Blogging has been an interesting experience. When I first started, I was apprehensive. I did not want my thoughts on display for the world to see. I was afraid future employers, friends, and strangers of all kinds would take offense to my opinions, or that I would say something idiotic and regret it later. As I continued blogging and began participating in class, I started to feel more open about sharing my opinions. I realized that if I truly become knowledgeable in a subject area I was plenty comfortable sharing my thoughts. I had never done so not because I was neutral on every issue, but because I was too ignorant and too shy to take a public side.
Blogging and Issues class in general were good choices for me. I now know how to follow something I am passionate about, become knowledgeable beyond talking points, take a stand, and then argue my side with more than just opinions; with strong proof and meaningful contentions. By doing this, I finally feel like I am taking advantage of my right to free speech, a right that many still do not possess. This was the feeling the founding fathers must have wanted citizens of the United States to have: one of comfort and pride in one's opinions, and a freedom from fear when sharing them openly.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
After Dolly: A Review
Ian Wilmut's After Dolly: The Uses and Misuses of Human Cloning is a wealth of information presented as wittily and with as much enthusiasm as possible. Wilmut argues for advancement in cellular biology, cloning, and embryonic studies (among countless others), while trying to calm the misinformed masses who fear their replacement, or worse, their superior "self" is just around the scientific corner.
That being said, After Dolly is a book on stem cell research and Ian Wilmut's involvement with and thoughts on the subject. Parts of the book are clever and even entertaining (such as the section on dolly's fame) and others thought provoking and intriguing (such as the early section on exact human clone justifications or the later chapter on genetic diagnostics and therapy). On the other hand, parts of the book are simply dull.
For an introduction to the issue and the science behind it, the book was a good choice. I would recommend it to anyone who must research stem cells or cloning or development of embryonic studies. I would also recommend it to anyone with a genuine fascination with the topic as Wilmut makes it easily digestible and amusing along the way. That being said, if you do not particularly hold an interest in the issues of cloning, stem cell research, etc. After Dolly could be a long and grueling read, as it was for me. While I enjoyed reading about the controversies, media, and issues surrounding scientific advancement, the actual stories of this that and the other scientist, cell or mammal were less than enthralling. The resounding message, however, is one that I believe Americans ought to take to heart. Close to the end of the book, Wilmut phrases his argument the most eloquently. He states that "it is critical that we do not allow our fear of misuse of new knowledge to curb our exuberant creativity" (274). In other words, we ought not let the potential for things to go wrong from discouraging innovation and progress. This is a lesson not confined to the realm of scientific research and controversy, but it certainly applies.
While the pursuit of knowledge in this field is bound to lead (and already has lead to) serious ethical concerns, it is possible that the benefits to future generations will outweigh our growing sense of paranoia.
That being said, After Dolly is a book on stem cell research and Ian Wilmut's involvement with and thoughts on the subject. Parts of the book are clever and even entertaining (such as the section on dolly's fame) and others thought provoking and intriguing (such as the early section on exact human clone justifications or the later chapter on genetic diagnostics and therapy). On the other hand, parts of the book are simply dull.
For an introduction to the issue and the science behind it, the book was a good choice. I would recommend it to anyone who must research stem cells or cloning or development of embryonic studies. I would also recommend it to anyone with a genuine fascination with the topic as Wilmut makes it easily digestible and amusing along the way. That being said, if you do not particularly hold an interest in the issues of cloning, stem cell research, etc. After Dolly could be a long and grueling read, as it was for me. While I enjoyed reading about the controversies, media, and issues surrounding scientific advancement, the actual stories of this that and the other scientist, cell or mammal were less than enthralling. The resounding message, however, is one that I believe Americans ought to take to heart. Close to the end of the book, Wilmut phrases his argument the most eloquently. He states that "it is critical that we do not allow our fear of misuse of new knowledge to curb our exuberant creativity" (274). In other words, we ought not let the potential for things to go wrong from discouraging innovation and progress. This is a lesson not confined to the realm of scientific research and controversy, but it certainly applies.
While the pursuit of knowledge in this field is bound to lead (and already has lead to) serious ethical concerns, it is possible that the benefits to future generations will outweigh our growing sense of paranoia.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Time Enough At Last
Though I do love the old Rod Serling Twilight Zones, the title is about all this post has in connection with them. It seemed fitting, though, as I'd like to talk about reading.
Having finally finished Dante's Inferno (part 1 of the three part Divine Comedy), I feel two things: first is accomplishment, I did finish the book, and it was as incredible as I thought it would be. (Seriously, if you have a few days, sit down and read the Inferno, it's downright cool). Second is a kind of disappointment. It's almost the end of the school year for me, and I've only read one book that wasn't required by school.
It seems between the extracurriculars, the college apps, the music and the precious time with friends and family, we've neglected to leave time for reading.
Curling up with a good book is comforting, it's escapism at it's finest with the added bonus of a larger vocabulary and a solid exercise in imagination. So why don't we read anymore? That's easy, because we have no time. I miss the days in elementary/middle school (gee, never thought I'd say that!) when there was time to simply plop down on a library bean-bag and read something fun.
Part of the joy of summer, for me, is having, at last, enough time to get to the things I miss during the school year; things like travel, quality time with friends and family, a healthy input of vitamin D, and catching up on my reading. But summer is still a few weeks away, so until then, I'll keep my list. . .
Next up: The rest of the Hunger Games trilogy, and then more classics! Any recommendations?
Having finally finished Dante's Inferno (part 1 of the three part Divine Comedy), I feel two things: first is accomplishment, I did finish the book, and it was as incredible as I thought it would be. (Seriously, if you have a few days, sit down and read the Inferno, it's downright cool). Second is a kind of disappointment. It's almost the end of the school year for me, and I've only read one book that wasn't required by school.
It seems between the extracurriculars, the college apps, the music and the precious time with friends and family, we've neglected to leave time for reading.
Curling up with a good book is comforting, it's escapism at it's finest with the added bonus of a larger vocabulary and a solid exercise in imagination. So why don't we read anymore? That's easy, because we have no time. I miss the days in elementary/middle school (gee, never thought I'd say that!) when there was time to simply plop down on a library bean-bag and read something fun.
Part of the joy of summer, for me, is having, at last, enough time to get to the things I miss during the school year; things like travel, quality time with friends and family, a healthy input of vitamin D, and catching up on my reading. But summer is still a few weeks away, so until then, I'll keep my list. . .
Next up: The rest of the Hunger Games trilogy, and then more classics! Any recommendations?
Friday, May 4, 2012
Peter and The Wolf
Orchestra rehearsals these days have taken an interesting turn as we play Sergei Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf. Not your ordinary symphonic work, Peter and the Wolf is a piece intended expressly for young listeners, mainly small children. Unlike a more conventional composition, Prokofiev's piece actually tells a story beyond that of the music.
The characters are the different instruments:
Peter: Violin
Grandfather: Bassoon
Bird: Flute (That's me)
Wolf: Horn
Duck: Oboe
Cat: Clarinet
Hunters: Trumpet
Narrator: Conductor
The piece goes along like this:
The conductor will introduce the scene, saying something like "Peter played in the meadow" and then will cue the violins, playing Peter's theme sprightly and cheerily. Or perhaps, "the bird and the duck argued" and the oboe and flute will have a duet. The listener can follow each scene by not only listening to the conductor, but by hearing the different qualities of each of the characters (expressed by the timbre of the instruments) as they interact within the music.
The general plot is the story of Peter, who defies his grumpy old grandfather by playing in the meadow and proclaiming himself "not afraid of wolves." Peter interacts with the wildlife around him, listening to the bird, letting the duck out of the gate accidentally, watching the cat stalk the bird and duck etc. But meanwhile, the hungry wolf is prowling the area, ready to snatch up Peter and his friends...
The whole process reminds me of sitting in the back of my parent's sedan, listening to Peter and the Wolf of cassette tape (remember those?). The parts are wicked, and so is the nostalgia.
Curious? Come see and hear the DHS Orchestra play Peter and the Wolf on Thursday, May 17, 2012 in the auditorium. This concert is to be broadcast on the radio as well! Tune in to Chicago's classical station WFMT 98.7 over the summer to hear the Prokofiev and more!
The characters are the different instruments:
Peter: Violin
Grandfather: Bassoon
Bird: Flute (That's me)
Wolf: Horn
Duck: Oboe
Cat: Clarinet
Hunters: Trumpet
Narrator: Conductor
The piece goes along like this:
The conductor will introduce the scene, saying something like "Peter played in the meadow" and then will cue the violins, playing Peter's theme sprightly and cheerily. Or perhaps, "the bird and the duck argued" and the oboe and flute will have a duet. The listener can follow each scene by not only listening to the conductor, but by hearing the different qualities of each of the characters (expressed by the timbre of the instruments) as they interact within the music.
