The favorite television show was easy. My favorite movies, not so much. I'm not just not as interested in movies as I am TV, because the spans are shorter and often times I feel the good ones are all slightly depressing and therefore do not feel like watching again. I can say a couple of the movies I have just seen and currently enjoy and I suppose I do have a favorite movie, which I can state below.
I am an anime fan, so whenever I think of my favorite movies, my mind goes to Studio Ghibli and Hayao Miyazaki, my favorite of which is Princess Mononoke. His films did gain traction after Spirited Away earned so many awards, and I think his films are therefore not as unknown as they could be. I can easily say I am a fan of all of his work.
But really, I barely go to the movies. I have long list of television shows I want to watch, and those always come before my desire to watch a Redbox or OnDemand movie, although I will set aside time to watch the cheap actions flicks. The Die Hard trilogy is a good set of fun, and the first Iron Man movie still probably stands my favorite so far of the Avengers flicks.
I did watch The Grey recently, the one staring Liam Neeson. That was a pretty violent movie, especially in the beginning, but all who say it could be like the "Jaws" for wolves do not get the way the movie portrayed the animals. Perhaps it wasn't at all how wolves act in real life, but I can away with respect for them. I actually liked the wolves and the way their relationship with the people moved throughout the film. It was unexpectantly good, but as I mentioned in my first lines, it is one of those emotionally draining movies that you do not want to see twice - at least for a while.
I suppose I am going to stick this under movies, just cause it was one of those long TV miniseries - Dinotopia. It's my guilty pleasure, apparently not as interesting to some of the people I know as I find it, but there are dinosaurs and I enjoy the storyline and its characters. It comes to almost four hours long, so it makes a good movie/mini series to watch on a long car ride.
Considering I have things to get ready to go to, I shall leave it at that. I hope maybe some of that was interesting to you.
Since most of us contributing to this blog are students, it should not be surprising that the topic of education comes up again and again, because it is a topic we are deeply familiar. This week then, we're tackling the accessibility of higher education. I think this goes hand in hand with our earlier topic about education alternatives, because the accessibility affects how or why we might seek alternatives.
In my mind college is more accessible now than ever, in part because it feels like society has it as practically a requirement for succeeding in this world. And of course the easy nature in which one can acquire student loans, which can leave a person in debt for years after they graduate. And with the number of community colleges, online universities catering to the people who couldn't normally complete college, and schools worrying about funds and pushing to accept more students, it is hard for someone not to find a college that will accept them.
Now, its nice that anyway could theoretically go to college, but I do not think the increased accessibility is a good thing. It first and foremost puts a pressure on people to have to go to college, when (as I've stated before) I do not that that should be the case for all career paths. It puts people into more debt, makes them spend more money than they need to be trained in that field. And if everyone is going to college, and so many people are amassing student debt, I do see a crisis in our future for all those people that have trouble paying their student loans. After all, there was (I can't remember if there still is) a debate by Congress on whether or not to let the interest rates on student loans increase. Well, it felt less like a debate and more like a struggle for each side to get what they want, including the same interest rates.
College has become the norm. College has become the future everyone has seen themselves having, and I think in some part because everyone is going to college, a college degree isn't "worth" as much anyway. You have to do more to stand out and get that job than just a diploma. Part of it is of course the recession, but to some degree the ability of anyone to get a degree dilutes the value of all.
Of course, I'm not saying we shouldn't let people get a college education. The American Dream lives on in the college education. But this is of course when you start to enter the "alternatives" debate and that would be an entirely different post. Basically I think college is too expensive and too accessible, though of course making it less accessible would probably make it more expensive, so I do not think there's any chance of my perceived issue being solved in the near future.
Though, I do not think the accessibility of higher education is affecting the quality. We still (as the United States) have some of the highest ranked universities in the world, and still create new technologies and come up with new ideas. (its really the k - 12 education system that I am more worried about...)
And I suppose that sums up my opinions on the subject for this week. Yeah.
When setting out on this current events thing, I decided that I was going to try and find interesting, less seen articles that I thought were interesting enough to share. This week I've decided to share this CNN article about AfroCubism, which is a band of Malian and Cuban musicians. The blending of two musical cultures first drew my eye, but as they described how that the bands members do not all speak the same language, and how they work together to create their own language in music, that's what really made me enjoy this article.
