patricia Arquette's acceptance speech for supporting actress, she said (regarding women), "It’s our time to have wage equality once and for all and equal rights for women in the United States of America." She received backlash for this quote, and responded by saying she "doesn't care if people are pissed. The truth is that wage inequality adversely effects women". I think this was an important message to spread, and even though some think it might not have been the right time for this speech, it did reach millions of people. I wonder if most of her critics are females or males, because I think there would be a different reaction depending on the gender of critics.
Reese Witherspoon, an actress nominated in the Best Actress category, also shed light on how women are perceived at the awards show. While she was interviewed on the Red Carpet (social media's favorite part), she told viewers to #AskHerMore. Instead of just being asked who she was wearing and details about her appearance, she wanted to be asked about her work in her latest movie. Although I had never thought of this before she brought it up, I soon after realized how true it was. Women are always praised and questioned about what they are wearing on Red Carpets as well as tabloids and television shows (Fashion Police is dedicated to criticizing celebrities fashion). For male celebrities on red carpets, reporters might ask who they are wearing, but it's not as big of a conversation topic. They are more interested on their work in films and life outside of the wardrobe.
In the future, I hope that we look past what women are wearing and focus more on what really matters, on the inside (I know, cheesy). Hopefully Arquette and Witherspoon are just the beginning to a new kind of awards show.
Sunday, February 22, 2015
Fighting Fire with Fire
While thinking about my upcoming college visit next weekend, I found an article about college campuses and guns. When I first saw the title of the article, I was a little startled; I don't usually think of those two things in the same sentence. As I read on, I was even more surprised to see that colleges are considering allowing students to carry guns on campus for self protection.
Certain colleges have been exploring the idea of allowing guns on campus as a solution to rape and other sexual assaults. The article argues that guns won't help against these crimes at all, really, because most assaults happen in social situations. I think I agree with this statement. I don't think that any student would bring their handheld gun to a party just in case they're in a bad situation--having a gun could get really bad, really fast. In my opinion, the gun is only effective if you have it physically on you at all times; you can't just leave your gun in your coat at the door. I don't think this would be a solution to sexual assault at all, even though it may intimidate sexual predators.
Carrying a gun on a college campus is banned in 41 states, however some have been pushing to change this law. There are currently eight states that allow concealed weapons on campus. I wonder why these specific states (Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah and Wisconsin) allow guns on campuses, while the majority of states don't allow it. In addition to possibly preventing sexual assault, supporters believe that it may prevent mass shootings on college campuses as well. By prevent, I mean that carrying a gun may help teachers and students to defend themselves in case of attack. Lawmakers have been discussing this bill in 10 states this year. I understand why college campuses feel like they need to ensure the safety and protection of both their students and staff, but I don't think they should use guns to solve the problem of guns. I think that colleges should first think about the kind of security they have at their school, then discuss different, less harmful and potentially very dangerous ways to help their students. For example, maybe colleges could create a mandatory self defense class for all freshman entering the school. They could also train teachers of what to do in case of danger and attack, if the school was worried about another possible school shooting. I think in order to solve the problem, we need to step away from the guns.
Do we need to fight fire with fire?
Certain colleges have been exploring the idea of allowing guns on campus as a solution to rape and other sexual assaults. The article argues that guns won't help against these crimes at all, really, because most assaults happen in social situations. I think I agree with this statement. I don't think that any student would bring their handheld gun to a party just in case they're in a bad situation--having a gun could get really bad, really fast. In my opinion, the gun is only effective if you have it physically on you at all times; you can't just leave your gun in your coat at the door. I don't think this would be a solution to sexual assault at all, even though it may intimidate sexual predators.
Carrying a gun on a college campus is banned in 41 states, however some have been pushing to change this law. There are currently eight states that allow concealed weapons on campus. I wonder why these specific states (Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah and Wisconsin) allow guns on campuses, while the majority of states don't allow it. In addition to possibly preventing sexual assault, supporters believe that it may prevent mass shootings on college campuses as well. By prevent, I mean that carrying a gun may help teachers and students to defend themselves in case of attack. Lawmakers have been discussing this bill in 10 states this year. I understand why college campuses feel like they need to ensure the safety and protection of both their students and staff, but I don't think they should use guns to solve the problem of guns. I think that colleges should first think about the kind of security they have at their school, then discuss different, less harmful and potentially very dangerous ways to help their students. For example, maybe colleges could create a mandatory self defense class for all freshman entering the school. They could also train teachers of what to do in case of danger and attack, if the school was worried about another possible school shooting. I think in order to solve the problem, we need to step away from the guns.