The general plot is the story of Peter, who defies his grumpy old grandfather by playing in the meadow and proclaiming himself "not afraid of wolves." Peter interacts with the wildlife around him, listening to the bird, letting the duck out of the gate accidentally, watching the cat stalk the bird and duck etc. But meanwhile, the hungry wolf is prowling the area, ready to snatch up Peter and his friends...
The whole process reminds me of sitting in the back of my parent's sedan, listening to Peter and the Wolf of cassette tape (remember those?). The parts are wicked, and so is the nostalgia.
Curious? Come see and hear the DHS Orchestra play Peter and the Wolf on Thursday, May 17, 2012 in the auditorium. This concert is to be broadcast on the radio as well! Tune in to Chicago's classical station WFMT 98.7 over the summer to hear the Prokofiev and more!
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
After Dolly: The Pharmer in the Dell
No, that's not a typo you see up there in the title of this post, pharming actually exists. For eons humanity has been selecting genetic attributes in creatures both companionable and consumable to make them more ideal for their purposes in our lives. Wilmut uses the example of dogs, having originated as wolves which now look and act far less menacing in many cases. How the great carnivorous hunter became dainty and totable (or even simply a more friendly or more athletic) breed is all genetic manipulation over generations of breeding for specific trait continuation.
On a much more precise and timely scale is modern genetic manipulation of animals, in this case livestock. Only this time we were not breeding for behavior, but for products. Wilmut discusses how he and his team "wanted to do more than merely improve the performance of farmyard animals. The idea was to give these animals an entirely novel role. . ." (51). From that wish developed the pharming industry. Which, as the name suggests, is a mash-up of pharmaceuticals and farming. In plainer terms, animals as drug factories. By manipulating certain genes (the ability took years and years of trial and error and technological advances to develop) we can, essentially, program animals to make what we need or more of what we can already obtain naturally in the way of pharmaceuticals. For example, pharmed animals can make "the human proteins factor VIII and factor IX to treat hemophilia [a disease that inhibits vital blood clotting] and the enzyme AAT. . . used to treat lung disorders such as cystic fibrosis" (51).
One of the first pharmed animals was Tracy, another famous sheep, who's "milk was rich in the human protein AAT. . . in every liter she made 35 grams" (54).
While the ethical ramifications of genetic tinkering for drugs are suspect (who knows what the animals endure with abnormal genes and if they are affected or unchanged) I must agree with Wilmut that the idea seems simple and effective. It poses little difference from the more archaic forms of genetic manipulation with the exceptions being that it is more accurate and possibly more beneficial today. Stem cell and genetic research is not the work of evil geniuses with a "God complex" but the work of everyday people looking to improve the health and well-being of others. Whatever your opinions on animal drug testing, it cannot be denied that research into stem cells and genetics in general have lead to valuable breakthroughs and have real significance for humanity.
On a much more precise and timely scale is modern genetic manipulation of animals, in this case livestock. Only this time we were not breeding for behavior, but for products. Wilmut discusses how he and his team "wanted to do more than merely improve the performance of farmyard animals. The idea was to give these animals an entirely novel role. . ." (51). From that wish developed the pharming industry. Which, as the name suggests, is a mash-up of pharmaceuticals and farming. In plainer terms, animals as drug factories. By manipulating certain genes (the ability took years and years of trial and error and technological advances to develop) we can, essentially, program animals to make what we need or more of what we can already obtain naturally in the way of pharmaceuticals. For example, pharmed animals can make "the human proteins factor VIII and factor IX to treat hemophilia [a disease that inhibits vital blood clotting] and the enzyme AAT. . . used to treat lung disorders such as cystic fibrosis" (51).
One of the first pharmed animals was Tracy, another famous sheep, who's "milk was rich in the human protein AAT. . . in every liter she made 35 grams" (54).
While the ethical ramifications of genetic tinkering for drugs are suspect (who knows what the animals endure with abnormal genes and if they are affected or unchanged) I must agree with Wilmut that the idea seems simple and effective. It poses little difference from the more archaic forms of genetic manipulation with the exceptions being that it is more accurate and possibly more beneficial today. Stem cell and genetic research is not the work of evil geniuses with a "God complex" but the work of everyday people looking to improve the health and well-being of others. Whatever your opinions on animal drug testing, it cannot be denied that research into stem cells and genetics in general have lead to valuable breakthroughs and have real significance for humanity.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
After Dolly: Rationalizing The Family Clone
Human cloning is not yet available, but we are not far from a time when cloning human beings could be possible. The question is, what are the ramifications (both ethical and scientific) and is it worth it? Wilmut cites three common justifications for the pursuit of human cloning, and goes on to explain the validity (or lack thereof) of each. "The first is to overcome infertility, the second is to 'bring back' a dead child, the third is to duplicate someone of astonishing ability or talent- to give the world another Mozart, Curie, or Einstein" (36).
In answer to the first point, it may not be worth the trouble. IVF (in-vitro fertalization) has given many an alternative to infertility, and new research outside of cloning is making progress. The second and third justifications: bringing back the dead and re-creating the exceptional are, unfortunately, out of our reach, and it is likely they will never be within the grasp of science.
When looking at the prospect of cloning specific persons, one has to look to real-life examples for information. As man-made clones are impossible to observe (there are none), one has to look at "natural clones" for context. The closest thing to a clone? An identical twin. But even identical twins are not exactly identical, are not clones. "Small variations in cell division. . .may slightly alter the appearance of one twin to another" likewise, nurture, innate personality, and environment play a role in how children develop (42). In reality, no twin is identical. The same goes for potential clones, but with added pressure.
"In an attempt to undo their terrible loss, some parents might want to clone their dead child from one of the infant's cells. . . drawing on the example of bereaved parents who try to deal with the loss by having another child in the hope that the new child would be a replacement for the one who died" (40). While cloning a dead child may seem like a good idea, the results would be heartbreaking, not only for the parents but for the clone. A person can never be truly reproduced like a document or photocopy. Genes are not enough. Nature, the surroundings, the moods around them, the times, the politics, the way life is will always be different, and so they will always be different. A clone could never "fill the shoes of the ghost" (40). They would either develop into their own person, or be miserable trying to be "a living memorial to the dead" (40). This approach is both unethical and sad, for all involved the emotional trauma has no rewards.
Another issue posed for the possibility of cloned persons (children or otherwise) is the "original" or "parent" donor. A clone would face expectations and bias from caregivers, making life more difficult. This is best illustrated by the real example of step-children, who are not biologically related to both parents. "Stepparents tend to invest less time and effort in the offspring from their partner's previous marriage than they do with their own children. . . the genetic parent of a clone may feel the child is 'mine' rather than 'ours'" (39). Children could receive less attention from parents because they are not a copy of that parent, the narcissism unfulfilled, the clone could be ignored or mistreated. On the topic of narcissism, the actual donor, the clone's original could be upset by the inconsistencies in their "copy" the same way parents get upset when their children fail to live up to their idea of what their kids should be. A clone in this postition, trying to develop their personality and life would suffer because the "parent or sibling" would feel "entitled to expect a clone to be just like him or his ideal" (39).
While the scientific community and citizenry could expect great rewards from cloning as far as progress in medicine and treatment of disease (which raises other ethical concerns that I'll adress in later posts), it appears the purley emotional desires for cloning, replication, narcissism, and replacement would be unethical to pursue, and impossible to satisfy.
In answer to the first point, it may not be worth the trouble. IVF (in-vitro fertalization) has given many an alternative to infertility, and new research outside of cloning is making progress. The second and third justifications: bringing back the dead and re-creating the exceptional are, unfortunately, out of our reach, and it is likely they will never be within the grasp of science.
When looking at the prospect of cloning specific persons, one has to look to real-life examples for information. As man-made clones are impossible to observe (there are none), one has to look at "natural clones" for context. The closest thing to a clone? An identical twin. But even identical twins are not exactly identical, are not clones. "Small variations in cell division. . .may slightly alter the appearance of one twin to another" likewise, nurture, innate personality, and environment play a role in how children develop (42). In reality, no twin is identical. The same goes for potential clones, but with added pressure.
"In an attempt to undo their terrible loss, some parents might want to clone their dead child from one of the infant's cells. . . drawing on the example of bereaved parents who try to deal with the loss by having another child in the hope that the new child would be a replacement for the one who died" (40). While cloning a dead child may seem like a good idea, the results would be heartbreaking, not only for the parents but for the clone. A person can never be truly reproduced like a document or photocopy. Genes are not enough. Nature, the surroundings, the moods around them, the times, the politics, the way life is will always be different, and so they will always be different. A clone could never "fill the shoes of the ghost" (40). They would either develop into their own person, or be miserable trying to be "a living memorial to the dead" (40). This approach is both unethical and sad, for all involved the emotional trauma has no rewards.