Tioumani Diabate, who plays the kora and is the musician whom the article focuses on makes the comment that AfroCubism shows that music can bring people together. I am very much into the uniting power of music, and of how music is able to speak to the deepest parts of ourselves. I admit that I do not know much about nor really follow international music, so I had never heard about AfroCubism before and to now know about such a collaboration is really really cool.
Music is one of the things that makes us human, allows us to express ourselves, so I definitely see music as being important to our culture and to who we are, and can be used to help see those differences in culture. And the bringing of two cultures together to create one sound allows us to continue to close the gap in the extreme differences we see in one another.
So perhaps I got more out of the article than was initially there, and I am certainly interested in what kind of thoughts you have after reading it (and watching some of the videos) too.
I do read a lot, but I've never been big on thinking of book recommendations, and I haven't actually been reading as much lately. But there are still some books I consider up there when I think of what might be my favorites.
Watership Down by Richard Adams sits up there are the book I first think of whenever someone asks me my favorite. I have read it a couple of times, and for me to read a book more than once means I most definitely liked it. It's a long, epic tale of rabbits as the struggle to find a new home. I should also warn you I'm not very good at giving plot summaries, but I will try my hardest. The world building and mythology, along with the characters, is what keeps drawing me back to it.
The Farseer Trilogy and The Liveship Traders by Robin Hobb are two of my favorite fantasy trilogies. There's magic, dragons, assassins and once again interesting characters. The writing is good and it's on of the settings that keep coming back to see if the writer has written more in.
I read this series a long time ago, but it was another that always stuck me in the mind for the way the author used character shifts and footnotes to expand the world the author is showing. The Bartimaeus Trilogy by Jonathan Stroud still has the fantasy twist of magic and such, but takes place in a more modern setting. It's young adult, and I always thought it was a series that didn't get enough attention that it deserved.
I'm really really no good at summarizing. And I really really dislike summarizing. So I suppose you are going to have to take me at my word for it, and Google these series for yourselves. They really are good, and really sit at the top of my favorites list.
I found this article a couple of weeks ago, probably closer to when I was first released in July. When I was done reading it I wanted to share it with someone, because I could not believe I had not known an organization like this existed before, I have not really had the chance to share it else where, so I am going ahead and sharing it with you.
I remember feeling very awed when I finished this article, because the people's dedication to helping those victims really moved me. And to lay away that stereotypical gruff, mean biker exterior and show the deep, caring, compassionate individuals they really are was amazing.
There really isn't much that I feel I need to add in way of commentary to this article. It isn't something controversial or where my opinion could shed light on the situation. I just thought it was something I could and should share with you readers. I mean I stumbled upon the article myself because someone linked it and I felt like clicking it, I would have never found out about them without that link. So I just thought I would share something with you that had been a cathartic read and to some degree brightened up my day by reminding me of the good in humanity.
I am a white female from an upper middle class family. Do i think that Anti-Discrimination laws are still necessary? Yes, I do. Do I think that I have the authority to pass judgement on such laws? Not so much. I suppose my mind is more on matters of race than other matters of discrimination, and perhaps I will address those after I have addressed race.
I think I will start with this comic that I found a little while ago, and had saved waiting for this topic to come up:
Over the past months I have exploring more into racial stuff and the issues of race today. It started back with the Whitewashing of the cast of The Last Airbender (from which the site Racebending.com was founded, which I find as a fascinating education on racial issues in Hollywood), and has been a gradual presence in the internet places I lurk at. But from what I have gathered, as a white person, I am privileged. I have less of a right to speak about racial discrimination because I can not understand and therefore I cannot pass judgement. From what I gathered persons of color still see racial discrimination as a problem, and therefore I believe that they are.
I admit that at the concept of quotas still bothers me, because I like the idea that a person should be able to succeed by their own merit, not because of their skin color. But we do not live in a color blind world. Saying we should is great, but we don't and therefore Anti-Discrimination laws are still necessary.
I was just in California, Los Angeles to be exact and it was really strange. I have lived pretty much all my life in a white dominated neighborhood and here was an area that could tell I was out of town because I was white. I felt out of place and wondered if that was anywhere similar to how minorities feel. If so, then Anti-Discrimination laws are needed because no one should feel out of place because of their skin color.