Do we need to fight fire with fire?
Sunday, February 8, 2015
The Lying Anchorman
What happens when the man of nightly news suddenly becomes the news? Brian Williams, arguably one of the medias best known news anchors, is faced with this problem. Recently Williams has been in the news for reporting false information about himself and his reporting in Iraq.
While in Iraq in 2003, Williams reported that he had been in a helicopter that was fired at during the war. He claimed that his helicopter had to make a crash landing after taking enemy fire, when in reality, he was not on the helicopter that had been fired at. On Wednesday, Williams apologized publicly on the news for his lie, but it was a weak apology, in my opinion. NBC has declared that they will be investigating more reports in Iraq as well as some of Williams' other work. The network will also look at his work on Hurricane Katrina, specifically.
When Americans think of the nightly news, I think the anchorman that would come to mind to most is Brian Williams. He is the man. So, I can see why there has been a lot of criticism and backlash regarding this news. Some have even questioned whether or not he should resign from the nightly news, which is a fair question in my opinion. What do we do when the man we trust to tell us the truth lies to our faces? No one knows for sure, but I guarantee every American who watches Williams feels disappointed and misguided. By making up an elaborate story to make himself look better and get more ratings, it shows that he is not the trusted news anchor we thought he was. He's not reporting for the sake of the viewers; he's doing it for the sake of his paycheck. If Williams were to resign, or get fired, it would have a huge impact on NBC. NBC averages 9.3 million viewers for the nightly broadcast, almost 1 million over ABC and 2 million for CBS. NBC has been pretty quiet regarding the issue, and I don't think they would ever fire Williams, despite the bad press. Like I said before, he is the face of the nightly news, and responsible for 9.3 million viewers, so what would they do without him?
As we all know, the media plays a huge role in our lives today. It's no wonder that viewers are so upset; they feel betrayed by someone they trusted to tell them what's going on in the world. Does this "news" change the way we might look and trust the news?
While in Iraq in 2003, Williams reported that he had been in a helicopter that was fired at during the war. He claimed that his helicopter had to make a crash landing after taking enemy fire, when in reality, he was not on the helicopter that had been fired at. On Wednesday, Williams apologized publicly on the news for his lie, but it was a weak apology, in my opinion. NBC has declared that they will be investigating more reports in Iraq as well as some of Williams' other work. The network will also look at his work on Hurricane Katrina, specifically.
When Americans think of the nightly news, I think the anchorman that would come to mind to most is Brian Williams. He is the man. So, I can see why there has been a lot of criticism and backlash regarding this news. Some have even questioned whether or not he should resign from the nightly news, which is a fair question in my opinion. What do we do when the man we trust to tell us the truth lies to our faces? No one knows for sure, but I guarantee every American who watches Williams feels disappointed and misguided. By making up an elaborate story to make himself look better and get more ratings, it shows that he is not the trusted news anchor we thought he was. He's not reporting for the sake of the viewers; he's doing it for the sake of his paycheck. If Williams were to resign, or get fired, it would have a huge impact on NBC. NBC averages 9.3 million viewers for the nightly broadcast, almost 1 million over ABC and 2 million for CBS. NBC has been pretty quiet regarding the issue, and I don't think they would ever fire Williams, despite the bad press. Like I said before, he is the face of the nightly news, and responsible for 9.3 million viewers, so what would they do without him?
As we all know, the media plays a huge role in our lives today. It's no wonder that viewers are so upset; they feel betrayed by someone they trusted to tell them what's going on in the world. Does this "news" change the way we might look and trust the news?
Monday, February 2, 2015
The Commercials: Almost as Unexpected as the Game
In my last blog post, I discussed the types of commercials I expected to see air during the Super Bowl last night. However, to my surprise, I was very wrong with my predictions to what we would see from advertisers. Although there were still some commercials about cute animals and partying, I did not see many commercials using women to sell a product. Instead of seeing the usual entertaining commercials viewers look forward to during the game, there were many serious commercials as well. Is this a step in the right direction for commercials?