Another issue posed for the possibility of cloned persons (children or otherwise) is the "original" or "parent" donor. A clone would face expectations and bias from caregivers, making life more difficult. This is best illustrated by the real example of step-children, who are not biologically related to both parents. "Stepparents tend to invest less time and effort in the offspring from their partner's previous marriage than they do with their own children. . . the genetic parent of a clone may feel the child is 'mine' rather than 'ours'" (39). Children could receive less attention from parents because they are not a copy of that parent, the narcissism unfulfilled, the clone could be ignored or mistreated. On the topic of narcissism, the actual donor, the clone's original could be upset by the inconsistencies in their "copy" the same way parents get upset when their children fail to live up to their idea of what their kids should be. A clone in this postition, trying to develop their personality and life would suffer because the "parent or sibling" would feel "entitled to expect a clone to be just like him or his ideal" (39).
While the scientific community and citizenry could expect great rewards from cloning as far as progress in medicine and treatment of disease (which raises other ethical concerns that I'll adress in later posts), it appears the purley emotional desires for cloning, replication, narcissism, and replacement would be unethical to pursue, and impossible to satisfy.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Phase 5: Asleepyness
To those of you who don't know, the title references 21 Jump Street, which is probably still in theaters. It's sophmoric humor, but incredibly funny. Asleepyness is phase five of the drug the two protagonist buffoons are trying to find and eliminate. The other phases are not quite appropriate for this blog, so go see the film to find out what they are.
So, it's the Monday after prom, and so far there have been 9 kids in my gym class, 6 in my issues class, and 5 in my English class. I don't blame them for ditching. It's looking more and more attractive with each tick of the clock, frankly. It's not that I don't care about school, just the opposite, actually. But I am too tired to function. After getting no sleep on Saturday night and just a few measly hours last night, I not in a good state for learning. Things I am in the perfect state for include (but are not limited to) falling, napping, power-napping, straight-up sleeping, sprawling, lying down, and drinking water/caffinated soda (but never energy drinks: the taste and heart palpitations are icky).
Until today, I had thought senior ditch day was silly. Why couldn't kids go to school? Did they just not care? Now, I realize that people are exhausted, and to something from class at this point would be miraculous. But I didn't want to take the 3% grade hit after all my hard work these last four years.So here I am and here I'll stay, right in Phase 5, waiting for Pase 1: the giggs, when I can laugh it up with my friends and enjoy the memories that come from four years well-spent.
So, it's the Monday after prom, and so far there have been 9 kids in my gym class, 6 in my issues class, and 5 in my English class. I don't blame them for ditching. It's looking more and more attractive with each tick of the clock, frankly. It's not that I don't care about school, just the opposite, actually. But I am too tired to function. After getting no sleep on Saturday night and just a few measly hours last night, I not in a good state for learning. Things I am in the perfect state for include (but are not limited to) falling, napping, power-napping, straight-up sleeping, sprawling, lying down, and drinking water/caffinated soda (but never energy drinks: the taste and heart palpitations are icky).
Until today, I had thought senior ditch day was silly. Why couldn't kids go to school? Did they just not care? Now, I realize that people are exhausted, and to something from class at this point would be miraculous. But I didn't want to take the 3% grade hit after all my hard work these last four years.So here I am and here I'll stay, right in Phase 5, waiting for Pase 1: the giggs, when I can laugh it up with my friends and enjoy the memories that come from four years well-spent.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Hello, Dolly!
Never has a celebrity been so lavished upon, and never has one been so carefully watched by media. More than your typical diva, she was a living symbol of progress. Dolly, in her magnificence, represents a change in the times. However, it should be noted that Dolly, while famous and fabulous in her own right, was a sheep just like any other Finn-Dorset. Excepting one small factor. . .
Dolly was originally a cell from the udder of an older sheep, frozen in quiescence, implanted in another type of sheep. In other words, Dolly was a "test tube" lamb, born of the genius of Ian Wilmut and company, and the labor efforts of one Scottish Blackface sheep in Scotland, 1996.
That summer, Dolly shocked the world, when, weighing in at 6.6 kg, she was born healthy and robust. The world's first taste of the awesome power of modern science and stem cells delivered by an average old sheep in a little barn tucked away in Scotland. When the news reached the media, fear broke out (an odd reaction to a lamb, even if she was a little hefty) and headlines shouted of apocalyptic deeds, flesh-eating beasts, and other nonsense of no relation to the oddly outgoing and friendly, cloned sheep. Americans in particular reacted with shock and horror, as the development had apparently "'come out of nowhere' (Dolly was not born in America, after all)" (18). Ignorant of much of the scientific goings on in the rest of the world, Americans cried distress, Time Magazine even reporting that "one doesn't expect Dr. Frankenstein to show up in a wool sweater, baggy parka, soft British accent and the face of a bank clerk" to describe Wilmut (19). A picture had been painted, correct or otherwise.
Dolly lived and thrived, and the media went wild. Then, when her decline began (too early for normalcy, but from common conditions that would have occurred to any sheep used to being stressed by media presence, spoiled, and confined to a barn) the media relished in the "deadly" effects of cloning and dangers of stem cells. What went unheard in all the brouhaha was the real story, the one of a dedicated team of scientists and a bonny little sheep who would be born, live, give birth (to several healthy lambs), and die a quiet, norma death. Instead, questions of ethics, politics, and science bombarded Roslin, Scotland from every corner of the globe, the most important of which being this:
What do we do after Dolly?
Authors Ian Wilmut (who was there from the beginning), and Roger Highfield attempt to explain these next steps and the questions Dolly's life and death provoke in their book After Dolly The Uses and Misuses of Human Cloning. I'll be reading the unique perspective for the next few weeks, and seeing what I can learn about stem cells and the controversy and argument that surround their use.
Dolly was originally a cell from the udder of an older sheep, frozen in quiescence, implanted in another type of sheep. In other words, Dolly was a "test tube" lamb, born of the genius of Ian Wilmut and company, and the labor efforts of one Scottish Blackface sheep in Scotland, 1996.
That summer, Dolly shocked the world, when, weighing in at 6.6 kg, she was born healthy and robust. The world's first taste of the awesome power of modern science and stem cells delivered by an average old sheep in a little barn tucked away in Scotland. When the news reached the media, fear broke out (an odd reaction to a lamb, even if she was a little hefty) and headlines shouted of apocalyptic deeds, flesh-eating beasts, and other nonsense of no relation to the oddly outgoing and friendly, cloned sheep. Americans in particular reacted with shock and horror, as the development had apparently "'come out of nowhere' (Dolly was not born in America, after all)" (18). Ignorant of much of the scientific goings on in the rest of the world, Americans cried distress, Time Magazine even reporting that "one doesn't expect Dr. Frankenstein to show up in a wool sweater, baggy parka, soft British accent and the face of a bank clerk" to describe Wilmut (19). A picture had been painted, correct or otherwise.
Dolly lived and thrived, and the media went wild. Then, when her decline began (too early for normalcy, but from common conditions that would have occurred to any sheep used to being stressed by media presence, spoiled, and confined to a barn) the media relished in the "deadly" effects of cloning and dangers of stem cells. What went unheard in all the brouhaha was the real story, the one of a dedicated team of scientists and a bonny little sheep who would be born, live, give birth (to several healthy lambs), and die a quiet, norma death. Instead, questions of ethics, politics, and science bombarded Roslin, Scotland from every corner of the globe, the most important of which being this:
What do we do after Dolly?
Authors Ian Wilmut (who was there from the beginning), and Roger Highfield attempt to explain these next steps and the questions Dolly's life and death provoke in their book After Dolly The Uses and Misuses of Human Cloning. I'll be reading the unique perspective for the next few weeks, and seeing what I can learn about stem cells and the controversy and argument that surround their use.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Dinosaurs, Divorces, and Birthdays, Oh My!
New York City public schools are playing a word association game. It's called state-mandated testing, and the goal is censorship. According to an article by Brian Vitagliano from CNN, "divorce. Dinosaurs, Birthdays. Religion. Halloween. Christmas. Television. . . are a few of the 50-plus words and references the New York City Department of Education is hoping to ban from the city’s standardized tests." The department argues that words like "divorce" could trigger unpleasant thoughts in children whose parents are divorced or in the process. Reasonable? Maybe, I see why kids could be made uncomfortable by references to issues that are prevalent at home.