Before I move on, I remembered one post I saw on Racebending's tumblr page (link here). It interested be because I never realized the degree of decoloring (for lack of a better term at the moment) was done in entertainment magazines and photos, and I think it speaks to the issues of race that are still present in our society.
And I think that is all I will say on this angle of the topic and move on to my feelings on discrimination based on gender.
As a female, I do believe I have more of a right to speak on this topic. I may have had more feelings back when it was politically more of an issue and laws and discussion concerning birth control and abortion were being made, but still I stand that men should not have the right to make decisions that specifically concern women. This topic is more concerning Anti-Discrimination laws (which are needed especially in concerns to pay), but the issue of women's health and laws pertaining to it fit into such discrimination. It's just that in this case Anti-Discrimination laws are not the answer, but that laws restricting it should stop.
I will link a short story that I read back when discrimination against women's health was more of in the light issue, which was when the story was written. ILU-486short story about a dystopian future with a summary that reads: "In the not-so-distant future of Virginia, the Personhood Act has outlawed abortion and chemical birth control. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist, though."
As a women, gender discrimination, especially when it comes to my health, bothers me a lot more. It's inevitable since it is affecting me. I think the fact that a equal pay act has not been passed by Congress, even though there have been attempts too, speaks to the need for it. There are facts all over the internet that show the earning differences that exist between men and women.
I remember reading somewhere that this difference, that women are overlooked for a promotion was because they were seen as eventually becoming mothers and leaving work. That therefore a man was a better "investment" because they were more likely to stick around longer and make the company more money. Perhaps with more women choosing careers over being a mother, perhaps that mindset will change. Though perhaps I am just being too optimistic.
The idea of legally assisted suicide bothers me. Not in a morally wrong bother, but in the idea we are considering one type of suicide as legally okay, but other types of suicide are not. Since most assisted suicide seems to happen in the case of deadly illness, is it because this person knows that they are going to die anyway that it is okay.
When I keep thinking about this topic, I find myself struggling with what to say. Though Kelsey's statement about "Do Not Resuscitate" has sparked my thinking. Or at least sparked my frustration in that I think "Do Not Resuscitate" should be honored. A persons wishes should be honored; there is no need to drag out a person's life is they are not going to be resuscitated. Perhaps then legally assisted suicide is similar in that regards. I do not like the idea of it being completely illegal, charging the people who do it with murder when they were fulfilling another's request, but then how can you always know when that is what they wanted. "Do Not Resuscitate" is easier in that regard because it is something set out, and assisted suicide may not always be so easy or explicitly stated.
It's a stand off with me. I believe to some degree that people should be in control of their own life, even in how they die, but I also have that belief that life is sacred to some degree and should be protected. But then I don't feel like I have any insights on this topic because I haven't quite figured out my opinion myself. It's one of those topics you never feel like you yourself are going to have to confront, so why worry about it a lot. Though I suppose you could say that about a lot of things. It's just that, if assisted suicide cannot be made clear cut in legality, then whether a person's actions falls under assisted suicide or murder would be left up to the discretion of the people involved in the case.
I can see a person's desire to end their life with only a few, painful months to live. I can understand that. But I can see the struggles of a legal system trying to define the parameters of legally assisted suicide, even though I know that's not often why states make it illegal. Though perhaps no matter what our desires and understandings, the moral parameters of death should be kept in place. Maybe it would be a door once opened that we would not be able to close. Or perhaps that's too paranoid and legalizing assisted suicide would actually be rather smooth. Too many what ifs. Or maybe not.
So I can't exactly say whether or not assisted suicide should be legal. I think it should be less... illegal, if that makes sense, but I can't see it being a hundred percent legal in our system, so I know there will always be limitations, as their should be.
I suppose those are my jumbled thoughts on legally assisted suicide. I could have spoken more at length on my frustration with families ignoring "Do No Resuscitate" or trying to extend the life of aging patients who are going to soon die. From what I learned about the topic, it was drain on the medical system and has always felt grossly unfair to the dying patients who families cannot let go. Perhaps that is harsh, but that is how I feel about it. That is my essential feelings on it, addressing it anymore would be ranting and not so much logical discussion. So I believe I shall end my post here, and allow you to go on with your day until tomorrow, when you read another post.
