Protesters in large cities in Ukraine have been calling for their president, Viktor Yanukovych, to resign peacefully since late November. The protests were spurred after President Yanukovych refused to sign a treaty that would integrate Ukraine more into the EU 28-nation bloc in favor of maintaining stronger ties with Russia. Ukraine is one of Europe's largest nations with a population of 45 million people. Because it's so large, the eastern and the western parts of the country rarely agree. Case in point: this protest, the first wide-spread anti-government incident in an unstable country since the Orange Revolution in 2004. The anti-government sentiments stem from the youth in large cities' desire for a stronger relationship with Western Europe; on the eastern side of the country most people speak Russian and desire a stronger relationship with Russia.
So why do these protests matter?
I haven't found anything on deaths as a result of the protests so far; however, it looks like these protests will continue until Yanukovych either rescinds his decision to ignore the EU or renounces his presidency so elections can take place for a new government.
Ukraine has been termed "the breadbasket of Europe" because of its advances in agribusiness over recent years. Although Ukraine, like most former Soviet states, has a weak economy, it has the potential to be a major asset to whichever bloc it joins.
These protests represent, yet again, that the world is changing and that it is primarily the youth that want change. We saw this with the Arab Spring a couple of years ago, and the Southeast Asian and African independence movements leading all the way back to the post WWII years. People want control of their countries. But, as is often the case, people in the same nation might not always agree as to what the best future course may be.
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Justin Bieber and the lens of Belieberism
So. Justin Bieber.
Last spring he visited the Anne Frank House and wrote in the guestbook that he hoped Anne would have been one of his fans. When I first heard about this in our class discussions I was shocked at the egoism and arrogance of that little comment. It's almost like Bieber said "This historical figure's humanity is irrelevant unless it applies to me".
But after reading the articles I just got more and more depressed. One of the teenagers in question makes over 50 million dollars a year and has been under the pop-star image since he was a tween. And, presumably, he started his career doing something he loved. Yet he's unsatisfied. The other teenager spent two years in hiding from the Nazis while doing something she loved: writing about her experiences. She lived during one of the worst periods in recent history and ultimately did not survive. One of these teenagers will probably be remembered for another hundred years while the other will probably only be known in the next couple of years for various controversies. Out of these two teenagers, Justin Bieber seems to have the better deal. He's alive and he has enough money to live comfortably for the rest of his life even if he never sings again. But Anne Frank has something Justin Bieber can't get a hold of. Anne Frank is, for all intents and purposes, immortal. The diary that she kept has subsequently been published and translated into over 60 languages. She has a museum devoted to telling her story.
With this in mind, is Justin Bieber's comment in the Anne House guestbook excusable? I think that it wasn't appropriate or that it could have been worded more eloquently, but it's understandable. It's understandable that Bieber would try to comprehend Anne's struggles through his own experience (that's kind of the basis for empathy - imagining yourself in someone else's shoes) and wonder what she would be like if things had gone differently. So while it wasn't the best comment to leave in the guestbook at least it shows some reflection and sincerity (no matter how egocentric) on Bieber's part in attempting to relate to Anne Frank.
Last spring he visited the Anne Frank House and wrote in the guestbook that he hoped Anne would have been one of his fans. When I first heard about this in our class discussions I was shocked at the egoism and arrogance of that little comment. It's almost like Bieber said "This historical figure's humanity is irrelevant unless it applies to me".
But after reading the articles I just got more and more depressed. One of the teenagers in question makes over 50 million dollars a year and has been under the pop-star image since he was a tween. And, presumably, he started his career doing something he loved. Yet he's unsatisfied. The other teenager spent two years in hiding from the Nazis while doing something she loved: writing about her experiences. She lived during one of the worst periods in recent history and ultimately did not survive. One of these teenagers will probably be remembered for another hundred years while the other will probably only be known in the next couple of years for various controversies. Out of these two teenagers, Justin Bieber seems to have the better deal. He's alive and he has enough money to live comfortably for the rest of his life even if he never sings again. But Anne Frank has something Justin Bieber can't get a hold of. Anne Frank is, for all intents and purposes, immortal. The diary that she kept has subsequently been published and translated into over 60 languages. She has a museum devoted to telling her story.
With this in mind, is Justin Bieber's comment in the Anne House guestbook excusable? I think that it wasn't appropriate or that it could have been worded more eloquently, but it's understandable. It's understandable that Bieber would try to comprehend Anne's struggles through his own experience (that's kind of the basis for empathy - imagining yourself in someone else's shoes) and wonder what she would be like if things had gone differently. So while it wasn't the best comment to leave in the guestbook at least it shows some reflection and sincerity (no matter how egocentric) on Bieber's part in attempting to relate to Anne Frank.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Why government needs regulation
Disclaimer: this post will take a Hobbesian view of humans by saying that generally they are concerned with their own self-interest and advancement.
The recent Johnson & Johnson lawsuit concerning their inappropriate marketing of the antipsychotic drug Risperdal marks the "third-largest pharmaceutical settlement in United States history and the largest involving the marketing of antipsychotic and anti-seizure drugs to older dementia patients" according to the NY Times. The suit also marks the largest whistleblower payout in US history with the four whistle blowers receiving as much as $167.7 million according to CNN Money.
Here are some facts about the conditions of the suit:
The recent Johnson & Johnson lawsuit concerning their inappropriate marketing of the antipsychotic drug Risperdal marks the "third-largest pharmaceutical settlement in United States history and the largest involving the marketing of antipsychotic and anti-seizure drugs to older dementia patients" according to the NY Times. The suit also marks the largest whistleblower payout in US history with the four whistle blowers receiving as much as $167.7 million according to CNN Money.
