After our discussion in class on the death penalty, I happened upon an AlaskaDispatch.com opinion piece on the issue in Alaska and the complexities that this author identifies, “Alaska death penalty debate far more complex than meets the eye.” The first portion of Wev Shea’s article outlines an horrendous case where he tried and attempted (but failed) to get the death sentence here in Alaska.
The second bit is much more interesting to me. He outlines the systemic factors that we should take into account when considering the death penalty for Alaska. These include factors such as:
an underfunded criminal justice system and law enforcement system
inexperienced practitioners in the legal system
overly politicized Attorney General and opinionated District Attorneys
Basically, Shea points to these systemic and structural failings as “reason” to reconsider. Similarly to our discussion in class, the morality of the issue is pushed to side in favor of debating the pragmatic battle of costs and equity. I found a great resource that discusses the flaws in this approach hosted at the University of Alaska Anchorage Justice Center site.
The answer, I think, lies not in that we are discussing capital punishment, but in how we are discussing it. We have, in our country, an obsession with efficiency, one that easily transcends our concern with less-pragmatic values. Different people have come up with different names and reasons for this phenomenon, but almost all agree that it exists, and it is fair to say that this obsession has successfully constricted the parameters of our discussion on capital punishment. The debate that rages today is an appeal to our practical sense, with supporters arguing that the death penalty works and opponents rushing to prove them wrong. The opponents are right, of course, but they are winning the argument on the wrong terms. They have won in the language of the death penalty, and legitimized it in the process. They have said we’re spending too much money, possibly killing the wrong people, and not deterring crime. Underlying this is a tacit acceptance: if we can spend less money, deter crime, make sure we kill the right people, this thing might just be okay. Such is the culture of efficiency: so concerned have we become about whether it works that we have forgotten to ask whether it should exist at all.
Made perfect sense to me. Ruffle anyone’s feathers?
In a post on Everyday SociologySally Raskoff discusses our countries newfound relationship with the word sustainability. She makes it clear that we have not always been the first to jump on environmentally friendly policies and our sheer consumption of the world’s resources is a clear depiction of how we view them…never ending. More recently though we have turned being “green” into a new fad. From electric cars to celebrity hosted shows on how to make you home more eco-friendly, pop-culture has adopted environmentalism as its new pet.
However, when discussing a capitalistic society that lives and plans from quarter to quarter the meaning of sustainability reaches beyond the scope of natural resources, it can be applied to the basic existence of our country. Basic capitalism states that constant growth must always be present for the economy to survive. How is it possible to keep growing and using more amounts of resources than we are today? Eventually sources of trees, fresh water, and soil will all be depleted and the waste from our cars and factories will increase to levels we are not prepared as a nation to deal with. How is it possible for our economy to survive after consumer levels drop drastically? Once people don’t have anything left to consume and production levels cannot be maintained there wont be capitalism. This issue raises the point that our country eventually will have to face the facts about itself and not mask them with a celebrity campaign band-aid.
I have been learning about the power of fear and how its used by the media and government to control people in a Psychology class. Why is it that the things we really need to be afraid of are rarely mentioned in the news? And yet the headlines are constantly littered with stories about the octuplet mom and dramatized accounts of rare violent acts. When I make the mistake of stumbling onto the Fox News channel I hear so much propaganda about how America is going to become a Socialist nation and how the economy is doing so poorly due to President Obama’s stimulus package, etc. I know Fox News is a bad example of good journalism (how much merit does anything Rupert Murdoch owns have?) however, I cant help but see the lack of attention every news network (and the majority of the public for that matter) pays to the declining reality of our nation’s sustainability.
The 2009 Academy Awards event this Sunday was in many ways impregnated by a sense of self-controlling polite modesty (with the contenders half-expecting Slumdog Millionaire to win all of the awards), with winches of indisputable grief (the whole audience was left in mourning tears when the late Heath Ledger was awarded the Oscar for his marvelous performance as Joker in The Dark Knight), but also the omnipresent political connotations of the show.
The instance that stands out most was, perhaps, the Oscar given to Sean Penn for his performance in Milk. The movie portrays the story of Harvey Milk, who was the first (openly) homosexual to be elected to a public office in the United States back in the 1970s. This theme comes very contextually close to the political mindset that is sweeping California (and especially Hollywood) on the topic of gay marriages. Proposition 8, a measure ballot that was voted on in November of last year, restricted the concept of marriage to heterodox couples in California, thus placing a question mark on the validity of marriages between same-sex couples previously allowed in that state. The proposition was attacked by many demonstrations, and a hearing on its constitutionality will be held this year in the California Supreme Court, which has the power to overrule it.
Sean Penn’s victory in the most prestigious movie contest in the world shows the tremendous support against Proposition 8 in Hollywood. Milk also received a second Oscar for the most original script, whose author (Dustin Lance Black) is a homosexual. He praised Penn’s performance, stating that
Sean physically inhabited the body and soul of Harvey Milk.