Television is for sure one of the great forms of entertainment. With a long rich history, and a number of forms and genres people would enjoy, it is not surprising people often complain we spend too much time in front of the TV. And with such variance, it is difficult to promote once single television show to the place of "favorite" above all others. Instead, there are slight paths I would like to take you through; different shows to show you that all do have a place in my mind as some degree of "favorite."
I will start of mentioning Stargate SG-1, because it is the show that first got me into television, into lurking about fandom and enjoying a lot of what I do for entertainment today. It is science fiction, a follow up to the 1994 of approximately the same name. It is not a perfect show, nor is it truly close to the greatest ever created, but it is fun, it has good characters and interesting mythology and it will always be one of the first I name when people ask me which are my favorite. It is the first show I ever really got into to the point of having to watch every week, looking up interviews, spoilers, following spin offs because they were related to the original. I would suggest that anyone who enjoys science fiction to check it out because it certainly deserves a larger fan base than I ever thought it got.
Now possibly my true favorite show, the one I would mention first, falls to Battlestar Galactica, the 2004 remake. Also science fiction, and a lot darker, rooted in human survival more than extreme and quirky science fiction. It fulfilled my needs for serious television, yet the characters were good, the story lines within the realm of sci-fi and used real world parallels and commentary. It was just good, and although people debate how much they enjoyed the ending, I was personally satisfied. It was good sci-fi, and stands up there as one of the best science fiction shows of all time.
Well, because there is so much television, I usually divide my view of "favorite" down to overall favorite and to favorite television currently on air. After all, if it is currently running and it could be cancelled, it deserves all the help it could get. Even then, it is hard for me to choose one. There are the ones on HBO like Game of Thrones or the Newsroom or the major networks like The Good Wife or Once Upon a Time. And then there is the British television that some of my fellow bloggers have already mentioned. But since it is summer, I think I will discuss in more detail my favorite summer show - Suits. It's on USA, it's a lawyer show, but it's really good. Like all the things I love in my television, the characters are great, the dialogue is nice and snappy, and I just love the relationships between the characters. Plus there is great background music. It is definitely the best show USA is currently airing. And next episode, which comes on Thursday at 10, looks to be really really intense. Although there are tons of lawyer shows on television already, this one is good, focusing not on murders but corporate cases and the office politics and struggles within the own firm. It's just damn enjoyable television.
There is a still a lot I could mention, but I think I will leave with the explanation of those three. Although I don't watch a lot of science fiction, the ones I do usually mean hold an important place in my view of television. I hope there is something interesting to find from what I've noted and that my explanations push you into discovering something new.
This feels like a strange topic to me. Not like, strange because the topic itself is odd, but strange because I'm not quite sure how to frame my viewpoints on it. I mean, I easily lean towards more modern religion, although I see the appeal in have to traditionalism of religion as a steady rock. There is something about tradition that is inherently appealing to human nature; the knowledge that things will not change day to day.
But the topic brings to mind the recent controversy of United States nuns and the criticism by the Vatican as too radial, or in our case, too modern. According to the Vatican, the nuns were not focusing on values they would want to be pushed to be upheld, such as abortions, and instead the nuns were focusing more on the poor, addressing gay issues, just more modern ideas that contrast with the more traditional stance the Church has lately been taking. And the fact I would easily side with the nuns tells me that I stand on the side of modernism, which I did already know.
Inherently, for all the comfort traditionalism can give, its unbending nature is a problem. To many of today's problems are linked to the unbending nature of religion, too much controversy over how everyone wants the world to be. And when change comes, there seems to be a reaction by religion to bunker down on their traditional values, leading to the clashes we see today. So part of me views traditionalism as harmful to the world, that religion has to be allowed to bend is the world is going to become more peaceful and accepting.
It's not even modernism or traditionalism to me, but the ability to be flexible and view all people as having the rights to have rights. I do not feel like I have a stake in religion, but I have a stake in how the religion affects the world. So there's nothing wrong with wanting to hold traditional human values, as long as you aren't harming another person in the process, or recognizing that not everybody holds or will hold the views you do.
So I suppose that's it. I guess you can't be absolutely traditional if you are willing to be flexible so as to prevent the kind of conflict religion is in the middle of throughout the world, but there is no reason to change yourself to be completely modern. I'm not even arguing for a middle here, just enough willingness to recognize that the world is not always the same. But then again, some of the extreme religions don't even feel like pure traditionalism, but instead a reaction and an interpretation of the text. And religious texts have been re-interpreted all throughout history, so I do believe that religion will continue to change in one way or another. Framing it as traditionalism vs. modernism makes it feel like one side verse another, when religion is like a spectrum. There is nothing wrong with a person's religious viewpoints until they reach a certain part of the spectrum, where people start getting hurt.