Here are some facts about the conditions of the suit:
- Risperdal's primary function is to treat schizophrenia. Johnson & Johnson ignored FDA regulations by marketing Risperdal to children before the FDA approved its use in children and outright defied the FDA by expanding their market to geriatric patients even after the FDA rejected the company's legal attempts to market to older consumers.
- Johnson & Johnson is not pleading guilty to the civil suit that they paid doctors off to prescribe the drug more frequently than necessary.
- The company knew of the possible side-effects that Risperdal could cause in patients, especially children and geriatric dementia patients, yet marketed the drug extensively.
- Risperdal was among Johnson & Johnson's highest revenue-producing products. "In 2004, for example, Risperdal brought in $3.1 billion in sales, accounting for about 5 percent of Johnson & Johnson's total revenue that year, according to company filings"(Thomas, 2).
- Johnson & Johnson will pay criminal fines amounting to about $485 million and civil penalties of $1.72 billion. This totals to about $2.2 billion that Johnson & Johnson will pay to "put the chapter to rest" and hide the marketing scandal.
So why do I say that regulation is necessary and that humans are essentially selfish creatures?
The executives at Johnson & Johnson knew that the drugs they were marketing were not the safest they could possibly be because they ran in to trouble with the Food and Drug Administration when they attempted to expand their market legally. BUT they tried to poke holes in the system to get what they wanted at the expense of people who can't defend themselves effectively. They didn't care that they were endangering people by marketing Risperdal. Thankfully, the system caught up to them and forced the company to compensate for the damages it had caused. Without this regulation in place, Johnson & Johnson could have continued to harm innocent people for the sake of profit.
Maybe it would be more effective for me to say that government needs whistleblowers? (I think the whistleblowers were also acting out of self-interest - I doubt all of them would have come forward if they weren't getting a reward for their actions. I like to hope that they would have but I'm not certain). For all intents and purposes FDA regulation was dodged fairly easily until four people not associated with the government came forward and revealed Johnson & Johnson's wrongdoings. Then regulation started to work again, as exemplified by the lawsuit.
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
The tobacco buying age in NYC is now 21
So last week Mayor Bloomberg signed legislation that in six months will raise the legal age to buy tobacco, cigarettes, and e-cigs to 21 in New York City limits. Both of the articles mention that college students in Manhattan feel that the legislation won't have much effect on their ability to get tobacco. Afterall, the legislation will only make it illegal to buy tobacco products if you're under 21, not make it illegal to use it. The second article said:
"It is not the job of the law to police citizens’ personal health [...] No, children shouldn’t be allowed to purchase tobacco, but once you’re an adult, it’s your body and your money – not the government’s."
and this made me think of two things:
1) PROHIBITION! or the classic question of the law's ability to police morality. Raising the legal age to buy cigarettes in New York City is obviously not the same as outlawing them for the entire population but both Prohibition and this legislation have similar goals in mind. One council speaker said that "This is literally legislation that will save lives" shortly before the bill passed. It is unquestionable that getting cigarettes out of people's hands will save them from being more susceptible to lung cancer, just like getting booze out of people's hands will save them a liver. But is it right for government to determine what is morally acceptable when it comes to the health risks individuals take willingly and privately?
2) ADULTHOOD! specifically, when do we become "adults" and what benefits/responsibilities do we receive as such? In some cases of violent juvenile crime, "children" under the age of 18 can be tried in adult court and sent to adult prison. In those cases age doesn't matter so much as the actions an individual has taken. Currently the legal drinking age in the United States is 21; in Canada it's 18 (or 19 in some provinces), in Germany it's 16. Is this a reflection of cultural differences in alcohol tolerance or differences in how each country views the maturity of its youngest citizens? Is maturity or mature actions the prime indicator for when an individual reaches "adulthood"?
"It is not the job of the law to police citizens’ personal health [...] No, children shouldn’t be allowed to purchase tobacco, but once you’re an adult, it’s your body and your money – not the government’s."
and this made me think of two things:
1) PROHIBITION! or the classic question of the law's ability to police morality. Raising the legal age to buy cigarettes in New York City is obviously not the same as outlawing them for the entire population but both Prohibition and this legislation have similar goals in mind. One council speaker said that "This is literally legislation that will save lives" shortly before the bill passed. It is unquestionable that getting cigarettes out of people's hands will save them from being more susceptible to lung cancer, just like getting booze out of people's hands will save them a liver. But is it right for government to determine what is morally acceptable when it comes to the health risks individuals take willingly and privately?
2) ADULTHOOD! specifically, when do we become "adults" and what benefits/responsibilities do we receive as such? In some cases of violent juvenile crime, "children" under the age of 18 can be tried in adult court and sent to adult prison. In those cases age doesn't matter so much as the actions an individual has taken. Currently the legal drinking age in the United States is 21; in Canada it's 18 (or 19 in some provinces), in Germany it's 16. Is this a reflection of cultural differences in alcohol tolerance or differences in how each country views the maturity of its youngest citizens? Is maturity or mature actions the prime indicator for when an individual reaches "adulthood"?