Apart from the moral debate over gay marriages, this nomination once again shows how much the Academy cherishes its self-created image of political activism. The integrity of the institution, and of the actors in general is put in the uncomfortable situation where people would begin to ask whether Sean Penn’s Oscar was awarded based on artistic performance, or rather on political grounds… This certainly would take away from the image of Sean Penn’s work (an undeniably fantastic actor overall), for one could not precisely understand what was the real reason behind Penn’s victory; as some would argue that Mickey Rourke would have genuinely deserved the award instead.
Admittedly, I haven\’t been following all of the sensationalized accounts of the sperm donor, the ex-husband, the mother and their fighting, the home issue…but a Newsweek opinion piece this week by Dr. Mark Evans, director of Comprehensive Genetics in New York, caught my attention and seems to address an underlying issue within this artificially fertile saga – the recent onslought of multiple births due to fertility treatments and the medical advances that allow for closer to 100% survival of the implanted embryos that survive to fetuses (or in Dr. Evans\’ story, 50%-33% selective survival).
More than 20 years ago, I got a phone call from a distressed colleague. One of his patients, a woman only 4 feet 10, was pregnant with quadruplets. He felt, and I agreed, that she had virtually no chance of having a healthy pregnancy. He recommended that she consider terminating and trying again. But she had spent seven years trying to get pregnant. She asked him if anyone could do \”half an abortion.\” He said he didn\’t know, but he called me. I am an obstetrician and medical geneticist who specializes in developing new prenatal screening and diagnostic tests. I told my friend that as far as I knew, \”half an abortion\” had never been done in the U.S. But with the woman\’s life at stake—and all four babies—we had nothing to lose. I did the procedure, which we called selective reduction. Today, her twins are young adults.
Reduction will always be controversial. A woman has an abortion because she wants—for whatever reason—to not have a child. But women who have reductions are often desperate to have children. In high-risk situations, reduction may be the best way—sometimes the only way—for that to happen. I realize that in the minds of pro-lifers, this reasoning is flawed. But if performing this procedure means that couples who have suffered years of anguish can have their own healthy children, I\’ll take all the criticism I get.
So many ethical frontiers are being forged with technological advances creating new questions, new issues of morality, new issues of legality. It\’s a little dizzying.
To add to my confusion, this villainized woman who is allegedly living off of the state and who now has 14 children to raise seems to be a charming person that loves her kids…
***Update***
Well…apparently these guys did not see Nadya Suleman come off in the interview the same way I did…
I used to be a smoker. I quit in december after two years of smoking and right now I still get cravings for cigarettes. The reason that I quit smoking is because people have told me that it is bad for my health. I will not argue that. However, with the growing causes of health issues, we should start wondering what is healthy and what isnt. There have been cases in the past where vegetarian joggers drop dead at age 40 from heart attacks, and at the same time a 250 pound smoker lives to the age of 90 and dies of old age. If it is a question of why, the answer is simple, we are all different. This is what Lewis Black talks about in his five minute rant. Not only does he mention that Americans should stop considering themselves the greatest country on earth, but we should also consider the health issues that we have. We cant be listening to what the media tells us about what is healthy and what isnt. It is possible that for someone, cigarettes can be a positive thing to their body. Im not saying that we should all run to the store and load up on Camel Lights, but I am saying that maybe its time to put the brocolli down for a second and think. Will it really do ya good? And finally I will say NO THAT BURGER ONCE IN A WHILE WILL NOT HURT YOU!!!!
What has gotten into kids these days? Why are we giving our children access to guns? I’m all for teaching your kids gun safety, and even teaching them the proper way to fire a gun. However, after reading crazy stories like this one, I really start to think guns should be locked up in households containing children.It really is sad that it has come to this, but some safety precautions need to be taken. When I was a kid (not really that long ago) I never would have dreamed of shooting someone. We played with BB guns and paintball guns and never had any problems. We knew the proper way to handle a gun, and knew never to point it at someone. What has changed in so few years?
Not only will the life of this 11 year old boy be forever changed, but the boy’s father’s 26 year old fiance had two small children an well. They now get to grow up without their mother. In all honesty, I’m glad the boy is going to be charged as an adult. He shot the lady then went to school as if nothing happened. Even though they say they don’t know what his motive is, there had to be something going on in that boy’s head. If he could make such a rash decision, he needs help.
I found this to be interesting, since this is one of the most talked about issues by parents. Some people say that certain games have some educational value by using technical skils such as problem solving, mathematics, problem-solving skills, etc. This comes from Excite.com, which I look at everyday to find something new. This is one of the rare articles that I find that gives me somewhat of a surprise, but yet, in a way it does not. I find that video games have a somewhat psychological effect on teenagers and children just because of those small reasons, but I am not sure how much of a big difference that makes to the real world. Also, if you are going to sit for hours at home, like one teenager did in the article and go from straight A’s to failing class, then that is where people draw the line and say that video games are bad for you and your lifestyle. There is also a major positive social effect that goes on, which I believe is a good thing AND also a bad thing. The good, being that you can connect with people all around the world and meet people that you have many things in common with. The bad thing is, you don’t know what kind of people you can meet behind the computer screen. They can be any lonely person that still lives with their parents or in a house alone or just be a regular kid, which it usually is. The researchers in this article try to find the psychological and the sociological effects of how this can/might effect the long-term cognitive issues with kids and games. I just found it interesting how they look into the the positve of this situation.