Some companies, like Nationwide and NFL, decided to try and convey an important message to viewers about societal problems. Nationwide's commercial about the young boy who will never grow up took a turn for the worse when he exclaimed the reason was because he died in an accident. Many viewers found this commercial extremely upsetting and dark for the Super Bowl, and Nationwide responded to the comments by saying, "We want to build awareness of an issue that is near and dear to all of us--the safety and well being of our children." Preventable injuries in the home are the leading cause of death for young children in America, which is surprising to me. I didn't really think of household accidents as being such a problem for youths, so I guess Nationwide did it's job in raising awareness for a cause for me at least. However, I agree with others in that it is a dark commercial for what should be a fun evening. I think they are raising an important point and discussion, especially since over 114.4 million viewers tuned in last night (a new record), but I'm just not sure if the Super Bowl was the right time for the commercial.
The NFL also decided to air a commercial raising awareness to domestic violence. To me, this was really surprising and ironic. The league has been criticized for its handling of the Ray Rice case earlier in the season, especially for it's lack in punishment, so they decided it would be good publicity for their league to make a commercial preventing domestic violence. I have nothing wrong with a commercial raising awareness to a problem that has been very prevalent in our society recently, but I don't think the NFL made it for the right reasons. I think the league was trying to enhance their image instead of really try to make a commercial for stopping domestic violence.
As I mentioned earlier, I really did not see many commercials using women to sell a product, which I believe is a step in the right direction for advertisers. I think the advertisers did a lot of things right, even if the commercials weren't as funny as usual. The commercial "Like A Girl" by Always was in my opinion the best one aired. I think the company conveyed an important message and it made me really think about the phrase "like a girl". Overall, I think this was a surprising Super Bowl for all viewers, at least in the commercial department.
Some companies, like Nationwide and NFL, decided to try and convey an important message to viewers about societal problems. Nationwide's commercial about the young boy who will never grow up took a turn for the worse when he exclaimed the reason was because he died in an accident. Many viewers found this commercial extremely upsetting and dark for the Super Bowl, and Nationwide responded to the comments by saying, "We want to build awareness of an issue that is near and dear to all of us--the safety and well being of our children." Preventable injuries in the home are the leading cause of death for young children in America, which is surprising to me. I didn't really think of household accidents as being such a problem for youths, so I guess Nationwide did it's job in raising awareness for a cause for me at least. However, I agree with others in that it is a dark commercial for what should be a fun evening. I think they are raising an important point and discussion, especially since over 114.4 million viewers tuned in last night (a new record), but I'm just not sure if the Super Bowl was the right time for the commercial.
The NFL also decided to air a commercial raising awareness to domestic violence. To me, this was really surprising and ironic. The league has been criticized for its handling of the Ray Rice case earlier in the season, especially for it's lack in punishment, so they decided it would be good publicity for their league to make a commercial preventing domestic violence. I have nothing wrong with a commercial raising awareness to a problem that has been very prevalent in our society recently, but I don't think the NFL made it for the right reasons. I think the league was trying to enhance their image instead of really try to make a commercial for stopping domestic violence.
As I mentioned earlier, I really did not see many commercials using women to sell a product, which I believe is a step in the right direction for advertisers. I think the advertisers did a lot of things right, even if the commercials weren't as funny as usual. The commercial "Like A Girl" by Always was in my opinion the best one aired. I think the company conveyed an important message and it made me really think about the phrase "like a girl". Overall, I think this was a surprising Super Bowl for all viewers, at least in the commercial department.
Sunday, February 1, 2015
#CommercialBowlSunday
It's every sports fan's favorite day of the year: Super Bowl Sunday. Even if you don't watch football games every week, like my brothers do, this special sunday is still an event that even non-football fans enjoy. Whether it's the half-time show, the puppy bowl, or the actual game itself, there is one thing that almost everyone loves--the commercials. While the majority of television viewers would complain about commercials interrupting their favorite shows every other day of the year, viewers can't wait to watch them today. And why is that? Maybe because commercials are priced at the low cost of $4.5 million dollars per 30 seconds.