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Pirates as Businessmen
In the NPR podcast about the Somali pirate attacks in 2009 the Planet Money team talked about how pirates and the "unwilling customers" (the crew on the ships they board, the ship company itself, the government that the boarded ship belongs to etc) have "normal" business transactions when dealing with ransoms. Apparently in one instance after a CEO of a shipping company retrieved control of his boat back from the pirates the crew found a time sheet listing the hours a pirate had worked! I never imagined I would ever have anything in common with pirates when I pretended to be one for Halloween ten years ago, but hey I like getting paid for the work I do too. I'm just not willing to wield guns and abduct people to get some cash.
I found it fascinating that in the podcast the CEO of a Danish shipping company seemed to think of the months spent trying to get his crew and ship back as business as usual. He said the company never expected to not have to pay a ransom, the company even had special insurance for pirate negotiations. In a link provided by the podcast to a Freakonomics page about pirate economics, the author of The Invisible Hook talks about how the traditional brand of pirate as a sadistic, irrational person who likes to brutalize hostages just for the hell of it is quite inaccurate. The business men negotiating the ransom were and, according to the podcast, still are treated with respect and hostages are not tortured indiscriminately, for the most part. While pirates had to cultivate an image of "men on the edge" they didn't want a reputation for wanton brutality. This image was the result of an economic choice of what would best suit the needs of the criminal system.
Recently pirates abducted two US citizens on an oil vessel off the coast of Nigeria. The citizens were the captain and chief engineer of the vessel (higher ranking crew members have more value and thus will fetch a higher sum on the ransom "market", if you can even call it that). The UN reported that Somalia has fallen to a 7 year low, partly because of increased security of ships in that region. Sooo it looks like the piracy market has moved to the West coast of Africa where government restrictions on vessel security are much higher than in Somalia. The organized crime operation of piracy, like other forms of organized crime such as drug cartels or cat burglar associations, is fluid and moving where there is the most opportunity for economic growth.
One pressing issue facing governments all over the world for the history of civilization is how to deal with illegitimate markets. Prostitution has been around since Biblical times. The United States saw a backlash of gangs and mobs during Prohibition who worked the bootlegging business of ferrying illegal alcohol from moonshine distilleries to city speakeasies in the 1920's. All of the taboo ventures in organized crime have at least three things in common. One they all make awesome movies. And, more importantly, they are all rarely understood as primarily economic ventures and the members of each venture are usually demonized. I'm not saying that piracy is moral or a legitimate way to make a living, especially when it puts others in danger. But for the people involved in the trade, like all other black markets, piracy may be the only way or at least may seem like the best way to make a living in a society that doesn't offer other options.
I found it fascinating that in the podcast the CEO of a Danish shipping company seemed to think of the months spent trying to get his crew and ship back as business as usual. He said the company never expected to not have to pay a ransom, the company even had special insurance for pirate negotiations. In a link provided by the podcast to a Freakonomics page about pirate economics, the author of The Invisible Hook talks about how the traditional brand of pirate as a sadistic, irrational person who likes to brutalize hostages just for the hell of it is quite inaccurate. The business men negotiating the ransom were and, according to the podcast, still are treated with respect and hostages are not tortured indiscriminately, for the most part. While pirates had to cultivate an image of "men on the edge" they didn't want a reputation for wanton brutality. This image was the result of an economic choice of what would best suit the needs of the criminal system.
Recently pirates abducted two US citizens on an oil vessel off the coast of Nigeria. The citizens were the captain and chief engineer of the vessel (higher ranking crew members have more value and thus will fetch a higher sum on the ransom "market", if you can even call it that). The UN reported that Somalia has fallen to a 7 year low, partly because of increased security of ships in that region. Sooo it looks like the piracy market has moved to the West coast of Africa where government restrictions on vessel security are much higher than in Somalia. The organized crime operation of piracy, like other forms of organized crime such as drug cartels or cat burglar associations, is fluid and moving where there is the most opportunity for economic growth.
One pressing issue facing governments all over the world for the history of civilization is how to deal with illegitimate markets. Prostitution has been around since Biblical times. The United States saw a backlash of gangs and mobs during Prohibition who worked the bootlegging business of ferrying illegal alcohol from moonshine distilleries to city speakeasies in the 1920's. All of the taboo ventures in organized crime have at least three things in common. One they all make awesome movies. And, more importantly, they are all rarely understood as primarily economic ventures and the members of each venture are usually demonized. I'm not saying that piracy is moral or a legitimate way to make a living, especially when it puts others in danger. But for the people involved in the trade, like all other black markets, piracy may be the only way or at least may seem like the best way to make a living in a society that doesn't offer other options.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
The latest US shutdown
Only recently did the US political machine require shutdowns of the federal government to allow Congress to discuss budgetary issues. The first two times the government was partially shutdown were during the Clinton administration in 1995 and 1996. The third time was from October 1st to October 17th, 2013 under Obama's administration. During both shutdown events workers were furloughed and the economy suffered slightly. And why? Both shutdown events occurred in highly polarized Congresses. According to a 2013 joint study by Duke University and UNC, the events of the 1995 Congress potentially have led to increasingly partisan politics in D.C. such that, although 1995 represented the most partisan Congress in 100 years, the politics are even more polarized now.
After my brother graduated from college he worked on Capitol Hill for Louisiana's Democratic Senator for a couple of years. During the latest shutdown, over 800,000 federal employees were deemed "non-essential" and furloughed from their jobs. The "non-essential" departments included the EPA, WIC services, FEMA, and national parks services, among others. When I read articles about the political squabbling of the shutdown I couldn't help but think about all of the people deemed "non-essential" who paid the price for big party officials in the House and Senate refusing to discuss budget and healthcare issues like adults. If any of them were like my brother when he worked in the Senate then they desperately needed those jobs and those paychecks to go about their daily lives.