However, the department also argues against the use of other words. "Dinosaur" and "Birthday" being two of the most interesting choices. "The New York Post speculated that the "dinosaurs" could "call to mind evolution, which might upset fundamentalists.” Really? I have a hard time believing a reference to the terrible lizards of old would upset anyone that dramatically. And "Birthday" certainly warrants some sort of explanation. The department of Ed. argues that "the use of the word "birthday" or the phrase "birthday celebrations" may offend Jehovah's Witnesses, who do not celebrate birthdays. A spokesperson for the Jehovah's Witnesses declined to comment on the use of the word "birthday." Now we're just getting ridiculous. I have trouble coming up with a scenario in which even the most uptight kid (and these are just kids taking the tests) reading into the word "birthday" enough to throw their test.
While censorship is nothing new to the world of standardized testing, NY's department of Education is taking the measures much too far. Any further restrictions and soon there will be nothing left to test them with! Eliminating references to food, culture, religion, family, holidays, and life events is not the way to educate the nation's youth, nor is it a way to evaluate them. In fact, it is a way to limit their potential. Students who are not exposed to subjects that are foreign or uncomfortable will never learn how to deal with them properly and discuss them in a civilized manner. The NewYork Department of Education is doing their students a disservice, one word at a time.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/28/new-york-city-schools-ban-loaded-words-from-tests/
However, the department also argues against the use of other words. "Dinosaur" and "Birthday" being two of the most interesting choices. "The New York Post speculated that the "dinosaurs" could "call to mind evolution, which might upset fundamentalists.” Really? I have a hard time believing a reference to the terrible lizards of old would upset anyone that dramatically. And "Birthday" certainly warrants some sort of explanation. The department of Ed. argues that "the use of the word "birthday" or the phrase "birthday celebrations" may offend Jehovah's Witnesses, who do not celebrate birthdays. A spokesperson for the Jehovah's Witnesses declined to comment on the use of the word "birthday." Now we're just getting ridiculous. I have trouble coming up with a scenario in which even the most uptight kid (and these are just kids taking the tests) reading into the word "birthday" enough to throw their test.
While censorship is nothing new to the world of standardized testing, NY's department of Education is taking the measures much too far. Any further restrictions and soon there will be nothing left to test them with! Eliminating references to food, culture, religion, family, holidays, and life events is not the way to educate the nation's youth, nor is it a way to evaluate them. In fact, it is a way to limit their potential. Students who are not exposed to subjects that are foreign or uncomfortable will never learn how to deal with them properly and discuss them in a civilized manner. The NewYork Department of Education is doing their students a disservice, one word at a time.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/28/new-york-city-schools-ban-loaded-words-from-tests/
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Something to Sing About
What's inexpensive, educational, marvelous and musical all at once? Why it's opera at the movies! If you've been aware of this lovely little phenomenon, good for you, but I've just discovered it so let me have my moment of triumph. I just found out that the Metropolitan Opera will be performing Manon and the live show (plus one encore showing) will be available for the general masses via the movie theater.
Call me a dork, but I love opera. I love the costumes, the magnificent sets, and the glorious orchestral music and of course the singing. I do not, however, love the price. Going to see an opera is a great experience, there's excellent performing and storytelling, and a little exposure to the arts never hurt anyone, but paying for it is a doozy, to be sure. That's why I'm totally enamored of the concept of opera via the movies. The fun of the opera, without the need for plane tickets, train tickets, expensive seats or high heels? I'm game.
Hopefully I'll be lucky enough to catch Manon when it plays in my area and give the experience a review. Until then, I'll continue to look wistfully at the Lyric Opera brochures.
Call me a dork, but I love opera. I love the costumes, the magnificent sets, and the glorious orchestral music and of course the singing. I do not, however, love the price. Going to see an opera is a great experience, there's excellent performing and storytelling, and a little exposure to the arts never hurt anyone, but paying for it is a doozy, to be sure. That's why I'm totally enamored of the concept of opera via the movies. The fun of the opera, without the need for plane tickets, train tickets, expensive seats or high heels? I'm game.
Hopefully I'll be lucky enough to catch Manon when it plays in my area and give the experience a review. Until then, I'll continue to look wistfully at the Lyric Opera brochures.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Should We Be Hungry For More?
All this hype about the new movie The Hunger Games (based on the book trilogy) made me curious. So, last Friday I went to see the movie that promised to be the next big book-to-movie event (much like Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings).
SPOILER ALERT!
The movie was excellent. Incredibly entertaining with an original idea (for once!) and characters that you identified with and were attached to throughout the film. The premise of the movie is the hunger games, a yearly televised execution of "tributes" a boy and girl under the age of 18 from each of the districts in the post-modern era nation Panem. The event is run and enforced by the Capitol, the wealthy district, and it draws district "volunteers" from each of the starving, threadbare districts that surround it. The tributes, some real volunteers, others victims of the lottery (your name is added once on each birthday plus more times in exchange for modest amounts of food, precious to the people constantly on the verge of starvation) are brought to a high-tech arena of sorts, and forced to kill each other using whatever methods available until only one remains. In the meantime, it is required that every person in each district be present for mass viewings of the games. They watch until the end, when the winner is announced and the rest of the tributes have been murdered. They suffer as they watch, while the Capitol uses the games as entertainment and festivity. They constantly bid each other "happy hunger games" and "may the odds be ever in your favor" giggling and smiling at the spectacle.
The movie was brutal. The tribute children bludgeoned, poisoned, stabbed, and shot each other dead. As a member of the audience I was disgusted by the excess of the Capitol and the poverty that wracked the poor districts. I was horrified at the idea of a government, of a people, being entertained by such slaughter.
And then I realized it. I was just as entertained. I was rooting for my favorite tributes, excited when they killed an adversary. At one point nearly the entire audience stood up in the theater and clapped after a particularly ruthless and cruel character had her neck snapped. What does that say about society today? How can we enjoy such gruesomeness? Why do humans love war, violence, and cruelty on the big screen? These questions bring the movie scenario a little too close to reality for comfort. It's true, movies like this are incredibly entertaining. Fast paced, action packed, thrilling, The Hunger Games was a great film, but the implications are unsettling.
SPOILER ALERT!
The movie was excellent. Incredibly entertaining with an original idea (for once!) and characters that you identified with and were attached to throughout the film. The premise of the movie is the hunger games, a yearly televised execution of "tributes" a boy and girl under the age of 18 from each of the districts in the post-modern era nation Panem. The event is run and enforced by the Capitol, the wealthy district, and it draws district "volunteers" from each of the starving, threadbare districts that surround it. The tributes, some real volunteers, others victims of the lottery (your name is added once on each birthday plus more times in exchange for modest amounts of food, precious to the people constantly on the verge of starvation) are brought to a high-tech arena of sorts, and forced to kill each other using whatever methods available until only one remains. In the meantime, it is required that every person in each district be present for mass viewings of the games. They watch until the end, when the winner is announced and the rest of the tributes have been murdered. They suffer as they watch, while the Capitol uses the games as entertainment and festivity. They constantly bid each other "happy hunger games" and "may the odds be ever in your favor" giggling and smiling at the spectacle.
The movie was brutal. The tribute children bludgeoned, poisoned, stabbed, and shot each other dead. As a member of the audience I was disgusted by the excess of the Capitol and the poverty that wracked the poor districts. I was horrified at the idea of a government, of a people, being entertained by such slaughter.
And then I realized it. I was just as entertained. I was rooting for my favorite tributes, excited when they killed an adversary. At one point nearly the entire audience stood up in the theater and clapped after a particularly ruthless and cruel character had her neck snapped. What does that say about society today? How can we enjoy such gruesomeness? Why do humans love war, violence, and cruelty on the big screen? These questions bring the movie scenario a little too close to reality for comfort. It's true, movies like this are incredibly entertaining. Fast paced, action packed, thrilling, The Hunger Games was a great film, but the implications are unsettling.
School Boards vs. Kilts, the Prom Drama Begins
Senior Prom is coming! Of course, while everyone's dashing about to find boutonnieres and dress shoes and get their dresses hemmed, there's a bit of the usual high school drama going about. Of course, there's a fair deal of unusual drama too.
Schools all over America have dress codes. These restrictions aren't just for class, but for dances too, including prom. These appear reasonable restrictions too, rules like "no overly-revealing articles" or "no offensive messaging." Oh, and no kilts. Definitely no kilts. Or, so says one school in Granite City. One young man, by the name of William Carruba decided he would make and wear a traditional kilt with this family's tartan for his high school prom. His goal was to look dashing while paying homage to his family's proud Scottish heritage. His hopes were dashed, however, when the school board declared that the kilt violated their dress code and that it was "non traditional."