$4.5 million dollars per 30 seconds of an advertisement equals $150,000 per second of airtime. That's much more than the average salary one makes per year. Granted, these are huge industries that are airing these commercials, but that is still a lot of money for one ad. Why do companies pay this much for such a little amount of time? Easy answer: the viewers. Over 100 million Americans tune in to watch the game, and without fast forward options available while watching live, viewers are forced to watch.
With lots of money comes lots of power for these advertisers. How they chose to use their airtime, however, is disappointing. We all know the types of commercials that will be on this year: the cute kids and animals, the partying, the cameos from famous actors, and of course the sexual ones. Women are used to sell products in media constantly, as we see on television everyday, and the commercials during the super bowl are no exception. In fact, numerous commercials get banned before they even air! Companies spend huge amounts of money making these elaborate and inappropriate ads, pushing the limits, yet the commercials don't even make it because they are "too sexual". So, some advertisers go the different role, the opposite role for women: the wife. We see them in the kitchen, cooking or cleaning, getting ready for their husband's football party. In an SNL clip recently aired, they spoof on these types of commercials.
This clip obviously takes it to a new level, but I still think it is relevant to commercials we see today. It startles me how even in 2015 we still have commercials where women are either being used as sexual objects or house keepers. Will we ever find a new role for women in commercials?
$4.5 million dollars per 30 seconds of an advertisement equals $150,000 per second of airtime. That's much more than the average salary one makes per year. Granted, these are huge industries that are airing these commercials, but that is still a lot of money for one ad. Why do companies pay this much for such a little amount of time? Easy answer: the viewers. Over 100 million Americans tune in to watch the game, and without fast forward options available while watching live, viewers are forced to watch.
With lots of money comes lots of power for these advertisers. How they chose to use their airtime, however, is disappointing. We all know the types of commercials that will be on this year: the cute kids and animals, the partying, the cameos from famous actors, and of course the sexual ones. Women are used to sell products in media constantly, as we see on television everyday, and the commercials during the super bowl are no exception. In fact, numerous commercials get banned before they even air! Companies spend huge amounts of money making these elaborate and inappropriate ads, pushing the limits, yet the commercials don't even make it because they are "too sexual". So, some advertisers go the different role, the opposite role for women: the wife. We see them in the kitchen, cooking or cleaning, getting ready for their husband's football party. In an SNL clip recently aired, they spoof on these types of commercials.
This clip obviously takes it to a new level, but I still think it is relevant to commercials we see today. It startles me how even in 2015 we still have commercials where women are either being used as sexual objects or house keepers. Will we ever find a new role for women in commercials?
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Facebook Likes Could Potentially Make or Break You
"Be careful with what you post online" is a common phrase I hear from my parents, teachers, employers--basically all adults I encounter in my life. I think we hear this phrase extremely often in our world today, since social media is such a big influence in our lives. Seniors even change their names on Facebook so colleges can't find them (or so they think). But now, posting may not be the only thing that can determine your job or college; your likes can have a big impact as well.
In a recent study, researchers used a computer model to see if they could read someones personality based on their Facebook likes. They had their test subjects fill out personality reports on themselves to test out the accuracy of the machines, and sure enough, the computers filed very accurate matches to a subject's personality. In addition to predicting one's personality, they could also predict the average life outcome of that person, like health or political views. Researchers argue that this could potentially be the future of recruitment for companies.
I'm not sure how I feel about this new tactic for hiring processes. I agree that employers should be able to know a lot of information about the person they are potentially hiring, but I don't know if stalking them on Facebook is the right way to do that. If someone likes a lot of rap music, for example, does that reflect a certain way on their personality or work ethic? I listen to songs with explicit lyrics, but that doesn't mean I swear all the time. I believe that the computer programs really work, if fed enough likes, to gauge a person's personality, but I still think face to face interviews and conversations are the way to go. People make mistakes all the time. I don't think one "like" should determine one's fate, and I don't think employers should judge potential employees based on their personal lives.