The worst part about this latest shutdown is that it seems to have gone on way longer than it should have. Neither side got what it wanted out of the shutdown and people who could have made the shutdown end more quickly refused to talk to eachother seriously about Republicans' and Democrats' goals and the possibility for a compromise.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Biker gangs and Alexian Lien
On September 29th a group of motorcyclists got into a violent confrontation with an SUV that is now being called the "Manhattan Brawl". The driver of the SUV, Alexian Lien, was sent to the hospital for stitches to his face after being beaten by some of the bikers in the group. And so far at least one of the bikers is paralyzed after being run over by Lien's car. Here's a video of the event:
An interesting way to look at the Manhattan Brawl is to see how different sides are analyzing the events. One article claims that the motorcyclists in the incident don't actually qualify as a "biker gang". Autoevolution.com claims that not enough leeway is being given to the motorcyclists due to their image as a gang. Other sites clearly portray Lien as the victim of a senseless attack from crazy people.
So I guess the real question is who deserves the most blame? Both sides ended up getting hurt somehow and both sides in some way initiated conflict. The SUV probably wouldn't have run over a man if the motorcyclists hadn't hogged the entire road and forced him to stall. The man who started beating on the SUV with his helmet probably wouldn't have done that if his friend didn't get run over. In the brawl clearly there were victims and perpetrators, but it seems like the lines of guilt are being drawn almost entirely on preconceived notions about one side's identity.
An interesting way to look at the Manhattan Brawl is to see how different sides are analyzing the events. One article claims that the motorcyclists in the incident don't actually qualify as a "biker gang". Autoevolution.com claims that not enough leeway is being given to the motorcyclists due to their image as a gang. Other sites clearly portray Lien as the victim of a senseless attack from crazy people.
So I guess the real question is who deserves the most blame? Both sides ended up getting hurt somehow and both sides in some way initiated conflict. The SUV probably wouldn't have run over a man if the motorcyclists hadn't hogged the entire road and forced him to stall. The man who started beating on the SUV with his helmet probably wouldn't have done that if his friend didn't get run over. In the brawl clearly there were victims and perpetrators, but it seems like the lines of guilt are being drawn almost entirely on preconceived notions about one side's identity.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
The Second Golden Age of TV and creativity explosions
Does anyone remember the writers' strike from late 2007 - 2008? All I remember was my mom saying something about not seeing the season finale of NCIS. But apparently it had a much larger impact on the entertainment industry than my thirteen-year-old self realized. According to the Economist the writers' strike threatened to shut down the Oscars and decreased the 2008 TV audience size by 21%. The writers, typically the most overlooked members of the entertainment industry, had the power to shut down production for three months.
How is that important now? Because in the second Golden Age of Television that started about 20 years ago (some people say the 1950's hold the original title) the writers are the main players. According to CNN, the huge number of channels and networks available has given writers elbow room to get their creative juices flowing. What used to be the norm of "gold-standard TV" existed only on subscription networks like HBO. Enter The Sopranos and Mad Men on AMC. Intense dramas with complex plots and intricate dialogue are now available on cable to a wider array of viewing audiences. Then the higher register of complexity enters comedies and even sitcoms. Television begins to address serious contemporary issues even in the form of traditionally "low-brow" comedy. (Thank you The Simpsons). Even a company that didn't have a widely accessible market ten years ago is creating quality TV shows! Netflix started creating shows this year and its first trial run already got an Emmy nomination. Even Amazon is starting to pilot TV shows. Remember when it was a book shipping company?
So in short, the writers are the creative gurus that made quality the norm and made this Golden Age of Television possible. And honestly, I think that's where the power should be. The increased opportunities and avenues for creativity allow entertainment and its consumers to become more conscious and self-aware of contemporary issues. I'm not going to lie, I am a TV addict. Avatar the Last Airbender changed my life when I was 10 by making me believe that everyone deserves a second chance. 24 changed how I thought of TV shows' inferiority to books because of the creative decisions involved in episode structure. The opening scene from The Newsroom made me realize the importance of speaking out when it's so much easier to be complacent. And Saturday Night Live and the Colbert Report introduced me to the glorious genre of satire. In this Golden Age of Television, good quality TV that makes people think and inspires conversation can be a valuable tool in sparking change.
(OK I might have taken it a bit too far in that last little testimonial, but I really love those shows. If nothing else, the second Golden Age of TV has made millions of people care about something in their daily lives.)
How is that important now? Because in the second Golden Age of Television that started about 20 years ago (some people say the 1950's hold the original title) the writers are the main players. According to CNN, the huge number of channels and networks available has given writers elbow room to get their creative juices flowing. What used to be the norm of "gold-standard TV" existed only on subscription networks like HBO. Enter The Sopranos and Mad Men on AMC. Intense dramas with complex plots and intricate dialogue are now available on cable to a wider array of viewing audiences. Then the higher register of complexity enters comedies and even sitcoms. Television begins to address serious contemporary issues even in the form of traditionally "low-brow" comedy. (Thank you The Simpsons). Even a company that didn't have a widely accessible market ten years ago is creating quality TV shows! Netflix started creating shows this year and its first trial run already got an Emmy nomination. Even Amazon is starting to pilot TV shows. Remember when it was a book shipping company?