In a blog on Psychology today Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha, two doctors who co-authored a book discussed the recent Michael Phelps mania in the press. I read this blog and honestly could not agree more! Since when did an athlete taking a few bong hits trump the financial crisis, global poverty, global warming, mass murdering in Myanmar and so on. Stories like this one go further than simply taking the publics attention away from real problems, both nationally and globally; they refocus the attention on meaningless celebrity gossip that serves to reinforce disproportional drug laws. Funding for social welfare programs is cut each year while millions of tax payers dollars are spent on prosecuting and incarcerating drug offenders. Whats more harmful to society, marijuana or the laws against it?
At first glance of the HuffingtonPost.com blurb entitled “New York Post’s Cartoon Apology” I figured it was just another cartoonist (and editor) inciting rage but I was uncertain exactly how (other than the cartoon’s obvious disagreement on the success or skill involved in crafting the stimulus bill). It took a more in-depth look for me to figure out that people were drawing (no pun) connections between the chimp pictured and our President. I am blissfully aware of the level of naivete I have discovered in myself – any implied connection between that chimp and any black human being was over my head. Completely.
Of course, upon investigation I realize that intent, insensitivity (and context), and public impression are all factors contributing to making this incident an “incident”.
But I am curious how many people looked at that cartoon and also failed to make a racist connection?
What does it mean to not make that connection? Is it insensitive of me? Uninformed? Naive?
What does it mean to bring up the allegedly imlied connection and stoke the fire?
Or did the illustrator stoke the fire by drawing it?
I guess more than anything these types of media fodder bring up important public discussion of the burdens still being carried on all sides of this argument.
This article is one example of Anthropology in action in that it reveals one scenario that most people would consider totally weird. In fact, I located it in the “wierd news” section on msn.com. There are a number of cultrual traditions, rites of passage or events that may seem strange to many of us, however to those engaging in these acts, it is simply ordinary.
Mostly everybody, some probably not, know that it is illegal to drive while talking/texting on the phone. I personally do both and I know a lot of other people who do the same thing. There are also some people who I know who refuse to talk while driving, especially down south where the traffic is a lot heavier. Juneau Empire reported that the Legislature wants to target 18 year olds and young to restrict the ban on cell phone and texting usage. I’m sure a lot of people have seen this article, but I figured I would bring it up becuase I know some people probably have something to say about this or not. I know that I have some 2 cents that I would like to add.
I personally think that banning or restricting the age limit would help somewhat with having teenagers focus more on the road than the drama on the phone. But, I do not want to be a hypocrite when I say that I do not text and call people on the phone, because I do. I have luckily have not gotten into an accident yet, but I have been close. I certainly have seen videos, read demographics, and have read articles about teenagers getting into accidents. I am not sure how well this would help with traffic accidents, but I am sure in some way it would.
Jeremy Hsieh, who wrote the article on banning cell phone usage, said that
Teen drivers are responsible for a disproportionately high number of cell phone-related traffic accidents in Alaska, according data a legislative researcher culled from several state agencies to be presented with the bill.
More than a third of the 289 cell phone-related traffic accidents that occurred between 2002 to 2006 are attributable to drivers age 16 to 20, a demographic that makes up only 7.6 percent of Alaska drivers.
I am wondering how much this would help with accidents. I’m sure that it would help a lot, but it would be over a course of time (months, years, etc) and I know that if the Legislature does ban this, people will still talk on their phones, text, and watch videos. I am going to make an assumption that people will continue to do this because police or whoever else catches people doing this, will not be able to stop the vast amounts of people around Alaska. So teenagers better watch out and people be aware. I know everybody will keep this in mind, but some may not follow it.
So what are everyone’s thoughts on this action? If you are ethnic Han living in urban China you are only allowed one child. If you have more than one you will be fined an amount determined by the government. It also seems that in some cases abortion is pressured and sterilization is forced.
The rule has been estimated to have reduced population growth in the country of 1.3 billion by as much as 300 million people over its first twenty years.
Check out the links and see the pros and cons of this policy. I think this is an effective way of managing the population. I don’t know if it is “right” to implement such a policy; however, is it “right” to allow everybody to have as many kids as they want, regardless of the consequences to the family involved and the environment. But now I am playing with morals.
It sure as hell isn’t right to force abortions; however, in order to make this policy effective abortions must be forced. Really all I want to do is propmt a discussion on the population situation on Earth. Is this something we need to address?? Are we able, physically or morally to address it?? Are humans really going to destroy the planet??