Thursday, January 15, 2015
"Rich People Problems"
In American Studies, we frequently discuss our community around us and how we differ from the rest of the world. We live in the "bubble", and live in an affluent community. At our school, there is thousands of students filled with anxiety and stress, especially now, right before finals week. We compete, we struggle, and we definitely don't always feel like we're in the top one percent. So when I was flipping through the news and saw an article titled "Growing Up on Easy Street Has Its Own Dangers", I decided to read on.
This article starts with the story of a 30-year-old man who killed his father after a disagreement on the allowance he was given. My first reaction: wow, that guy must be pretty crazy. My second reaction: what thirty year old still receives an allowance from his parents? I asked my parents if they would think about giving me an allowance when I'm thirty, and they laughed in my face. I found the second part of the article more interesting than that story, however, because it talked about how studies have shown that children from affluent families often have "higher rates of depression and anxiety and elevated levels of substance abuse and certain delinquent behaviors". This is shocking to me; you would think that it would be the exact opposite! Children from affluent families, who live in suburbs probably similar to ours, have more resources and opportunities, in my opinion, than others of poorer communities. So why is it that they are the ones that fall victim to these mental disorders?
Suniya Luther, a psychologist, supported this idea by data from low-income families compared to high-income families. Teenagers of high income families have more pocket money, therefore money to spend on drugs and alcohol, and usually have the means of getting to places where they can buy it from. After reading this study, I thought about the argument more and understood her idea. However, I don't agree with this completely because I think that there are different kinds of stress and mental disorders that face low-income and high-income families. The kids come from completely different backgrounds, so I don't think it's easy to compare the two. I definitely don't think it's okay to say that children coming from wealthy families don't have any problems compared to others. The phrase "money buys happiness" is false; everyone has problems, and money isn't the driving variable that causes one to have more or less problems. I feel like the "rich kids" usually get made fun of the most for their "false" problems, whether it's on social media or in real life. Why do you think children from wealthy families are seen to have smaller problems in comparison to those from poorer families?
This article starts with the story of a 30-year-old man who killed his father after a disagreement on the allowance he was given. My first reaction: wow, that guy must be pretty crazy. My second reaction: what thirty year old still receives an allowance from his parents? I asked my parents if they would think about giving me an allowance when I'm thirty, and they laughed in my face. I found the second part of the article more interesting than that story, however, because it talked about how studies have shown that children from affluent families often have "higher rates of depression and anxiety and elevated levels of substance abuse and certain delinquent behaviors". This is shocking to me; you would think that it would be the exact opposite! Children from affluent families, who live in suburbs probably similar to ours, have more resources and opportunities, in my opinion, than others of poorer communities. So why is it that they are the ones that fall victim to these mental disorders?
Suniya Luther, a psychologist, supported this idea by data from low-income families compared to high-income families. Teenagers of high income families have more pocket money, therefore money to spend on drugs and alcohol, and usually have the means of getting to places where they can buy it from. After reading this study, I thought about the argument more and understood her idea. However, I don't agree with this completely because I think that there are different kinds of stress and mental disorders that face low-income and high-income families. The kids come from completely different backgrounds, so I don't think it's easy to compare the two. I definitely don't think it's okay to say that children coming from wealthy families don't have any problems compared to others. The phrase "money buys happiness" is false; everyone has problems, and money isn't the driving variable that causes one to have more or less problems. I feel like the "rich kids" usually get made fun of the most for their "false" problems, whether it's on social media or in real life. Why do you think children from wealthy families are seen to have smaller problems in comparison to those from poorer families?
Wednesday, January 7, 2015
Robot Cars
When I was going to pick up my brother last night, my car made a mini doughnut on the street due to the enormous amount of ice on the roads. I'm sure most people in the area have been experiencing car difficulties since it seems like we might be having our second polar vortex in two years. This morning, I found an interesting article about the concept of self-driven cars. Sorry, what?
Recently, Audi released an experimental A7 Sedan equipped with piloted driving capabilities. They sent journalists to test out these self-driven cars by having them travel 550 miles, from Silicon Valley to Las Vegas. The process included a day of training before even getting in a car, resulting in the journalist's receiving their licenses for driving an autonomous vehicle. One journalist reflected on the experience saying it was "mundane, almost boring" in his reflection on the trip. He also remarked that if it didn't have the Audi Piloted Driving on the side of the car, one would never know that it in fact was that--people would think of it as just another car. The car drives smoothly, keeps you square in the lane, and speeds up when necessary; everything you would want your car to do if you were the one driving it. In order to gain control of the car again, all you have to do is grab the steering wheel or tap the brake. This seems great and all, but what's the point? Why do we need a car to drive itself, what's the benefit?