So in short, the writers are the creative gurus that made quality the norm and made this Golden Age of Television possible. And honestly, I think that's where the power should be. The increased opportunities and avenues for creativity allow entertainment and its consumers to become more conscious and self-aware of contemporary issues. I'm not going to lie, I am a TV addict. Avatar the Last Airbender changed my life when I was 10 by making me believe that everyone deserves a second chance. 24 changed how I thought of TV shows' inferiority to books because of the creative decisions involved in episode structure. The opening scene from The Newsroom made me realize the importance of speaking out when it's so much easier to be complacent. And Saturday Night Live and the Colbert Report introduced me to the glorious genre of satire. In this Golden Age of Television, good quality TV that makes people think and inspires conversation can be a valuable tool in sparking change.
(OK I might have taken it a bit too far in that last little testimonial, but I really love those shows. If nothing else, the second Golden Age of TV has made millions of people care about something in their daily lives.)
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Instant Gratification Cuteness
I have no idea what to write about. Is there anything that you can say that sounds remotely intelligent when you think about dog and cat internet memes? The only thing that comes to mind is a critique about our societal obsession with the cuteness of pet memes. In the United States, and probably everywhere in the world that has an internet connection, internet users pore over cute images, vines, youtube videos, tumblr gifs, the list goes on and on. Just look at this website: http://procatinator.com/
We obviously have an obsession with the endless amount of cute at our fingertips. And who wouldn't? One of the things that would always cheer me up when I had a bad day was working at barns with horses or playing with my black lab. Now that I'm in college I can't really do that anymore so I've resorted to cute pet memes. Animals, especially domesticated pets, have a way of cheering people up. But do we act on our obsession with cute animal images outside of the digital world?
According to the Human Society of the United States "about 2.7 million healthy, adoptable cats and dogs—about one every 11 seconds—are put down in U.S. shelters each year. Often these animals are the offspring of cherished family pets". So even though an obsession with pets is pervasive in our culture online it doesn't really do anything to solve a pressing problem in reality.
I would argue that the reason why there is still a huge problem with animal abuse in the US, and again probably everywhere in the world, is because we have a higher appreciation for the digital plethora of pet material at our fingertips than for the actual animals themselves. Does anyone remember when Nintendo released the Nintendogs game for the DS? It seemed like the biggest scam to me. It was fun for about ten minutes when you were admiring how cute your computer-simulated dog looked and then when nothing new happened in the game you wondered why you even bought it in the first place. Having a pet dog, a living creature that needed love and attention, was so much more valuable and formative to an individual's personality than the Nintendo game. But caring for animals takes work. Depending on the animal they can be ridiculously needy and every single one of them poops in places where they shouldn't. It's so much easier to just gush over the instant cuteness (minus the messiness of a living thing) of pet memes on the Internet. Maybe the reason why animal euthanasia is so high in the US is because the abundance of pet memes on the internet has desensitized us to the true struggles many pets face in trying to get good homes. If we gorge ourselves on the cuteness of a simulated version of an animal then we have unrealistic expectations that the real thing will be just as cute and not gross at all. (After all, none of the Internet images of cute cats and dogs feature their poop). When people discover that it's far easier to be content with images of animals than with living creatures they may start to prefer the internet version to the real thing. The more this happens, the more animals get put down for lack of people caring about them.
For an interesting take on shelter pet photography policy please look at the post in the link:
http://sleepmurder.tumblr.com/post/57815190794/on-the-importance-of-good-photos-of-shelter-pets
We obviously have an obsession with the endless amount of cute at our fingertips. And who wouldn't? One of the things that would always cheer me up when I had a bad day was working at barns with horses or playing with my black lab. Now that I'm in college I can't really do that anymore so I've resorted to cute pet memes. Animals, especially domesticated pets, have a way of cheering people up. But do we act on our obsession with cute animal images outside of the digital world?
According to the Human Society of the United States "about 2.7 million healthy, adoptable cats and dogs—about one every 11 seconds—are put down in U.S. shelters each year. Often these animals are the offspring of cherished family pets". So even though an obsession with pets is pervasive in our culture online it doesn't really do anything to solve a pressing problem in reality.
I would argue that the reason why there is still a huge problem with animal abuse in the US, and again probably everywhere in the world, is because we have a higher appreciation for the digital plethora of pet material at our fingertips than for the actual animals themselves. Does anyone remember when Nintendo released the Nintendogs game for the DS? It seemed like the biggest scam to me. It was fun for about ten minutes when you were admiring how cute your computer-simulated dog looked and then when nothing new happened in the game you wondered why you even bought it in the first place. Having a pet dog, a living creature that needed love and attention, was so much more valuable and formative to an individual's personality than the Nintendo game. But caring for animals takes work. Depending on the animal they can be ridiculously needy and every single one of them poops in places where they shouldn't. It's so much easier to just gush over the instant cuteness (minus the messiness of a living thing) of pet memes on the Internet. Maybe the reason why animal euthanasia is so high in the US is because the abundance of pet memes on the internet has desensitized us to the true struggles many pets face in trying to get good homes. If we gorge ourselves on the cuteness of a simulated version of an animal then we have unrealistic expectations that the real thing will be just as cute and not gross at all. (After all, none of the Internet images of cute cats and dogs feature their poop). When people discover that it's far easier to be content with images of animals than with living creatures they may start to prefer the internet version to the real thing. The more this happens, the more animals get put down for lack of people caring about them.
For an interesting take on shelter pet photography policy please look at the post in the link:
http://sleepmurder.tumblr.com/post/57815190794/on-the-importance-of-good-photos-of-shelter-pets
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Navy Yard Shooting: the mental health and gun control debates again?