Since the end of the campaign, Gov. Sarah Palin has been working on re-creating her political persona. Along with her new appearance (in an attempt to keep her “freshness” on the national arena), Gov. Palin is attempting to fix some of the things that didn’t come out quite as “down-to-earth” (both literally, and figuratively) as the McCain campaign may have wished. In that direction, she is “calling for an ambitious statewide goal of producing half of Alaska’s electricity from renewable sources by 2025,” reported the Juneau Empire back in January. Even though such proposals have been in the Alaska Legislature for a while, the governor managed to “steal” her fifteen minutes of fame from the lawmakers, some would argue non-surprisingly.
In another unexpected affection towards environmental concerns, Sarah Palin showed more practicality. Last Sunday, the Empire’s front page story talked about a court decision to halt the controversial road project out of Juneau (the town still has no road access). Very much supported by developmentalists, and unilaterally by Republicans, the construction was to be funded by the federal government (as almost anything related to Alaskan development), but was put on hold due to a lawsuit from an environmental group. The judge ruled against the road, stating that there should have been more attention attributed to the ferry system in the plan, and other alternatives to a road – maybe more environmentally friendly. But that same article notes the following:
The ruling appears to justify the decision by Gov. Sarah Palin to stop the Department of Transportation from issuing a contract to build the $350 million road until there was a favorable court ruling.
I am not sure I understand this correctly. So, in her infinite strive towards development, independence, fishing and hunting, and what being an “Alaskan” is all about, the governor suddenly became more concerned about this road that would connect the capitol to the rest of Alaska, and its environmental impacts? Rather (again, it seems), in her struggle between being a devoted moose-huntin’, fish-eatin’, g-droppin’ Republican and a devout proponent of the capitol move (to… Wasilla?), the latter prevailed. She would rather be an anti-developer than show for a split second that she favored Southeast Alaska.
In yet another recent article in the Washington Post, Sarah is piously compared with Eva Perón, Argentina’s sweetheart in a restless time. “She doesn’t care about the political establishment, but the people in the streets love her,” a legislative aid noted. No doubt, the populist tendencies constructing Sarah Palin’s public image are strongly correlated with that of Evita’s, but in different contexts. One was venerated by the public as the “protector” of the simple (or “shirtless”) ones, ignorant or indifferent towards the political interests behind it. The other is popular for her ‘reformist’ policies, but even those might not hold if her divisive attitudes towards her electorate continue for long.
150 years ago, if you wanted to protect some geographic location, you kept your mouth shut about it; for if anyone knew about possible resources to exploit-they would. Now, if you want to protect something you have to shout from the roof tops, “Hey! Look over here! Corporations are looking to molest this resource indefinitely!”
Perhapes some of you went to the Banff Film Festival and watched “Red Gold,” the story about Pebble Mine and its threat to the salmon run at Bristol Bay. That issue needs a significant amount of attention; however, literally right around the corner is the Taku River, which also needs attention from those with the energy to help conserve natural resources.
The Juneau Empire recently ran this story about the Redfern mine and its proposed hoverbarge. Being semi-informed about this situation, I feel that looking at this article is a good start for folks looking to have an opinion on the Taku River’s resources. Although this article is not all that informative, it will at least get your feet wet.
Redfern says its plan will minimally impact the environment, and pour millions of dollars into the local economy. But sport and commercial fishermen worry Redfern’s vehicles will scrape the channel’s bottom, which they argue will disrupt spawning or rearing habitats.
These are pictures of the the proposed pieces of machinery. All are amphibious, which gives them the ability to affect both water-bound species and land-bound ones. The proposed operations of the Redfern mine seem to show that salmon are in danger (which they already are from tug-pulled barges) due to these machines’ molestation of the ecological system which they traverse. Moose, and other terrestrial animals will be affected by high snow berms created by snow cats (or groomers) across migration paths.
Not sure if I hate Redfern or not. I think their proposed method of traveling up the Taku River is sketchy as hell; using a cluster of machines in their infancy to plow their way up a pristine, unmolested, and thriving ecosystem. However, there is no getting around the need for mined resources. It is unrealistic to oppose all exploitation of this Earth because the fact remains that humans will seize what they need. Even if we eliminated non-necessity desires, supplying the world’s population with goods needed to survive would require molestation of natural resources.
This article about the Congo is one of many attempting to describe the turmoil that dominates the political system in that region of the globe. As I read this article on one of thirty-plus computers in a warm, carpeted, safe, computer lab at UAS I cannot conseptualize what it would be like to live under such conditions. Jeffrey Gettlemen writes:
When the Congolese state began to collapse in 1996, it set off a regional war. When it imploded again in 1998, it dragged in armies from a half-dozen other African countries. The two wars and the mayhem since have killed possibly five million people, a death toll that human rights groups say is the worst related to any conflict since World War II.
This is happening right now!
Few U.S. citizens can fathom such conditions. In another article focusing on the rape epidemic going on in eastern Congo one will be absolutely appalled by the facts.
Malteser International, a European aid organization that runs health clinics in eastern Congo, estimates that it will treat 8,000 sexual violence cases this year, compared with 6,338 last year. The organization said that in one town, Shabunda, 70 percent of the women reported being sexually brutalized.