Frankly, I do not believe that because an item of clothing is different that it should be banned. If anything, I find Carruba's interest in representing his roots and embracing his culture should be celebrated. Diversity is a wonderful thing, it contributes to a more vibrant community, both locally and nationally. Just because Carruba's choice is uncommon does not mean it is offensive, vulgar, or inappropriate. He is simply choosing to wear the formal wear of his family, something they made just for the occasion.
Sadly, the school board refused to relent their overly-strict policies, and Carruba resignedly agreed to "just wear pants."
What does this say about our school's values? Are conformity, tradition, and uniformity really the most important things to a school? Or should qualities like diversity, ingenuity, and pride be valued more?
I have to agree with Carruba, when it comes to how we express ourselves through clothing, being original is something to encourage.
See the inspiration for this post here: http://www.glamour.com/fashion/blogs/slaves-to-fashion/2012/04/illinois-school-bans-kilts-fro.html
Schools all over America have dress codes. These restrictions aren't just for class, but for dances too, including prom. These appear reasonable restrictions too, rules like "no overly-revealing articles" or "no offensive messaging." Oh, and no kilts. Definitely no kilts. Or, so says one school in Granite City. One young man, by the name of William Carruba decided he would make and wear a traditional kilt with this family's tartan for his high school prom. His goal was to look dashing while paying homage to his family's proud Scottish heritage. His hopes were dashed, however, when the school board declared that the kilt violated their dress code and that it was "non traditional."
Frankly, I do not believe that because an item of clothing is different that it should be banned. If anything, I find Carruba's interest in representing his roots and embracing his culture should be celebrated. Diversity is a wonderful thing, it contributes to a more vibrant community, both locally and nationally. Just because Carruba's choice is uncommon does not mean it is offensive, vulgar, or inappropriate. He is simply choosing to wear the formal wear of his family, something they made just for the occasion.
Sadly, the school board refused to relent their overly-strict policies, and Carruba resignedly agreed to "just wear pants."
What does this say about our school's values? Are conformity, tradition, and uniformity really the most important things to a school? Or should qualities like diversity, ingenuity, and pride be valued more?
I have to agree with Carruba, when it comes to how we express ourselves through clothing, being original is something to encourage.
See the inspiration for this post here: http://www.glamour.com/fashion/blogs/slaves-to-fashion/2012/04/illinois-school-bans-kilts-fro.html
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Retouching Venus
I have one seriously silly guilty pleasure: fashion magazines. I like the glossy pages, the colorful editorials, the neat articles on what's new and hot right now. But there's one aspect I could certainly live without: retouching. Sure, a brightened photo could improve text readability, and eliminating distracting items from photos is great, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about body retouching. Slimming down models and average folks, drawing on features, cutting away and adding at will. People look at photos and want to think: "this is reality," that's part of the beauty of photography, it captures real moments! But retouching has destroyed that assumption. Not only that, but retouching of photos of people leads to body-image distortion for the rest of the world. Think how different we would see ourselves if everyone in media looked real, not photo shopped.
I saw an interesting article on one of my favorite magazines (Glamour)'s website, in which an ancient painting of Venus (the goddess known for beauty etc.) was photoshopped using today's standards. The two photos, one original and one doctored show significant differences in the goddesses' waist, arms, legs and hips. It's interesting to only to see how the "ideal beauty" has changed over time (today's ideal woman is more athletically built), but how photoshopping has grown to be such a mainstay of media production. Frankly, when it comes to beauty, I think real is always better than artificial.
Here's the article:
http://www.glamour.com/health-fitness/blogs/vitamin-g/2012/03/body-image-when-ancient-art-ge.html
I saw an interesting article on one of my favorite magazines (Glamour)'s website, in which an ancient painting of Venus (the goddess known for beauty etc.) was photoshopped using today's standards. The two photos, one original and one doctored show significant differences in the goddesses' waist, arms, legs and hips. It's interesting to only to see how the "ideal beauty" has changed over time (today's ideal woman is more athletically built), but how photoshopping has grown to be such a mainstay of media production. Frankly, when it comes to beauty, I think real is always better than artificial.
Here's the article:
http://www.glamour.com/health-fitness/blogs/vitamin-g/2012/03/body-image-when-ancient-art-ge.html
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Workin' 3:15 to 9:00 is The Pits
It's that time again, folks. The pit is back! This time it's for tech week, in which we musicians hang out on a 9ft tall platform (in a little pen, of course, we are the pit orchestra after all) under the stage lights from 3:15 to 9:00 p.m. to get the show ready for everyone. This year's show is...
The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee! At Deerfield High School March 7th-10th! Come out and support the cast, crew, and pit. Can you spell F-A-N-T-A-S-T-I-C?
See you from the pit!
- 1st Flute
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Turn Off That Vehicle For Social Change Right Now, or So Help Me, Young Lady...!
"I slapped my girl, she called the Feds, M.J. gone, our n-- dead" is a lyric from Kanye West's hit tune "All Of the Lights" which has graced countless radio stations since the release of his album My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy. In just a few words, West has referenced domestic violence, the death of a great and controversial performer (this being Michael Jackson), and used a scathing piece of vulgarity. That's two sentances of rap many would like to see off the radio.
While I would hope that most people recognize Kanye West as a controversial performer and a character himself, one has to consider the effect his messages have on the listener. When was the last time you saw a group of pre-teens or teens packed into a car, shouting/singing the lyrics to whatever came on the radio? (This occurs ust about every weekend, in my case). Are they considering his message about the prevalence of violence and the conversion of an extremely offensive word into something commonplace? Probably not. But they should.
Now think about their parents. Are they listening along? What do they hear (if they can understand the fast-paced speech our generation has grown so accustomed to)? Some of West's references are upsetting, amd include references to drugs, alcohol, sex, violence, and racism. I know many parents immediatley change the station, shut the radio off and effectivley censor this voice that does not paint a pretty picture of modern America. But they shouldn't.
I'm not suggesting that we play obsceneties on the radio for children, or that contreversial, provocative music cannot do damage in a culture (ex. glorification of violence, drug abuse, and perpetuation of stereotypes), but I will say this: music can have power over civilizations. What are the problems facing America today? Certainly drugs, domestic violence, and racism are prevalent issues. Why not bring them to light? Why not address them in our music and use it as a voice and vehicle for change? Let's turn on the radio and listen.
While I would hope that most people recognize Kanye West as a controversial performer and a character himself, one has to consider the effect his messages have on the listener. When was the last time you saw a group of pre-teens or teens packed into a car, shouting/singing the lyrics to whatever came on the radio? (This occurs ust about every weekend, in my case). Are they considering his message about the prevalence of violence and the conversion of an extremely offensive word into something commonplace? Probably not. But they should.
Now think about their parents. Are they listening along? What do they hear (if they can understand the fast-paced speech our generation has grown so accustomed to)? Some of West's references are upsetting, amd include references to drugs, alcohol, sex, violence, and racism. I know many parents immediatley change the station, shut the radio off and effectivley censor this voice that does not paint a pretty picture of modern America. But they shouldn't.
I'm not suggesting that we play obsceneties on the radio for children, or that contreversial, provocative music cannot do damage in a culture (ex. glorification of violence, drug abuse, and perpetuation of stereotypes), but I will say this: music can have power over civilizations. What are the problems facing America today? Certainly drugs, domestic violence, and racism are prevalent issues. Why not bring them to light? Why not address them in our music and use it as a voice and vehicle for change? Let's turn on the radio and listen.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
The Third Law: Thoughts on Affirmative Action in Higher Education
Newton's third law of motion states that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction. This principle remains true not only in science class, but in society as well. Hit a racecar from one direction and it will roll the opposite way. You are a force, acting upon the car. Likewise, forces act upon society. For instance, the force of centuries of oppression, predjudice, and discrimination has acted upon minorites. It has limited their educational, employment, and housing opportunities (amoung others), and has generally made life more difficult than it would be had they been born white. If Newton's third law holds true, then racism and discrimination must have an opposite. This is white privilege. We hardly notice it, but as anti-racist activist Tim Wise points out in his article "Whites Swim In Racial Preference," the notion of preferential bias "has actually had a very long and very white history." Wise observes that, like fish in water, whites survive and thrive in racial preference and are almost entirely unaware. "We strike the pose of self-sufficiency while ignoring the advantages we have been afforded in every realm of activity"(Wise). While whites soak up the opportunity, minorities are often left high and dry. However, as soon as some modicum of preference (affirmative action) is shown to minorities, large numbers of white individuals rally to eliminate it, proclaiming such statements as "If I had only been black I would have gotten into my first choice college" (Wise). This is foolish, as whites are competing more with other whites than with minority students. Affirmative action, like University of Michigan's policies merely attempts to counteract centuries of racism, not to promote reverse-racism. What many whites have deemed discriminatory preference towards minority students is merely what they have received their entire lives, due to white privilege.