It turns out that Audi isn't the only car company discussing the possibility of making a self-driven car. Google started the trend, creating a car without a steering wheel even, and other companies are deciding whether or not to try and compete. It seems as though none of the companies, even Audi, necessarily want to produce a robot car, but none want to fall behind technologically to Google either. However, Toyota says they refuse to fall victim to this idea: "Toyota firmly says that computer technology exists to compensate for the driver's incompetence; not accommodate his desire to be doing something else". I think Toyota actually makes a good point here; if the reason for making this driverless car is to multitask, then I don't think it's safe or necessary.
Many driving injuries result from drivers not paying attention to what they're doing. Either they're talking on the phone, texting, applying makeup, or other simple tasks that they believe they can do while safely driving. The reality is, this leads to dangerous behavior. The point is, I don't see why we should endorse this. By making a car that is basically hands-free, it would cause drivers to be more careless on the roads, even if the technology is so good that they don't need to be physically steering. Drivers still need to be aware and alert while driving, or else there will be even more accidents than there are today. I don't know if this trend will become larger and more companies will start making driverless cars, but I don't think it would be a good idea.
In one of the Back to the Future movies, they said in 2015 there would be hover cars. Maybe the movie wasn't so off after all. What do you think? Should there be driverless cars on the roads?
Recently, Audi released an experimental A7 Sedan equipped with piloted driving capabilities. They sent journalists to test out these self-driven cars by having them travel 550 miles, from Silicon Valley to Las Vegas. The process included a day of training before even getting in a car, resulting in the journalist's receiving their licenses for driving an autonomous vehicle. One journalist reflected on the experience saying it was "mundane, almost boring" in his reflection on the trip. He also remarked that if it didn't have the Audi Piloted Driving on the side of the car, one would never know that it in fact was that--people would think of it as just another car. The car drives smoothly, keeps you square in the lane, and speeds up when necessary; everything you would want your car to do if you were the one driving it. In order to gain control of the car again, all you have to do is grab the steering wheel or tap the brake. This seems great and all, but what's the point? Why do we need a car to drive itself, what's the benefit?
It turns out that Audi isn't the only car company discussing the possibility of making a self-driven car. Google started the trend, creating a car without a steering wheel even, and other companies are deciding whether or not to try and compete. It seems as though none of the companies, even Audi, necessarily want to produce a robot car, but none want to fall behind technologically to Google either. However, Toyota says they refuse to fall victim to this idea: "Toyota firmly says that computer technology exists to compensate for the driver's incompetence; not accommodate his desire to be doing something else". I think Toyota actually makes a good point here; if the reason for making this driverless car is to multitask, then I don't think it's safe or necessary.
Many driving injuries result from drivers not paying attention to what they're doing. Either they're talking on the phone, texting, applying makeup, or other simple tasks that they believe they can do while safely driving. The reality is, this leads to dangerous behavior. The point is, I don't see why we should endorse this. By making a car that is basically hands-free, it would cause drivers to be more careless on the roads, even if the technology is so good that they don't need to be physically steering. Drivers still need to be aware and alert while driving, or else there will be even more accidents than there are today. I don't know if this trend will become larger and more companies will start making driverless cars, but I don't think it would be a good idea.
In one of the Back to the Future movies, they said in 2015 there would be hover cars. Maybe the movie wasn't so off after all. What do you think? Should there be driverless cars on the roads?
Sunday, January 4, 2015
"Entertainment" Today
Over winter break, I watched a lot of television. And by television, I mean I watched Grey's Anatomy on Netflix for hours at a time. Before Grey's, I had never watched a hospital based television show in my life, but now I could see myself watching another one once I finish it. This is why, when I was scanning the news over the weekend, an article about NY Med (a medical documentary television show filmed in New York Presbyterian Hospital in New York City) caught my eye.