In light of the Washington Navy Yard shooting last Monday on the 16th various questions about governmental responsibility have been raised. These have most frequently revolved around the protocol and processes involved to get government clearance in certain jobs. Since that doesn't directly apply to anyone reading this blog I'd prefer to focus on something more relevant to a wider array of United States citizens. Two hot-button issues in US politics are about guns and healthcare. In both cases it seems like no one even wants to bring either subject up. However, both of these issues, and specifically the gun control and mental health care debates, can be tied into a larger issue about how governments and their coffers work.
The safety of a society is dependent on many variables but almost all of them can be traced back to the amount of money being spent to support programs. It seems that the various authors we've been reading in class differ as to what they believe money should be spent on or what should be manipulated in the market. On one side, Smith outlines three manipulations of the market and determines how or if they benefit society. On the other side, Marx doesn't seem to really analyze where money is coming from to fund society but rather suggests that everything involving personal finances be abolished and consolidated in the hands of the state.
The safety of a society is dependent on many variables but almost all of them can be traced back to the amount of money being spent to support programs. It seems that the various authors we've been reading in class differ as to what they believe money should be spent on or what should be manipulated in the market. On one side, Smith outlines three manipulations of the market and determines how or if they benefit society. On the other side, Marx doesn't seem to really analyze where money is coming from to fund society but rather suggests that everything involving personal finances be abolished and consolidated in the hands of the state.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Do societies have a moral obligation to intervene in foreign affairs even when the risks are high?
That's right. I'm talking about Syria. The economy has been (almost) completely destroyed since the Arab Spring and the beginning of Syria's internal violence. Assad's government is relying on aid mostly from its allies Russia and China. Did I mention that the Assad family has been in power for fifty years? The Baath party took over when France relinquished its hold on the colony in the mid 1960's. The problem is that Syria is run by a minority group that comprises less than 12 percent of the Syrian population. (Something tells me this government might not relate to its population well). As if things weren't bad enough economically and socially, the two year long civil war has made Syria the world's 2nd largest
producer of refugees with two million displaced Syrian citizens seeking
asylum in neighboring countries. According to the New York Times, there are an additional four and a half million Syrian citizens who are internally displaced.
Oh! And now this stuff about chemical weapons used on Syrian citizens by their own government. According to Le Monde, sarin gas was used on the Free Syrian Army as early as May of 2013. The United States is more interested in an attack that occured on August 21st. In this attack chemical weapons were used on thousands of Syrian civilians. Now a red line has been crossed and U.S. President Obama is calling for action.
But does the United States, or any foreign government for that matter, have any moral obligation to intervene in Syria?
According to Gram Slattery, the United States all too often attempts to dump a ready made batch of republican democracy on struggling governments' heads expecting an ideal self-representation-based society to form in a couple of months. Slattery analyzes John Stuart Mill's interpretations of government and government-making in relation to the United States eminent actions in foreign policy. "To put his ideas crudely, Mill claimed that many societies were fit for representative government, but others, in their present state, were not; those peoples truly bent on self-rule, he claimed, would successfully fight for and achieve it", (Slattery, paragraph 2).
So, does the world simply wait and watch as rebels fight to achieve self-representation?
Do international organizations simply establish relief funds for affected groups but steer clear of the source of these groups' problems?
Can foreign governments even afford to look further than their own backyard when determining foreign policy?
What is, or should be, the moral obligation for observers as Syria spirals ever out of control?
(Will you ever forgive me for this slew of rhetorical questions?)
It may not be the economically "smart" way to think about this conflict, but I believe there should be something done. It is grandiose to assume that by sweeping into the rescue about 2 1/2 years after a complex conflict's outbreak that a fifty year old (corrupt) governmental order will about-face overnight. Slattery puts it lightly by calling it over-ambitious. But surely something can be done to lower the ridiculous numbers of victims in this war.
To close, here is a quote from Mill, ironically found in A Few Words on Non-Intervention:
"[The] only test … of a people’s having become fit for popular institutions is that they or a sufficient portion of them prevail in the contest, and are willing to brave danger and labor for their liberation."
I think the Syrian people have proved themselves willing to brave danger and labor, don't you?
And to keep this light and educational, here's a vlog from Hank Green to his brother John.
Oh! And now this stuff about chemical weapons used on Syrian citizens by their own government. According to Le Monde, sarin gas was used on the Free Syrian Army as early as May of 2013. The United States is more interested in an attack that occured on August 21st. In this attack chemical weapons were used on thousands of Syrian civilians. Now a red line has been crossed and U.S. President Obama is calling for action.
But does the United States, or any foreign government for that matter, have any moral obligation to intervene in Syria?
According to Gram Slattery, the United States all too often attempts to dump a ready made batch of republican democracy on struggling governments' heads expecting an ideal self-representation-based society to form in a couple of months. Slattery analyzes John Stuart Mill's interpretations of government and government-making in relation to the United States eminent actions in foreign policy. "To put his ideas crudely, Mill claimed that many societies were fit for representative government, but others, in their present state, were not; those peoples truly bent on self-rule, he claimed, would successfully fight for and achieve it", (Slattery, paragraph 2).
So, does the world simply wait and watch as rebels fight to achieve self-representation?
Do international organizations simply establish relief funds for affected groups but steer clear of the source of these groups' problems?
Can foreign governments even afford to look further than their own backyard when determining foreign policy?
What is, or should be, the moral obligation for observers as Syria spirals ever out of control?