While caught in this mindset, it is little surprise that many whites do not even realize the benefits of having racially and ethnically diverse universities. The Supreme Court, however, has outlined these benefits clearly in the Bakke case. The opinion of The Court was that "reducing the historic deficit of traditionally disfavored minorities. . . countering the effects of social discrimination, increasing the number of physicians who will practice in communities currently underserved, and obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body" are all worthy, substantial reasons for enacting some kind of affirmative action policy. Affirmative action and diversity serve a state interest: to promote equality of care and opportunity, and to improve the education of all by adding the unique perspectives minorities bring to institutions. Not only do white students benefit from affirmative action, it also does not hurt their chance (as so many would believe) of being accepted into a school. In the Bakke case, The Court notes with particular emphasis that "race or ethnic background may be deemed a 'plus' in a particular applicant's file, yet it does not insulate the individual from comparison with all other candidates for the available seats." Thus, affirmative action (that "plus") does not allow minority students who are under-qualified to be admitted in the place of qualified whites. Instead, it acknowledges the benefits that qualified minority students could bring to campus and takes them into account in the admissions process. In the article "Appeals court to hear affirmative action challenge," Proposition 209 (which bans the use of affirmative action in California schools), is being fought against. The Court has recently, with its decision on the Michigan Law School case, acknowledged the benefits of affirmative action, and must now reconsider the validity of Proposition 209. While opponents of the reconsideration and affirmative action would argue that the best way to promote equality is to ignore the race, ethnicity, and sex of applicants, the information above clearly states otherwise. If the nation's schools ignore affirmative action, ignore race, ignore the powerful force of centuries of hatred and discrimination, then not only will minority applicants lose opportunities, but so will the universities, communities, and states themselves. If we, as a nation, wish to correct the wrongs of our past, we must act affirmatively to do so. Equality cannot be achieved while racism and white privilege continue to be ingrained into society. By exerting a force, by employing affirmative action in higher education, the nation can take a massive leap out of its rut of bias and preference and climb towards true equality.
While caught in this mindset, it is little surprise that many whites do not even realize the benefits of having racially and ethnically diverse universities. The Supreme Court, however, has outlined these benefits clearly in the Bakke case. The opinion of The Court was that "reducing the historic deficit of traditionally disfavored minorities. . . countering the effects of social discrimination, increasing the number of physicians who will practice in communities currently underserved, and obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body" are all worthy, substantial reasons for enacting some kind of affirmative action policy. Affirmative action and diversity serve a state interest: to promote equality of care and opportunity, and to improve the education of all by adding the unique perspectives minorities bring to institutions. Not only do white students benefit from affirmative action, it also does not hurt their chance (as so many would believe) of being accepted into a school. In the Bakke case, The Court notes with particular emphasis that "race or ethnic background may be deemed a 'plus' in a particular applicant's file, yet it does not insulate the individual from comparison with all other candidates for the available seats." Thus, affirmative action (that "plus") does not allow minority students who are under-qualified to be admitted in the place of qualified whites. Instead, it acknowledges the benefits that qualified minority students could bring to campus and takes them into account in the admissions process. In the article "Appeals court to hear affirmative action challenge," Proposition 209 (which bans the use of affirmative action in California schools), is being fought against. The Court has recently, with its decision on the Michigan Law School case, acknowledged the benefits of affirmative action, and must now reconsider the validity of Proposition 209. While opponents of the reconsideration and affirmative action would argue that the best way to promote equality is to ignore the race, ethnicity, and sex of applicants, the information above clearly states otherwise. If the nation's schools ignore affirmative action, ignore race, ignore the powerful force of centuries of hatred and discrimination, then not only will minority applicants lose opportunities, but so will the universities, communities, and states themselves. If we, as a nation, wish to correct the wrongs of our past, we must act affirmatively to do so. Equality cannot be achieved while racism and white privilege continue to be ingrained into society. By exerting a force, by employing affirmative action in higher education, the nation can take a massive leap out of its rut of bias and preference and climb towards true equality.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Terrill Swift
This Valentine's Day I saw Terrill Swift speak at my school. A member of the "Englewood Four," Swift was accused and arrested for rape and murder at age 17 in 1994. Swift left his home with the police, who purposefully mislead his relatives so that they would not be there at the station with him, so that he would be completley alone with them. They then interrogated, threatened, and frightened Swift into signing a confession (which he had believed to be a paper suggesting he was free to go after this outrageous detainment). Swift was sent to prison, even when DNA testing proved he had not been at the scene of the crime, he remained incarcerated. For years, Swift worked hard in prison to share his story and proclaim his innocence, and was just recently exonerated.
Terrill Swift was mislead, denied his rights, and abused by the justice system. He suffered in prison and his family suffered because the state made what it would call a mistake. This is unacceptable to me. The police officers who perpetuated this situation with their grievous misconduct were not penalized in any way. Swift was not compensated in any way. In short, the state stole years from this man's life, and without apology, thrust him back into a world that had changed drastically, and the culprits responsible were allowed to continue on as they had been. This disgusts me. The fact that the officers were not punished even slightly sends a horrendous message to the public: that this kind of thing is "O.K." In addition, the fact that neither an apology nor compensation was given to Swift is horrific. He was robbed, compensation of a drastic nature is due. Then the fact that clear,obvious, DNA evidence was ignored suggests serious flaws in judgment within the system.
I once held the American justice system in high esteem. Perhaps because of TV shows, glorifying the processes, perhaps because of media coverage and what I hear in school. But this testimony has shaken that confidence. What remains firm, however, is my respect for Swift, who has chosen to, having just been made completley free, dedicate his life to telling his story and repairing these glaring flaws within our system by educating youth.
Terrill Swift was mislead, denied his rights, and abused by the justice system. He suffered in prison and his family suffered because the state made what it would call a mistake. This is unacceptable to me. The police officers who perpetuated this situation with their grievous misconduct were not penalized in any way. Swift was not compensated in any way. In short, the state stole years from this man's life, and without apology, thrust him back into a world that had changed drastically, and the culprits responsible were allowed to continue on as they had been. This disgusts me. The fact that the officers were not punished even slightly sends a horrendous message to the public: that this kind of thing is "O.K." In addition, the fact that neither an apology nor compensation was given to Swift is horrific. He was robbed, compensation of a drastic nature is due. Then the fact that clear,obvious, DNA evidence was ignored suggests serious flaws in judgment within the system.
I once held the American justice system in high esteem. Perhaps because of TV shows, glorifying the processes, perhaps because of media coverage and what I hear in school. But this testimony has shaken that confidence. What remains firm, however, is my respect for Swift, who has chosen to, having just been made completley free, dedicate his life to telling his story and repairing these glaring flaws within our system by educating youth.
Monday, February 6, 2012
On God and the Discovery Channel
I am not what you would call a devout person. I rarely attend worship, though I enjoy it. I am not really involved in much religious practice at all at this point in my life. But there is one thing that never fails to put the eternal awe and faith back in me: Planet Earth. No, not the planet itself, per se, but the Discovery Channel/BBC series.
I recieved the box set a few holiday seasons ago, and so far, few things have ever gotten the spiritual me out of its shell like a few hours of watching. Each disc has a theme, Deep Ocean, Caves, Grasslands, Shallow Seas, Pole to Pole, you name it, it's in there. Each contains a slew of beautiful images, from elephants in the lush Okavango Delta to the mysterious lights of angler fish, far below the surface of the sea. Thousands of vivid examples of the diversity and magnificence of life on this planet.
Yes, I know it's just a TV series, for the purposes of entertainment. But it's impressive stuff, nevertheless. Its a way to educate people, to show them the wonders of the world, things rarely witnessed with the human eye, right in their living rooms. Planet Earth gives us a sense of awe and unity with our planet. Whether it was created by a diety or by chance, one cannot deny its glory. If that's not spiritual, I don't know what is.
P.S. If you're looking for somewhere to start, Ocean Deep is magical.
I recieved the box set a few holiday seasons ago, and so far, few things have ever gotten the spiritual me out of its shell like a few hours of watching. Each disc has a theme, Deep Ocean, Caves, Grasslands, Shallow Seas, Pole to Pole, you name it, it's in there. Each contains a slew of beautiful images, from elephants in the lush Okavango Delta to the mysterious lights of angler fish, far below the surface of the sea. Thousands of vivid examples of the diversity and magnificence of life on this planet.