And there I go rambling again. I do not care what your religious views, whether or not you are more traditional or modern, as long as you believe it is okay that all people deserve rights. Since I am not very religious, I do not see any reason to have a stake in the debate beyond that one hope. As long as religion is able to respect everybody than I think that many of our problems could be solved. So that is all I can say I want. Yeah, I believe I am going to end this post with that opinion.
I've taken an Intro to Psychology course, which is where much of my viewpoint on the subject comes from. Or perhaps it is the way I am with most things, that often time the answer is in between two extreme truths. While I believe that some twin studies have shown that genetics to influence in some way how we develop, I would never say that genetics is the end all be all. It is that feeling that you can't change your "fate" is who you are is because of your genetics.
So I suppose I lean more towards the nurture side, just because of the way I'd prefer to view how a person can develop in a world. It's not really based completely on scientific fact, although I know that genetics do influence our development somewhat. I mean, that is why twin studies are so important, although I have no looked into them as much as I should have. It's the question that if you grew up to act like your father, was it because you grew up around him or because you share your genetics. With the twin studies, that question of where the influence comes from theoretically is taken out of the question. I don't know if the question will ever be quite answered, even through extensive study. But I can say that I believe that the answer is as usual somewhere in between. Where you grow up and who you grow up around is probably just as important as what genetics you have. And I am determined to continue to view it that way.
My biggest pet peeve could be put under the umbrella concept of laziness. I like doing research; I don't like taking stances on topics because I think there is always more information out there that I could consume. If something is in front of you needs to be done, do it. Basically get your shit done, don't be ignorant and I will not be annoyed with you. Perhaps it is not even really laziness, but pure ignorance that bothers me. Or just not thinking about other people around you. Asshole drivers, family members that don't do things until you have to do them, people with opinions that are not well researched. I am a rather logical creature in real life (I amend with real life because games and fictional stories appeal to my emotional side), and I just wish people would take the time to actually try to observe and understand the world.
I like to think I am good at researching. If you can Google well the world is open to you. This post is brief because I really do not have much else to say. I have told you what bugs me. Really, I am a rather content being; very little pushes me to extreme annoyance. It really is ignorance/laziness along with the times that people's actions really bother me (although those are more like specific instances and therefore not really something I would describe under this topic). It is general because I never really like using specifics when talking about myself. I mean, it's general and I could rant on about more specific areas within it, but no, I do not feel like addressing that. So I shall leave it at that and wonder what it reveals to you.
I am not entirely ignorant of the American criminal justice system. I've had the "pleasure" of visiting a women's prison for one of my college classes. And yet, I cannot make a clear cut decision on whether I prefer rehabilitation to punishment when it comes to criminals. I mean, I know where I stand on things such as the death penalty (I'm against it), but when it comes down to the nitty gritty of how to treat our criminals, I am not a 100%.
When they are youths, I can easily say rehabilitation is the way to go. They are still young enough that perhaps they could change, that we shouldn't lock them up until are older and do not know how to deal with the world. In my opinion, they will probably just end up at they same place they left. So, the youth system should target not as much towards punishment but instead having them learn and become better human beings. Perhaps that is too optimistic, but I would not see it any other way.
What struck me when I visited the women's prison last fall was how much they tried to prepare them for when they left. They could have a job (which payed like less than a dollar an hour), or take classes, or even learn about being a hair stylist. They were being given skills to function in the outside world. I was very impressed by the woodworking they did, making cabinets and other furniture. Others were learning electronic printmaking, and actually made stuff for people outside of the prison to buy. There was separate cell area for the people who were to leave in like 6 months or less, and there were additional programs there, such as training difficult dogs, for them to participate. They were doing their time in jail but learning from it, and how to deal with them coming out on the other side.
I suppose that what I saw there is what I think is a good balance between punishment and rehabilitation, in which the facility probably leaned more towards rehabilitation than punishment. I just don't see the point of just locking criminals away without trying to help them at all and then expecting them to be able to function when we release them. I'm not surprised they would offend again.