So how should this affect me? Do I act on the feelings that initially come over me and drop out of my life here and head over there on a white horse with good intentions of doing some good? Do I send 70 cents a day to needy Congolees children? Do I at least be an informed American and read the NYTimes so that I may be able to carry a conversation with another informed American who aint gonna do shit for these people? I don’t know what I should do. However, what I am going to do is continue to stress about unread reading assignments, the fact that I am out of milk and bitch about not having health insurance. This is also happening right now. WTF?
The United States current economic situation has been a popular topic in the media. Corporate America has responded with massive layoffs and nationwide store closures in order to trim expenditures. However, according to a recent article Mentally disabled workers found in squalor it appears that one company Henry’s Turkey Service predicted this economic slump 20 years ago and decided it would be best to minimize labor expenses by hiring the mentally disabled because they can be easily exploited and paid less. I commend the company for thinking outside the box in order to cut labor costs but anyone with morals can understand the dilemma here. To make matters worse the company required the disabled workers to live in a condemned building and even had the nerve to garnish the disabled workers wages in order to pay for the lodging. What is really sad is many of the workers have been with the company over 20 years with nothing to show for it. Any sane person would have quit that bull shit job a long time ago but obviously the mentally challenged didn’t realize they were worth more. This made me wonder, are many of us in similar situations as the mentally challenged hired by Henry’s Turkey Service? Seriously, I realize we have better living conditions but in reality how many people hate their jobs but endure it for 20 even 30 or more years with little or nothing to show for it? In regards to our jobs maybe many of us can be categorized as having a mental disorder. After all what sane person would spend most of their lives doing something they dislike?
The newly appointed Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, made her first visit overseas as chief diplomat, to one of the most valuable US partner in financial matters, Japan. This happened on the same day that the $787 billion stimulus package has been signed by Obama. In his remarks, the president noted the importance of cooperation as far as the economy goes, and one could read between the diplomatic presidential lines, that he was pleased with the result:
What I am signing, then, is a balanced plan with a mix of tax cuts and investments. It is a plan that’s been put together without earmarks or the usual pork-barrel spending. And it is a plan that will be implemented with an unprecedented level of transparency and accountability.
Obama’s hopeful tone is still present in his discourse, and even though it went through many gaffs and blows from both sides of the political spectrum, the stimulus bill entails a compromise that was hard to come down to.
A crucial factor, perhaps even more important than the purely economic forces that would be required for this stimulus to do its job, is the necessary change in the psychic of the American investor (and consumer, for that matter). Since, it could be argued (admittedly more from the conservative stance) that the problem with the economy is actually the problem with the attitude of the consumer. The media played a big part in creating this atmosphere of panic, as they started talking about a recession back in the fall of 2007, when technically, a recession is defined, by mainstream economists, as negative economic growth (in terms of GDP) during two or more consecutive quarters. To my recollection, this hasn’t happened yet. Of course, unemployment has reached early 90s levels, but still, technically, this is not yet a recession.
It is however important that the bill gains international momentum. Hillary is doing internationally what the president is trying to do domestically. Reconstruct the trust in the American economy (the dollar would be a good start), and the psychic of the American and international consumer.
In this ten minute rant by George Carlin, he tells us exactly how out country is in the shitter, and its only gonna get worse. He tells us that through the “national pastime” of consumption, we are just gonna get fat, broke and stupid. Because people wanna buy shit that they dont need, they fall into credit card dept. Because people spend so much time in the food court at the mall, they get fat. The obesity rate in this country is the highest in the world, and the obesity rate among children is outrageous. The schools keep lowering test scores in school so that more students would pass, and in result the average IQ of the country drops.
I would have to say that Carlin expressed the truth in this rant, and when he says that consumption has turned into our national pastime it is all true. Where ever you go in this country, you see malls, stores, burger joints and etc. Also there are advertisements everywhere for you to buy shit. By listening to this rant you will learn why our country is just getting fatter and stupider by the day. I completely agree with what Carlin says in the entire rant.
Quite honestly, I hate politics and I hate economics. Reading about the economic stimulus package almost infuriates me. There was an article on the front page of yahoo today: How the Economic Stimulus Plan Could Effect You. I couldn’t help but read it. My biggest issue is why are we creating a stimulus package that will merely increase the national debt essentially making even more of a burden on our children and grandchildren later down the road. My next issue is why are we helping the poor even more than we already have? When do we actually start encouraging people to get off their lazy asses and get a damn job? Why not stop sending so much labor and production overseas and actually leave the jobs for people within the country who could benefit from them? No, I don’t have all the answer, and I’m sure this wouldn’t solve even half the problems. But I was raised with one hell of a work ethic. It is really hard for me to take handouts and not work for what I have. I’ve had a full time job since I was 17 and have struggled to put myself through college. When is there ever going to be assistance for the middle/working class? The way the governement works now, it seems as if they want to help out the poor while allowing anyone above the poverty level to just keep getting themselves further and further in debt.