(Will you ever forgive me for this slew of rhetorical questions?)
It may not be the economically "smart" way to think about this conflict, but I believe there should be something done. It is grandiose to assume that by sweeping into the rescue about 2 1/2 years after a complex conflict's outbreak that a fifty year old (corrupt) governmental order will about-face overnight. Slattery puts it lightly by calling it over-ambitious. But surely something can be done to lower the ridiculous numbers of victims in this war.
To close, here is a quote from Mill, ironically found in A Few Words on Non-Intervention:
"[The] only test … of a people’s having become fit for popular institutions is that they or a sufficient portion of them prevail in the contest, and are willing to brave danger and labor for their liberation."
I think the Syrian people have proved themselves willing to brave danger and labor, don't you?
And to keep this light and educational, here's a vlog from Hank Green to his brother John.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Does imagination inherently lead to self-centeredness?
When reading Of Sympathy from Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments one particular quote from a favorite author of mine kept popping in my head:
“Imagination is not only the uniquely human capacity to
envision that which is not ... in its arguably most transformative and revelatory capacity, it is
the power that enables us to empathise with humans whose experiences we have
never shared ... Unlike any
other creature on this planet, humans can learn and understand, without having
experienced. They can think themselves into other people’s places. Of course, this is a power ... that is
morally neutral. One might use such an ability to manipulate, or control, just
as much as to understand or sympathise."
This quote is from "The Fringe Benefits of Failure and the Importance of Imagination", J. K. Rowling's Commencement Speech to the Harvard class of 2008. While Mrs. Rowling emphasizes the positive aspects of imagination as it applies to empathy, Mr. Smith questions the motives behind our sympathizing with others. Smith argues that "it is by the imagination only that we can
form any conception of what are his sensations ... It is the impressions of our
own senses only, not those of his, which our imaginations copy", (Smith, paragraph 2). When we sympathize with others we seem to transpose our own pre-conceived notions and our own opinions on their experience. Additionally, the other person's experience only matters to us as individuals once we imagine ourselves in it, "when we have thus adopted [his/her feelings] and made them our
own", (Smith, paragraph 2).
What about the power of imagination used for evil ends?
As Smith puts it, "sympathy does not arise so much from the view of the passion [of another], as from that of the situation which excites it. We sometimes feel for another, a passion of which he himself seems to be altogether incapable; because, when we put ourselves in his case, that passion arises in our breast from the imagination, though it does not in his from the reality", (paragraph 10). We could use a false sense of how another person should feel according to our imagined sympathy to manipulate how we think they should respond. For (a rather personal) example, the way my dad talks to me about college and my freshman year at a liberal arts university:
My dad: "Amanda, this is the time of your life! You should just read Shakespeare and Dickens and sit under trees and soak everything in and let the rest take care of itself!"
Me: "But Dad, I want to be a scientific journalist. I love books, but I need to learn Chemistry and Physics and do labs. And I don't want to drown in student loan debt like my big brother.."
My dad: "But college is the best time ever! You should just read for fun for four years!"
I'll stop there. My dad and I see college very differently; his desire to, apparently, go back to the glory years overshadows his ability to understand how I am approaching a major turning point in my life. His imagination of how I should act manipulates the reality of how I will act. I think you get the idea. This is what it's like for sympathy to be situational or imagination gone too far in one's own perspective. This can lead to manipulation and can reflect self-centeredness.
To this extent, with situational sympathy, we can clearly see self-centeredness in imagination.
But is this always the case? What do you think?
PS- Is self-centeredness even a word? If so, AWESOME! If not, it seems like an effective way of communicating what I want to communicate, so I'm not changing it!
What about the power of imagination used for evil ends?
As Smith puts it, "sympathy does not arise so much from the view of the passion [of another], as from that of the situation which excites it. We sometimes feel for another, a passion of which he himself seems to be altogether incapable; because, when we put ourselves in his case, that passion arises in our breast from the imagination, though it does not in his from the reality", (paragraph 10). We could use a false sense of how another person should feel according to our imagined sympathy to manipulate how we think they should respond. For (a rather personal) example, the way my dad talks to me about college and my freshman year at a liberal arts university:
My dad: "Amanda, this is the time of your life! You should just read Shakespeare and Dickens and sit under trees and soak everything in and let the rest take care of itself!"
Me: "But Dad, I want to be a scientific journalist. I love books, but I need to learn Chemistry and Physics and do labs. And I don't want to drown in student loan debt like my big brother.."
My dad: "But college is the best time ever! You should just read for fun for four years!"
I'll stop there. My dad and I see college very differently; his desire to, apparently, go back to the glory years overshadows his ability to understand how I am approaching a major turning point in my life. His imagination of how I should act manipulates the reality of how I will act. I think you get the idea. This is what it's like for sympathy to be situational or imagination gone too far in one's own perspective. This can lead to manipulation and can reflect self-centeredness.
To this extent, with situational sympathy, we can clearly see self-centeredness in imagination.
But is this always the case? What do you think?
PS- Is self-centeredness even a word? If so, AWESOME! If not, it seems like an effective way of communicating what I want to communicate, so I'm not changing it!
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Plagiarism Assignment
Have you ever wondered why the divide on climate change almost always seems to fall along political affiliations? Here are three contemporary hypotheses as to why public debate on a critical scientific issue is categorized by political party:
1) The first hypothesis refers to what’s known as “dual process reasoning,” a model of human thinking in which we can engage with ideas on two levels. The first is quick and dirty, leaning on intuition and emotion. The second is slow and deliberative, resulting in more objective and rational decisions. If people are forming their opinions on the quick and dirty level without careful, logical consideration, then public controversies may be inevitable.