And I feel like in some part the one of the ways to change the pattern of criminals is to change the people coming out of prison so they won't be able to influence the youth like that, but perhaps in a better way. I just think rehabilitation would have a better chance of creating a good cycle of change than the other options in the criminal justice system.
Now of course, I do not think we should go around rehabilitating everyone. There is a threshold, at some point you have to think this person will not change. But then, how do we judge that threshold. By length of prison sentence, by type of crime. And that comes in the issue that one size does not fit all, but not everything can cater to everyone. There has to be some sort of standard for how we treat are criminals. They are still criminals; they still did something wrong; they still have to be punished to some extent. And so here is where I struggle with it, and why while I was happy with what I saw at the prison I went to, besides the food, it almost seemed like it was a pretty good deal. Of course I didn't see any of the bad, none of the trouble, but it didn't seem like too bad of a place. But then again we shouldn't be trying to put our criminals in an inhumane environment either.
And of course, I am beginning to ramble. If you haven't figure out by now, I think there is probably a line between rehabilitation and punishment. People see that line in different directions. I think I see that line on how it is implemented in real life. Ideas are nice, but I would much rather see how they work in person than judge them on potential.
So, to sum it up the best I can. I lean more for rehabilitation because I do think people should be given the chance to better themselves and because I think it is better for society overall instead of releasing criminals out in the world who may not care about the punishment given them.
Personally, I see a lot of potential in online education, although it is not yet where it could be. I do have experience with online education - I took a couple of online classes during high school, so I have some idea how such education works.
My first thought towards online education was the easy one - how it could be used to further education in America, but I would rather focus on the potential in other areas, such as underdeveloped and under-educated countries. Especially in rural areas, where it may be harder to have access to in person education. So I see it as an great asset for undeveloped rural poor countries, and for adult education in others, both developed and underdeveloped.
Of course, I would not argue that we should just give kids laptops and give then access to online education and have them start learning in these developing countries. I think there is more work involved in getting the education set in place in such locations than actually developing an online educational system. Especially when there is a large education gap, especially in adults, I think online education will probably be the way to go in catching up. As with the topic on education reforms, I believe there are already enough wheels turning with online education that people are developing ways to make it an even more effective tool for learning.
In developed countries, I think online education is most useful in adult education. At that point most adults are working, probably have families that they have to support and night classes have been really their only option so far. But with online education, they can learn at home or in the evening and do not have to go anywhere except for tests and such. There are already colleges like Phoenix University that cater to such an age group.
Though, with personal experience, I do accept the criticisms of online education. Some people learn better in a classroom setting, and I personally would never take a class that was critical to my degree online. I see potential for the form of education, but currently I do not think it teaches as well as a traditional classroom setting. I think it is most useful when combined with in class learning, used as an extension but not that only thing. But I think with the growth of technology, online education will become even more viable in the real world.
I'm always slightly bother by people bringing up the idea of desensitization of violence, as if such an idea is an undoing of morals and a bringer of our own doom. Now, that doesn't mean I don't believe it exists, but on some level it is an awareness of the violence, an acceptance that such violence exists, and I do not think that it is a bad thing. I am reminded of the viewpoint people had before World War I started, that it was going to be a romantic affair, glorified war, and it turned into one of the messiest, horrible wars we have ever had. Perhaps then, some understanding of violence can be an enlightening thing.
And then, perhaps in a cliche manner, history comes to my mind. I think most of the Romans, the gladiators and their fighting to the death. Yet, guns have made war messier and more horrifying than swords and shields, or perhaps we glorify that ourselves.
Of course, I see the way the world currently views violence, with more action oriented movies, more action oriented video games, clips of war and crime on the news every night. Yet, part of me feels like I lack the ability to comment on the world 10 years ago. I am young enough that I have matured with the way the news and movies and video games are today, and part of me views my desensitization of violence as growing up and accepting the world as it is.
The only thing that I fear such desensitization will do is create indifference. That is half the fear and distaste that people seem to have towards the idea, and I agree with them. Never should we lose our believe that we can do something, change something, making something better, or less violent. We should not become indifferent to the body count, to the faceless graves, to the people who die but we say they are only one out of so many, we should not care. If I had to define desensitization of violence, it would not be the getting used to, the accepting of such a violent world, but the indifference to its existence and the lack of desire to try and create change.