Yes, I know it's just a TV series, for the purposes of entertainment. But it's impressive stuff, nevertheless. Its a way to educate people, to show them the wonders of the world, things rarely witnessed with the human eye, right in their living rooms. Planet Earth gives us a sense of awe and unity with our planet. Whether it was created by a diety or by chance, one cannot deny its glory. If that's not spiritual, I don't know what is.
P.S. If you're looking for somewhere to start, Ocean Deep is magical.
The Perks of Being "White Like Me"
Tim Wise's exploration of white privilege and racism in America (titled White Like Me) took on an unfamiliar perspective. I had never heard of, let alone acknowledged, the idea of white denial and privileges we (as whites) have simply because we are not black. I found his ideas especially compelling because of his use of anecdotal evidence, rather than statistics (which can easily become empty numbers). For instance, in one paragraph Wise spoke of Oprah, the successful female, black entertainer. Even she, with all her fame and glory, "can't escape the possibility, can't be free of fear, can't get past the insecurity generated by racism" (72). Oprah had phoned the Hermes boutique in Paris, arrived just minutes after closing, and was refused entry into the store. While one could argue that the store policy prevented sales after closing, the fact that racial bias could have played even the slightest role in denying Oprah is a shocking thought. If Oprah can't escape racism, who can?
Racism isn't the only thing running rampant in the U.S.A, however. White denial is almost equally troubling. Wise describes our claims of "victimization" and "reverse racism" as akin to a mall parking lot. Whites blame blacks and affirmitve action for taking jobs and opportunities, when in reality they have nothing close to the vast opportunites we have. Whites tend to have more educational opportunity, job opportunites, and generally become more affluent. When this pattern is changed, we (whites) become upset. Wise notes that this "would be like. . . going to the mall, looking for a parking space, not finding one, seeing lots of unused spaces for persons with disabilites or pregnant moms, and then getting pissed at disabled folks or pregnant women, as if they had somehow kept [one] from getting a slot!" Whites complain that they're losing opportunities to affirmitive action, when in reality, they are competing no more with blacks than other whites.
Wise's anecdotes are more interesting than statistics about racial bias and privalage. They make one think about the issues at hand and instances in their own lives. Now, as I have completed the college admission process and move towards the final steps of my high school education, I realize just how much more I have had, just by living where I do and being white. My education has been better, my school has had more funding, I have had the chance to participate in programs and extra cirriculars, I have never had to worry about beign judged for my skin tone. I had thought, in my protective little bubble of whiteness, that racism was getting better in America, that things had improved drastically, that things were just about equal for blacks and whites or on their way to becoming that way. Wise's article popped that bubble, quickly and effectivley. There is still much to be done, that can't be done, because of our denial.
Racism isn't the only thing running rampant in the U.S.A, however. White denial is almost equally troubling. Wise describes our claims of "victimization" and "reverse racism" as akin to a mall parking lot. Whites blame blacks and affirmitve action for taking jobs and opportunities, when in reality they have nothing close to the vast opportunites we have. Whites tend to have more educational opportunity, job opportunites, and generally become more affluent. When this pattern is changed, we (whites) become upset. Wise notes that this "would be like. . . going to the mall, looking for a parking space, not finding one, seeing lots of unused spaces for persons with disabilites or pregnant moms, and then getting pissed at disabled folks or pregnant women, as if they had somehow kept [one] from getting a slot!" Whites complain that they're losing opportunities to affirmitive action, when in reality, they are competing no more with blacks than other whites.
Wise's anecdotes are more interesting than statistics about racial bias and privalage. They make one think about the issues at hand and instances in their own lives. Now, as I have completed the college admission process and move towards the final steps of my high school education, I realize just how much more I have had, just by living where I do and being white. My education has been better, my school has had more funding, I have had the chance to participate in programs and extra cirriculars, I have never had to worry about beign judged for my skin tone. I had thought, in my protective little bubble of whiteness, that racism was getting better in America, that things had improved drastically, that things were just about equal for blacks and whites or on their way to becoming that way. Wise's article popped that bubble, quickly and effectivley. There is still much to be done, that can't be done, because of our denial.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Impartiality and The Brain's Reality
Having completed the IAT Race test, I was shown to have moderate bias towards Western Europeans compared to African Americans. This surprised me, seeing as I'd always thought of myself as an unprejudiced person who believes strongly in racial, religious, and gender equality. However, knowing what I do about psychology and having read the information on the roots of bias, discrimination, and stereotypes given on the website, I realize I probably should not be so shocked at my results.
The website references the media and one's community as influences on our unconscious biases. From my own experience, I have seen television and media try to combat racial bias, but not highly effectively. I remember one particular emphasis on including more women of Asian descent in the fashion and modeling industries, and how many brands were accused of bias towards white models. I read fashion and women's magazines frequently and have seen that they are dominated by white women with my own eyes. It is no wonder that, with this blatant preference shown by the media, people have hidden biases.
In addition, I have lived my entire life in a community in which white people of European descent are the vast majority. Because I interact with these people much more than African Americans, I may have developed biases subconsciously due to what the website describes as in-group vs. out-group bias.
I hope that these biases do not influence my choices and actions, as I've said, I consider myself as an unprejudiced and accepting person. Now that I know they exist in my subconscious, I will make an even greater effort to avoid stereotyping and bias as they occur in everyday life.
The website references the media and one's community as influences on our unconscious biases. From my own experience, I have seen television and media try to combat racial bias, but not highly effectively. I remember one particular emphasis on including more women of Asian descent in the fashion and modeling industries, and how many brands were accused of bias towards white models. I read fashion and women's magazines frequently and have seen that they are dominated by white women with my own eyes. It is no wonder that, with this blatant preference shown by the media, people have hidden biases.
In addition, I have lived my entire life in a community in which white people of European descent are the vast majority. Because I interact with these people much more than African Americans, I may have developed biases subconsciously due to what the website describes as in-group vs. out-group bias.
I hope that these biases do not influence my choices and actions, as I've said, I consider myself as an unprejudiced and accepting person. Now that I know they exist in my subconscious, I will make an even greater effort to avoid stereotyping and bias as they occur in everyday life.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Helen Keller Trumps All or I Should Be Studying But Instead...
I'm blogging about the things I'd rather be doing than studying for finals in no particular order.
1. Playing Apples to Apples
2. Playing the flute (jazz, classical, what have you)
3. Shopping for birthday gifts (I'm way behind on my card making too, why does everyone seem to have a birthday on the 14th?)
4. Running (though the ice is certainly a problem...)
5. Reading The Inferno (which I still haven't finished)
6. Pursuing Whole Foods, the grocery, pharmacies, etc. for crafty sodas in interesting flavors (my current favorite is this fizzy french pink lemonade in a glass bottle)
7. Watching mindless television.
8. Watching educational television.
9. Watching Discovery and BBC's Planet Earth for the 18th time. (The deep ocean one is the best, but more on that in a later post)
10. Being Nostalgic ( Disney's Beauty and the Beast is in theaters again, cue the childhood reminiscing)
That's all the procrastination for now, I'll be back after Finals Week.
1. Playing Apples to Apples
2. Playing the flute (jazz, classical, what have you)
3. Shopping for birthday gifts (I'm way behind on my card making too, why does everyone seem to have a birthday on the 14th?)
4. Running (though the ice is certainly a problem...)
5. Reading The Inferno (which I still haven't finished)
6. Pursuing Whole Foods, the grocery, pharmacies, etc. for crafty sodas in interesting flavors (my current favorite is this fizzy french pink lemonade in a glass bottle)
7. Watching mindless television.
8. Watching educational television.
9. Watching Discovery and BBC's Planet Earth for the 18th time. (The deep ocean one is the best, but more on that in a later post)
10. Being Nostalgic ( Disney's Beauty and the Beast is in theaters again, cue the childhood reminiscing)
That's all the procrastination for now, I'll be back after Finals Week.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Eating Animals (Final Post): What Matters
Jonathan Safran Foer's masterpiece Eating Animals is not about being vegetarian or vegan. It is not about being a fanatical PETA member, or shoving animal rights ideals down the throats of your friends and neighbors. No, Eating Animals is about something else. It's about thought. It's about philosophy, how we think and how we feel, and how the creatures we eat think and feel.
When Foer's Grandmother tells the story of how she survived the Holocaust, she tells of an instance when she was literally starving, about to die, and "a farmer, a Russian, God bless him, he saw [her] condition, and he went into his house and came out with a piece of meat. . ." Foer's response is "He saved your life" and, shockingly his Grandmother continues "I didn't eat it. . . It was pork. I wouldn't eat pork." (Foer's family is Kosher) "But not even to save your life?" asks Foer, bewildered. To which she replied simply, "if nothing matters, there's nothing to save." (17).