2) The second explanation pins the blame on purported differences between the thought processes of liberals and conservatives. This view, popularized by Chris Mooney in books like The Republican War on Science and The Republican Brain, holds that conservatives shy away from complexity or uncertainty. This would make the right side of the political spectrum more susceptible to being misled on complex issues such as climate change (Johnson, 2013).
3) Finally, the last hypothesis is based on a concept called “cultural cognition” developed by the current study’s author, Dan Kahan. This concept suggests that everyone judges the reliability of information based on its implications for our cultural identity. This is best illustrated as a sort of "peer pressure". If one identifies as a political conservative it may be in his/her best interest to disregard climate change in order to maintain identity within the group. If one personally identifies as a political liberal, then protesting genetically modified food may solidify their role in a community of like-minded liberals.
A group study of 1,750 people representative of the U.S. population was conducted involving a survey. The participants were asked to indicate both political party identity and ideological identity then answer three mathematics questions designed to determine deliberative, reflective thinking. The more correct answers, the higher the individual's deliberative thinking. After this, the participants were split into three groups that were asked to "assess how effective they thought the survey was at indicating how reflective and open-minded a person is" (Johnson, 2013). The three groups were told that the survey was considered effective. One group was also told that “in one recent study, a researcher found that people who accept evidence of climate change tend to get more answers correct than those who reject evidence of climate change” and so are judged to have more deliberative thinking and be more open-minded. The third group was told the opposite—that a recent study showed that people who reject evidence of climate change fared better on the test and were thus judged to be more open-minded.
The three hypotheses for politically polarizing issues are all different avenues by which someone could end up employing “motivated reasoning”—reasoning that comes to convenient conclusions rather than the most objective ones. People who accept climate change are likely to chafe at the suggestion that their fellow “accepters” are more closed-minded than climate skeptics. As a result, they could be motivated to come to the conclusion that the test isn’t very reliable. This is meant to simulate the way in which people judge reports of evidence for or against the positions they hold. The experimental groups evaluating the effectiveness of the test displayed a fair amount of motivated reasoning, as expected. On average, liberals rated the test as less effective when told that people who accepted climate change performed poorly on it, and they rated it as more effective when told that it was the climate skeptics who didn’t do as well. Conservatives did the same thing, and to a similar degree.
This study's results demonstrate that the third hypotheses, Kahan's concept of cultural cognition, plays a significant role in framing the opposing sides of the climate change debate along political affiliations.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/08/public-divide-on-climate-change-right-wing-nature-or-human-nature/
1) The first hypothesis refers to what’s known as “dual process reasoning,” a model of human thinking in which we can engage with ideas on two levels. The first is quick and dirty, leaning on intuition and emotion. The second is slow and deliberative, resulting in more objective and rational decisions. If people are forming their opinions on the quick and dirty level without careful, logical consideration, then public controversies may be inevitable.
2) The second explanation pins the blame on purported differences between the thought processes of liberals and conservatives. This view, popularized by Chris Mooney in books like The Republican War on Science and The Republican Brain, holds that conservatives shy away from complexity or uncertainty. This would make the right side of the political spectrum more susceptible to being misled on complex issues such as climate change (Johnson, 2013).
3) Finally, the last hypothesis is based on a concept called “cultural cognition” developed by the current study’s author, Dan Kahan. This concept suggests that everyone judges the reliability of information based on its implications for our cultural identity. This is best illustrated as a sort of "peer pressure". If one identifies as a political conservative it may be in his/her best interest to disregard climate change in order to maintain identity within the group. If one personally identifies as a political liberal, then protesting genetically modified food may solidify their role in a community of like-minded liberals.
A group study of 1,750 people representative of the U.S. population was conducted involving a survey. The participants were asked to indicate both political party identity and ideological identity then answer three mathematics questions designed to determine deliberative, reflective thinking. The more correct answers, the higher the individual's deliberative thinking. After this, the participants were split into three groups that were asked to "assess how effective they thought the survey was at indicating how reflective and open-minded a person is" (Johnson, 2013). The three groups were told that the survey was considered effective. One group was also told that “in one recent study, a researcher found that people who accept evidence of climate change tend to get more answers correct than those who reject evidence of climate change” and so are judged to have more deliberative thinking and be more open-minded. The third group was told the opposite—that a recent study showed that people who reject evidence of climate change fared better on the test and were thus judged to be more open-minded.
The three hypotheses for politically polarizing issues are all different avenues by which someone could end up employing “motivated reasoning”—reasoning that comes to convenient conclusions rather than the most objective ones. People who accept climate change are likely to chafe at the suggestion that their fellow “accepters” are more closed-minded than climate skeptics. As a result, they could be motivated to come to the conclusion that the test isn’t very reliable. This is meant to simulate the way in which people judge reports of evidence for or against the positions they hold. The experimental groups evaluating the effectiveness of the test displayed a fair amount of motivated reasoning, as expected. On average, liberals rated the test as less effective when told that people who accepted climate change performed poorly on it, and they rated it as more effective when told that it was the climate skeptics who didn’t do as well. Conservatives did the same thing, and to a similar degree.
This study's results demonstrate that the third hypotheses, Kahan's concept of cultural cognition, plays a significant role in framing the opposing sides of the climate change debate along political affiliations.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/08/public-divide-on-climate-change-right-wing-nature-or-human-nature/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)