I do not know if my viewpoint really adds anything to you reader's viewpoints. Even though I wish people wouldn't be desensitized I easily see the symptoms in myself. I say it's easier to be indifferent because caring is hard when the world is so large. Or perhaps you are so exposed to it that you do not see how the world could ever be any different. Or you think that the best way to make your way in the world is to accept it as it is and work with the system, not against it.
Well, I suppose all I have to say is that we live in a desensitized world, and that when our lives can be neat little boxes were the television is as close to violence as it gets, we have to fight to care that we could change it. Yeah, I usually hate the person of interest stories on the nightly news, but they are there to keep us from being completely desensitized.
Favorite music, favorite music. I am not sure where to start. I cannot say I have a favorite band, at which I would jump at a chance to see in concert above every else. I am, for better lack of words, a creature of habit. I have the radio in my car, although I need to find myself a good Oldies Rock station. I have the music on my iPod, and I am too lazy to try and evolve that. I recently started using Spotify, and that has perhaps been the most useful to me in reaching all my musical tastes.
Music is my mood. I listen to what I listen too because I what I am doing and what I am feeling, and radio, internet or car, is always my first choice, because I love variety and there is very little I do not like. I propose two things for you this morning; a list of genres I listen to by mood, and an essay on the evolution of my personal music selection in the confines of a nonfiction essay. The second is to give you more depth if you so wish, and is from where the title of this post comes from. I do, though, have a favorite song, which I shall embed for you listening pleasure.
Music and my Mood (as I ungracefully list out moods and music for you reading pleasure):
Intense Work: Classical Music (I usually go for the classical music selections on internet radio) Creative Work: I usually go for lyrical when I want to be creative. I have a playlist that includes songs by Adele, Florence & the Machine, Mumford & Sons, and One Republic. I am generally going for the softer tunes. I also love soundtracks. The Battlestar Galactica or Pirates of the Carribean (which has a good playlist on Spotify with all the selections from the four movies). Driving: I like variety stations while driving, so anything that hits at least three decades. Or just plain old oldies rock. The 80s were the best. Upbeat: This is when I hit the contemporary pop. Generally there is a lot of energy in today's songs, which gets your blood moving. Uplifting: I hit the soundtracks again when I'm feeling down. Usually (as I said, currently PotC) some epic soundtrack music out there that will make you feel awesome. Dancing: I am a sucker for a good beat. I love dancing to a little bit of techno or synthesized music.
I suppose the only things I don't enjoy are really heavy metal or pure rap. I do not listen to much country, but that's more that there is a lot for music I would rather listen to first. I know my whole list was not very specific, but there are very few artists that I listen to specifically, and I have a feeling some of them will the visited by other posters.
One suggestion if you are looking for new music, try looking for fanmixs of some of your favorite shows. You might find someone that has similar musical taste as you, and knows artists or songs you have never heard of. And now I shall leave you with my favorite song, and some words I wrote a year ago, when we were asked to examine ourselves and in relation a larger part of the world.
I suppose I shall start out this post by apologizing for what might be slightly incoherent. Maybe, maybe not. I have addressed this topic briefly in my college German classes, and my personal opinions on reform generally stem from my views on such European educational structures.
I am going to discuss the primary and secondary educational systems and why I think there should be a more national viewpoint towards education than a state one. Currently states can set their own curriculum; there are some national guidelines, but they are dangled in front of state school systems by offering funds for complying. At least that's how I view it. But I think education is one of the things that should be a national issue; if we are going to formulate a competitive, intelligent educational system that prepares students for making their way in the world, should the system not be standard across the country, while allowing for states to include some geographical material and history? It makes more sense to me than watching what the Texas School Board will decide about their curriculum and analyzing how it might affect the country.
More specifically, I think our educational system is broken in directing everyone towards the path of college. Sure, high school would quote how people could do other things after high school, but the emphasis was always on college. And here is where I really found myself liking the German system. While there are some schools that are becoming more general like the United States, mostly secondary schools are divided into those who are looking towards the college track and those that are going to more trade and vocational type professions. I am generally aware that other European countries have systems that are similar to that, but I do not know many details. Doing so would allow less people to go to college, a college degree feel more important, and clear up a clogged system. I have talked to people who have mentioned how they needed a degree to get a job that they knew how to do, but needed the degree to prove - I'm not sure, but it felt pointless and a waste of their time and money. When a degree and not experience can earn a person a high wage, it is sad. Or at least, I think it is sad.