In a blog on Psychology Today Mel Schwartz discussed a young woman he had recently treated. She came into his office having symptoms of anxiety but had no previous therapy and was prescribed four different medications. His question was the same as mine when first reading this story, what kind of doctor would do this? With the help of therapy the girl was able to get off her medication and control the anxiety.
Schwartz pointed out a very important fact when describing the reasons this girl was medicated so heavily; prescription drugs are handed out like candy these days! It is more time effective to simply write a prescription to treat a disorder than to spend hours counseling a person. Also, there is big money apparently for doctors who work with pharmaceutical companies to get their brand of a medication out there.
Another point made by Schwartz is that this woman’s illness was handled in such a nonchalant manner because symptoms like hers have become so common place. Depression and anxiety have replaced the common cold in our culture and many doctors tend to treat these disorders much like a doctor in the E.R. would treat a cold. Give them some aspirin, tell them to drink a lot of water, and get some rest. Nothing out of the ordinary, not worth wasting time examining the patient or doing blood tests.
The levels of depression and anxiety in our culture are staggering. Never before have there been so many clients diagnosed with emotional and mental distresses like these. However, there is money to be made of off people’s suffering (this is a capitalist society after all) and by asking the obvious question -why have these diseases risen to the levels they have in our society?- inevitably pharmaceutical companies and doctors would miss out on money to be made. Therefore, by ignoring the root of the problem, and simply accepting the fact that the epidemic level of these disorders is just a bump in the road of our changing culture no one is helped. The real problem is just swept further under the rug and covered with expensive medications like a Band Aid.
Depression and anxiety like so many other things in our society have become McDonaldized. We have engineered ways to get patients in and out of the office with as little time spent interacting as possible. Medication has taken the place of doctors and has put an even bigger gap in between patients and their health care providers. It’s because of this mechanized process that we see individuals slipping through the cracks and not getting the care they need.
In this article available via the BBC (and elsewhere), the thorny issue of artifact repatriation is in the archaeological spotlight again thanks to new documents written by Ludwig Borchardt, a German archaeologist working in Egypt nearly 100 years ago who uncovered many beautiful and important artifacts in an agreement with the Egyptian government to basically “divvy the spoils” evenly for his work in the country. The primary issue at hand is that he was deceptive with Egyptian Customs authorities and snuck a priceless piece, an incredible bust of Queen Nefertiti (shown here in better detail courtesy of National Geographic’s website) out of the country in order to have it displayed in Germany, in what would eventually be Berlin’s Egyptian Museum. As mentioned in the article, Queen Nefertiti was the wife of the Pharoh Ahkenaten, also known as the Sun King. He was a unique ruler who defined a turning point in all facets of ancient Egypt’s history. Not only is this piece important because of who she was or its remarkable preservation, but the reign of Ahkenaten and Nefertiti also ushered in a new era of artwork and style never seen before in ancient Egypt or elsewhere in the ancient world.
As is the case with many countries who have been colonized – or merely overtaken – at some point in their history (especially the last several hundred years, when people became more interested in the possible value of works by ancient peoples), artifacts of either priceless value, national pride, or information have been removed from their countries of origin and displayed elsewhere. Now that we live in a more global society and the political winds have (and are) shifting, many of those countries feel they have been robbed or at least swindled out of incredible artifacts and are demanding that they be returned. Egypt is probably one of the best examples of this demand for artifact repatriation, as many European powers (Great Britain and Germany being some of the worst offenders) have hundreds upon thousands of ancient Egyptian goods displayed in their museums and tucked away in basement warehouses.
It might be easy to immediately say that the arrogance and greediness of past generations (who were terrible archaeologists, by the way, and rarely bothered to practice legitimate archaeology by doing things like recording context…but that’s another rant altogether) should be righted as soon as possible by the immediate repatriation of artifacts and goods, but other factors must be taken into consideration. Egypt, though relatively stable, is still at a significant risk for riotous pillaging and the destruction of its halls of arts and sciences. Whether at the hands of an outside source, at the hands of a rebellious public, or at the hands of extremist leaders who want priceless works destroyed because they consider them to essentially be blasphemous, there is still a good chance that instability in the region poses a great risk to these priceless artifacts. The wanton destruction of the musuem in Baghdad, Iraq, is the most timely and unfortunate example of this. Not only was it the fault of the U.S. forces who did not bother to make sure orders to protect the pristine musuem were handed all the way down, or of Iraqi fighters (or other nationalities, as could have been the case), but it was many citizens of Baghdad who raided the musuem after it was hit and severly damaged, pillaging goods and artifacts that were still intact. What’s more, Egypt has a terrible reputation (alongside Mediterrainian countries like Italy and Greece) of ignoring archaelogical sites that have yet to be excavated or even evaluated in order to build and develop to encourage “progess” and “economic gain”, so they themselves are guilty of some pretty wanton destruction of their own natural and human history.
Though I am not trying to suggest that the repatriation of goods and artifacts is an all-around terrible, dangerous idea, I think it is worth considering both sides of the argument.