NY Med is a series and follow-up of sister shows like Hopkins and Boston Med, all real-life footage and stories about patients that enter their hospitals. It aired in 2012 and has had two seasons so far. The show has had mixed reviews, with medical groups worrying about patients privacy. There have been many laws and rules set by hospitals to protect their patients, however the AMA (American Medical Association) has worried that shows like NY Med potentially exploit patients and their families who aren't typically in the position to make decisions on whether or not they are allowed to be filmed. Terence Wrong, executive producer of NY Med, believes that the show inspires potential future doctors and educates the public on doctor's work. Like I said before, I have witnessed many surgeries and traumas before on the screen, but that doesn't make me more inclined to be a surgeon at all.
The article tells the story of a family who was featured on NY Med without their consent. Mark Chanko, Anita Chanko's husband, died in 2011 when hit by a garbage truck while crossing the street. Anita and her family were immediately rushed to NY Presbyterian Hospital where he had been brought to say their goodbyes. Little did they know that he was being filmed during his traumatic death. When Anita was watching the show months later, she immediately recognized her husbands voice and knew it was his story they were showing, without asking her if they were allowed to film.
The family suffered greatly after hearing this news and having to relive Mark's death, so they filed complaints against the hospital and television show. In 2013, New York ruled that the hospital had violated Chanko's rights, but when Chanko's family sued the show, doctor, and hospital, they were dismissed. In court, the show claimed that since NY Med is "produced by it's news division", it's protected by the first amendment. The NY Presbyterian hospital argued that the state did not have any privacy rights against this case, and that Chanko's privacy rights ended when he passed. So basically when our loved ones die they lose all their rights? I don't think thats right at all.
In my opinion, I think it was wrong to exploit Mark Chanko and his family on national television without their consent. Even though they blurred out his face and made him "unrecognizable", the show should have asked before airing. I think this also dives deeper into our countries privacy laws. We should feel safe and protected with regards to our privacy, but I think this show may expose patients when they are in critical conditions and possibly can't make these decisions. They shouldn't have to wonder if someone is filming them during surgery; I know I wouldn't want someone filming my intestines. And who wants to see that? Why do we want to watch people suffering in hospitals? This relates back to my previous blog post about America's obsession with death and murder; it seems like that is all we hear and watch on the news. How is this show considered entertainment?
NY Med is a series and follow-up of sister shows like Hopkins and Boston Med, all real-life footage and stories about patients that enter their hospitals. It aired in 2012 and has had two seasons so far. The show has had mixed reviews, with medical groups worrying about patients privacy. There have been many laws and rules set by hospitals to protect their patients, however the AMA (American Medical Association) has worried that shows like NY Med potentially exploit patients and their families who aren't typically in the position to make decisions on whether or not they are allowed to be filmed. Terence Wrong, executive producer of NY Med, believes that the show inspires potential future doctors and educates the public on doctor's work. Like I said before, I have witnessed many surgeries and traumas before on the screen, but that doesn't make me more inclined to be a surgeon at all.
 |
| A cameraman recording a surgery for NY Med |
The family suffered greatly after hearing this news and having to relive Mark's death, so they filed complaints against the hospital and television show. In 2013, New York ruled that the hospital had violated Chanko's rights, but when Chanko's family sued the show, doctor, and hospital, they were dismissed. In court, the show claimed that since NY Med is "produced by it's news division", it's protected by the first amendment. The NY Presbyterian hospital argued that the state did not have any privacy rights against this case, and that Chanko's privacy rights ended when he passed. So basically when our loved ones die they lose all their rights? I don't think thats right at all.
In my opinion, I think it was wrong to exploit Mark Chanko and his family on national television without their consent. Even though they blurred out his face and made him "unrecognizable", the show should have asked before airing. I think this also dives deeper into our countries privacy laws. We should feel safe and protected with regards to our privacy, but I think this show may expose patients when they are in critical conditions and possibly can't make these decisions. They shouldn't have to wonder if someone is filming them during surgery; I know I wouldn't want someone filming my intestines. And who wants to see that? Why do we want to watch people suffering in hospitals? This relates back to my previous blog post about America's obsession with death and murder; it seems like that is all we hear and watch on the news. How is this show considered entertainment?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)