If nothing matters, there's nothing to save.
Foer began this book to answer a question: "what should I feed my son?" Both Foer and I have decided to keep our families vegetarian. It sounds foolish, to say something so definite so far off, but if and when I do have children, I want them to be compassionate. I want them to be thoughtful. I want them to care.
I want you to care too. "If we are all serious about ending factory farming, then. . . we know, at least, that this decision will help prevent deforestation, curb global warming, reduce pollution, save oil reserves, lessen the burden on rural America, decrease human rights abuses, improve public health, and help eliminate the most systematic animal abuse in world history" (257).
You can do that, and more, not just by becoming a vegetarian (though that would solve the problem rather easily), but by purchasing independently farmed meat and searching for safely caught fish, by shunning the cheap n' cruel system of factory farming. Foer (and I) come dangerously close to saying "You alone can change the world!" and I'd like to clarify, you can't. But the lovely thing is, you are not alone. You, the consumer, you have a family, friends, classmates, co-workers. Even if you cannot influence everyone, influence your children. Teach the next generation about the horrors of factory farms, and about the power of the consumer to be a force for good.
Those cows, chickens, turkeys, fish, crustaceans, and pigs are living, thinking, beautiful examples of life. I've said before how much pigs are like dogs, how they'll nuzzle and fetch, love and be loved. Why play favorites? Why resign ourselves to being cruel to some and kind to others? Isn't it easier to simply show compassion to all? There is a reason the golden rule plays a role in so many religions. It does good, and makes you feel good, all in one.
Ever lay in bed at night, reliving the events of the day in your head? I do, and I often have regrets. I regret things I said, things I did, even things I ate (we're talking a strict diet of noodles and bagels that is all my lazy teenage fault). But never, never have I ever regretted my decision to be a vegetarian, nor do I regret talking to people about it.
Education is a weapon against the evil of the world. If one is ignorant, there is nothing one can do to stop cruelty, corruption, or crimes against the planet. The issues don't exist to many, so they don't matter. Foer's book was written to find answers, educate, and promote thought. It has been my goal to do the same with this blog series.
So, with this final post on Eating Animals, I ask you to think. Think about what you have learned from these posts, about what the nation has yet to learn about its sick habits and unsustainable lifestyle. Think about animals, about suffering, about hope. Think about the planet, the government, your household. Think about what's for dinner tonight and for every night after. Think about eating animals, and then think about not eating animals. Think about love and safety and fresh air and all the things you have that billions of animals do not.
Think hard about the decisions you make. Educate yourself. Find out what matters to you and commit to it.
Because, "if nothing matters, there's nothing to save."
Le Francais Est Partout!
It was the label on our bulletin board in fourth year french. "Le Francais est Partout," it read, in bold yellow letters, bordered by La Tour Eiffel and the nation's flag. French is everywhere.
Today, it seems the exact opposite is true. French is nowhere, a language reserved for romantics and natives of France. Never mind that international agreements were once written only in French. Forget the famed literary works of french authors (Leroux and Hugo, anyone?), Spanish is the only language you need to know.
Spanish surrounds us. Our product labels, television stations, advertising, and is being taught earlier and earlier in our schools. It cannot be denied, Spanish is practical. However, it should not eclipse the importance of other languages in the American psyche. We are too closed-minded about languages in America. We learn one, and then expect the rest of the world to speak English. When in reality, as a world superpower, we should be able to communicate with a greater part of the globe. My high school teaches Hebrew, Spanish, French, and now Chinese (a sign that global economics is changing). But where is the Italian? The Greek? The Russian? The German? Even the Latin has disappeared in favor of more "practical" languages.
Language is beautiful. It is a tool for communication at its simplest level, it is the basis of countless art forms, it is a source of national or international pride. So why place a limit on, or discourage the study of "less practical" languages?
Doing my laundry this morning, I happened upon a rare and precious discovery. Right in front of me, on the tag of a faded t-shirt, were the words "fabrique en Haiti." Made in Haiti, in French. Underneath this statement was "hecho en Haiti" Made in Haiti, in Spanish. And below that, "Made in Haiti."
Sure, Spanish is everywhere, and Chinese is growing in popularity. And yes, many countries now make the study of English mandatory for students. But why live life in just one language, or even two? With mass media the world has become smaller and smaller, and now more than ever we are a part of a global community. We need to learn how to communicate with it.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Eating Animals: The Breaking Point/ Tell Me Why
Its happened. I have been waiting, page after page and it has finally arrived. This book, at once fascinating and blood-curdling, has brought me to my breaking point. This is the danger that arises when one reads something that is as gruesome as it is ruthlessly informative. One learns things that one simply wishes to un-learn. The horror builds and builds until finally...
I can tell you the exact page number. The section: "I Do," page 232, less than a third of the way down. The section is about the cattle slaughter process. It is about the "mistakes", the "accidents" that occur on the kill floor of slaughterhouses across the nation. These are pseudonyms for commonplace events, regularities.
The sickest kinds of torture. Unfathomable cruelty. Vivisection. At one point a cow has been killed (a bolt thrust through her skull, between the eyes), and her unborn baby is half born, struggling to free itself...
Yesterday I asked my class why they ate animals. The immediate response was "'cause they taste good!"A little more discussion, and the answers morphed. "Because it's tradition, it's our culture," some said. Others, "because we were made to eat animals, our ancestors did and so should we." Why does my class eat animals? Because they've been taught to. Eating animals is normal, comfortable, enjoyable. Students called to mind family gatherings, times of joy, centered around a lamb on a spit and more. There is no question, food is an integral part of our culture and history. But in this day and age, and with these practices and corruptions of the way our ancestors ate animals, are we kidding ourselves?
Read the passage about that unborn calf again. What feelings do the images of this and past posts give you? Warmth? Peace? Hardly. Clearly there has been a disconnect between eating animals and what it takes to eat animals.
Yesterday I asked my class why they ate animals. I got my answer:
We eat animals because we are ignorant. We eat animals because we forget the reality of our actions. We eat animals because we were taught to eat animals and any alternative is too alien to consider. We eat animals not because we are cruel, but because we are disconnected.
Eating Animals is not a book for the faint of heart. Nor is it a book for those seeking to blindly uphold their carnivorous or omnivorous lifestyles. This is a book for those who wish to learn the truth. It is suitable for anyone who wishes to make educated decisions about what they support with their money and their consumption. It is a book to facilitate re-connection.
The truth is a harsh thing. It is frightening and nauseating. Yet, the responses of my classmates compel me to keep ingesting the truth in Foer's book. This is not my last post on Eating Animals. I will not lose my connection to the reality of what my family, friends, and classmates are supporting.
I can tell you the exact page number. The section: "I Do," page 232, less than a third of the way down. The section is about the cattle slaughter process. It is about the "mistakes", the "accidents" that occur on the kill floor of slaughterhouses across the nation. These are pseudonyms for commonplace events, regularities.
The sickest kinds of torture. Unfathomable cruelty. Vivisection. At one point a cow has been killed (a bolt thrust through her skull, between the eyes), and her unborn baby is half born, struggling to free itself...
Yesterday I asked my class why they ate animals. The immediate response was "'cause they taste good!"A little more discussion, and the answers morphed. "Because it's tradition, it's our culture," some said. Others, "because we were made to eat animals, our ancestors did and so should we." Why does my class eat animals? Because they've been taught to. Eating animals is normal, comfortable, enjoyable. Students called to mind family gatherings, times of joy, centered around a lamb on a spit and more. There is no question, food is an integral part of our culture and history. But in this day and age, and with these practices and corruptions of the way our ancestors ate animals, are we kidding ourselves?
Read the passage about that unborn calf again. What feelings do the images of this and past posts give you? Warmth? Peace? Hardly. Clearly there has been a disconnect between eating animals and what it takes to eat animals.
Yesterday I asked my class why they ate animals. I got my answer:
We eat animals because we are ignorant. We eat animals because we forget the reality of our actions. We eat animals because we were taught to eat animals and any alternative is too alien to consider. We eat animals not because we are cruel, but because we are disconnected.
Eating Animals is not a book for the faint of heart. Nor is it a book for those seeking to blindly uphold their carnivorous or omnivorous lifestyles. This is a book for those who wish to learn the truth. It is suitable for anyone who wishes to make educated decisions about what they support with their money and their consumption. It is a book to facilitate re-connection.
The truth is a harsh thing. It is frightening and nauseating. Yet, the responses of my classmates compel me to keep ingesting the truth in Foer's book. This is not my last post on Eating Animals. I will not lose my connection to the reality of what my family, friends, and classmates are supporting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)