I let a couple of people read the title of this article , and they were all shocked and confused. It wasnt untill they read the actual article that they laughed and shook their heads. This article clearly shows the way that different cultures can miscommunicate with each other. Even in a country like England, whose language can be none other than ENGLISH!!! It is obvious that the word faggot is not an insult directed towards gays, but it is a dish. And the word fag in British English means cigarette. Also, in Australian English the word root means to have sex. So if you tell some one to root with them, you are literally asking if you want to have sex with them. This is a reminder that when you travel outside your comfort zone into a different comfort zone, you literally have to watch your language.
At first I thought it was more of a satire, who could possible not be able to live on 500k??? However when you start adding it up….
PRIVATE school: $32,000 a year per student.
Mortgage: $96,000 a year.
Co-op maintenance fee: $96,000 a year.
Nanny: $45,000 a year.
We are already at $269,000, and we haven’t even gotten to taxes yet.
This is taking “keeping up with the Jones'” to the next level (and beyond). We live in a society where competitive consumption is the norm and comparing yourself to those of social equivalence is no longer good enough.
I have to admit, for the last three years of my life I have always looked forward to waking up on Sunday morning. Why is that you ask? My favorite website Postecret gets updated every Sunday morning with new secrets from random people around the world. It seems kind of odd to think that millions of people write their secrets on a postcard and send them to a man they’ve never met in hopes that it will get published on his blog. It is absolutely amazing to see how this project has grown since it was started in 2004. There have been several books published which contain many of the postcard secrets. The creator of the postsecret project also travels around the country to many different colleges and other big locales and holds events where people can get up and reveal their secrets to the audience. Sometimes the secrets are really sad. Other times you’ll laugh your ass of at the things people write. Yet there are times you will read a secret and think it is something you could have written yourself. In a way, reading other peoples issues can make your own feel so much smaller. But it also tightens the gap and makes me realize that we, as humans are all similar and all have struggles. Although this is not an educational post, and the website is not educational, I’d have to say it is a big project in Sociology. Not to mention, if Psychologists could get a hold of some of the authors of the secrets, they could probably have a field day. Anyway, if you’ve never checked out Postsecret before, I hope you do and I hope you can at least find some entertainment….remember to check back every week for new cards/secrets.
An anthropologist named Tanja Winther describes in her dissertation how bringing electricity to the people of east Africa for the first time brought about changes in their daily lives. These changes ranged from increased leisure time, to easier ways to prepare meals. The increase of leisure time changed the social dynamic completely. Within the families it meant that men and women spent less time engaging in sexual activity and therefore the birth rare declined. Also, high costs of electricity meant that there was less money for the men to marry with. Some men could only afford to take one wife and others could not afford marriage at all. Women went from cooking three meals a day to only preparing two and using leftovers as the third meal. This decline in time cooking was obviously a positive effect as it freed up time for other things that needed to be done. The amount of sleep that people got decreased as well. There was speculation by the villagers that more time spent watching TV meant the later people were up and so it led to bad performance in school, and fighting among neighbors.
This article made me think about the impact cell phones were having on southeast Asia when I was there. They totally changed the way people communicated with one another. There were some positives like increases in small business profits which allowed families to have things the never had before. However, there were also a lot of negatives. Thai people in particular ,are very close to their families and communities in which they live. Cell phones put a gap between people in a sense because life started to move faster once new technology was introduced. I saw a lot of the beauty of that culture be lost due to increasing technology. But culture is not stagnant. It grows with the people and each new generation comes plenty of changes and problems needing to be addressed. Perhaps technology is just one way to address the problems of today for many developing nations.
I found this to be a somewhat suitable article just because we have just gotten over Super Bowl Sunday and are now into the season’s of the NBA and NHL. Every season has its own unique sports teams playing. It seems like the cities and stadiums themselves never grow tired of fans flocking to see their teams win a championship or just play an exhibition game. I personally find it thrilling when the NFL comes around every August to the end of Janurary/early days of Feburary. Even though my team did not make it to the Super Bowl, I clearly found it very entertaining as anybody else may have, depending on if they liked sports or not. Just the mere excitement of having your team win, especially in a home game makes it seem like your team is unstoppable. This was the case when the Patriots went 16-0 in the regular season and 2-1 in the playoffs in the 2007-2008 season. At the time, they won every road and home game. They called this team a “dynasty” because of their amazing run in the playoffs/super bowls. This is what excites fans and sports fanatics to come together and just enjoy a game to watch and not just football.
What I am meaning by all this is that when people get together, they form a saying in what Health Psychologists on Health Psychology.com as, “a key cog in the socio-cultural Anthropology”. The article, “The Psychological Impact on Cities of Successful Sports Franchises” , says that teams such as the Patriots, Celtics, Red Sox, Steelers, all winning franchises; have a major affect on the collective culture of the city area that the team surrounds. Also, such franchises as these, produce and help the cities economy and per capita income.
From an economic perspective, research on the carryover effects of positive fan reaction to on-field success is thin, as you might expect. One such report, however – a 2001 paper on “The Economic Impact of Postseason Play in Professional Sports,” by Brad Humphreys and Dennis Coates of the University of Maryland Baltimore County – suggests that, “winning the Super Bowl increases real per capita income in the home city of the NFL champion by about $140.” Their study between years 1969 and 1997 showed no other correlation between winning other league championships and improving economic performance.
The researchers posit that per capita bump is due to the uniqueness of what’s become a national holiday of sorts – climactic Super Bowl Sunday – and consequently “winning the Super Bowl has a stimulating effect on the productivity of the fans of the winning team.” This is unlike championship series in other pro leagues which are often best-of-7 series played out over a period of weeks. The dispersal of these games, when weighed against the heft of a one-day Super Bowl mega event, renders them inconsequential to the psychological motivation of fans.
Every sports team has their own bragging rights and their own team superiority. They believe their team is the best. Every NCAA, Super Bowl, World Series, Stanley Cup, and World Cup Soccer has their own team destined to be great each and every year. The people are unique in ways to support their teams and some live their lives by it. I know I have roommates that go to a Seattle Seahawks game every year and try to find ways to support their team. People are diehard fans when it comes to what sports they like, some more than others. This seems to become a part of their psyche, which shows how every person is unique in their own way. Cognitively, people want to show how unique of a person they are by supporting something they love and believe in. They do this extrovertly by displaying team logos on cars, signs outside/inside of their homes, wearing colorful jersey’s that sport the last name of their favorite player. Every person will show some other form of the passion of the games they love to watch AND play. This has been around for decades and more to come.
After the latest set of attacks on Palestine from Israel, I started wondering why both sides were fighting each other, and why it was that Israel seemed to ignore the people in Palestine. I looked into some of the history behind the Zionist movement, and the conflict that Israel and Jews have with the rest of the middle east. Looking at different articles about Israel and the recent conflict showed that Israel has many negative views of Palestinians, including racist views. Two articles I found dealt directly with the racism within the IDF. All the way down the history of the IDF even there is the view that the IDF and Israel are superior then the Palestinians and other Arabs, according to http://www.mideastweb.org. Recent examples of this occurred in two different articles (Alertnet and Ynetnews). In the Alertnet article the IDF chief Chaplin issued a rabbinical edict that degraded Palestinians to immoral murderers. This is an example of tribalism, by identifying a person or group of people as different from you, and worse then you, it makes it easier to fight and kill them. This tactic has been used across the world and across time. The Ynetnews article shows the effect of this in practice, IDF soldiers had left racist graffiti on the walls of houses and Mosques. Although the IDF defends themselves in saying that this is not how the IDF operates and those that committed this would be punished, some of the history of the IDF makes me question the underlying feelings of the IDF towards everybody that is not aligned with the Zionist goal. Early in Israel’s history there was a terrorist group known as the Stern gang, or Lehi group, this group targeted British officials because of their anti Zionist views, they assassinated Lord Moyne, and helped carry out the Deir Yassin massacre where they killed over 100 people . This group would become a militia group, and eventually part of the IDF when Israel pulled together as a cohesive group. There is currently a service medal for all those who were in the Stern group called the Lehi Ribbon. Right here there is a positive connection between killing and fighting against people who do not have Zionist views.
There is a perception in Israel that all of Palestine should belong to them. This is evident by the repeated creation of outposts of Israelites in Palestinian land. There is also a definite evidence of unequal treatment, and treatment that violate our bill of rights in Palestine and Israel as evidenced by a CBS 60 minutes article (here). Israeli forces force ably removing Arabs from their homes, while more and more Israeli settlers are moving into Palestine. Not all Israelis want this to happen, but there is little support from the citizens in Israel to remove settlements. There needs to be a peaceful solution to Palestine, but for that to work Israel needs to calm down, and halt their position of disproportionate retaliation.
Born this day in 1803, Albert Sidney Johnston was to become the second ranking general in the Confederate army during the Civil War and was given command of the western theater of operations. Despite the ambition, bravery, and combat experience that Johnston embodied as he led the attack at the battle of Shiloh, his life was over before the war had hardly begun.After dismissing his personal surgeon to go attend to the wounded from the hornet’s nest(area of battle that received heavy artillery and combat), Johnston was hit in the leg by a stray bullet.Almost before he even realized he was shot, Johnston bled to death from a severed artery. One may ponder what could have been if not for the sequence of events that ended this distinguished General’s life.
When the Civil War erupted, Davis appointed Johnston commander of the Confederate department that stretched from the Appalachians to Texas. On April 6, 1862, Johnston attacked General Ulysses S. Grant’s army at Pittsburgh Landing, Tennessee (Shiloh). The Confederates enjoyed great success initially. Grant’s army was surprised and nearly destroyed until the afternoon, when Johnston rode forward to supervise the battle. He was mortally wounded, and the tide turned against the Confederates. The armies struggled into the next day but the Union held the field.
Social Science 102 