And although I think that creating high schools that focused on trade and vocational professions would be extremely useful in improving our educational system, I do not think it will happen any time soon. Standing in the face of such change, as with many European systems are American cultural values. The American Dream, letting anyone be who they want to be, would not want such a divided system. And I think that is why we push everyone towards college, because we do not want to be seen as pushing anyway towards being second best.
But here's the thing; when we are promoting everyone to be future mathematicians and scientists and problem solvers, we are leaving behind the people that have to do everything else. I think our problems lie at a more administrative level than an educational one. I think we are still capable of coming up with new and better ways to teach, but it is the bureaucracy, the emphasis on showing skills a certain way, that will be our downfall.
I sit here and I am not sure what to say. I know I think that solving our higher level educational problems starts at examining how our primary education is run, and what exactly to we emphasis. But on some level I also think we are doing fine on our own, we are out there developing new teaching techniques. Ideas about the classroom are constantly evolving. I just worry the system is too slow to catch up. So perhaps at the heart of it, the way I feel is summed up by national control of our educational system. Not streamlining, but making the system more efficient so there is more time to focus on preparing people for a realistic future. My hope for the other side of education - the actual teaching is summed up better by this video by 60 Minutes. Perhaps it will work; perhaps it will not. I do believe on some level teaching will never be perfect because we are not all the same, but I did enjoy this video the first time I saw it on CBS. And it proves to me that people are always trying to work towards a solution.
I also say watch this Sunday's 60 Minutes, which is to have an interview, of the preview that I have embedded below, on an alternative to college.
"There are stereotypes out there about birth order, and very often those stereotypes are spot-on," says Delroy Paulhus, a professor of psychology at University of British Columbia in Vancouver. "I think this is one of those cases in which people just figured out on their own."
Perception. As we grow up we become more aware of the the influences around us, what our siblings or friends have experienced in their lives and perhaps our own experiences have shaped us. I have the privilege of starting off our topic by talking about being the eldest child, with a younger brother to be exact.
I suppose you could say by experiences as the eldest have been like others that the oldest have experienced. I was definitely given more responsibility than my brother - if more responsibility means being trusted to be left alone to make sure I get my own homework done, I make my own bed, and put together my own lunch at school. Now, neither of us were never given a huge amount of responsibility - we never had to cook, there was little cleaning besides our own room, and our largest chore was switching off doing the dishes at night. But they were never over bearing, and I think I developed my independence, my feeling that I want to have my own space where I can live alone and take charge of my own life.
I think it is easier to see the difference in growing up by looking at the way I perceive my brother was raised. I say perceived because there is definitely a bias there, where I feel like I had to do more than my brother did. They went easier on him than me - he depended on them more to make lunch, cook on weekends, and make his bed. I felt like I always jumped up before him to help with what I was asked and they always threatened him with punishment but never followed through. They weren't very good with punishment with me either, but he was always the one less motivated than I was. Or, as I said before, who I perceived was less motivated.
He did have to deal with more academic pressure. I did very well academically through my K - 12 years, so my parents expected him to do the same, that meant straight A's for his high school years. I think, the most importance influence on being the oldest child was the independence I feel. I want to spend my summer learning more about cooking, cars, and woodworking, all which I think would be very good skills when I get out on my own.
I do not really have much more to say on the topic. I do not think much about my childhood experiences and how they affected me. I feel like I am just the way I am because I am and that other things besides birth order had a greater impact on who I am today. I wonder if it affected my brother more, who always had to compete with the older sister who seemed to do pretty well in the areas her parents wanted her too. I am interested to read the younger siblings perspective, but maybe that is because I have not experienced that role. Brandon is speaking on the topic tomorrow, in the same older sibling role as I was, and I wonder what he will have to say about that.
Well, not really, because religion is something that cannot be simplified. I currently classify myself as Agnostic, but I know that if I could find a way to be religious, I would. My mind, though, when I contemplate religion, cannot find itself changing the way I currently identify. That sounds, perhaps, too technical for something as personal and deep as religion.
And a warning, I tend to write stream of consciousness when I write about myself. Perhaps it's because I do not like writing about myself, or that in some way I really do feel "I was Catholic, now I'm not" sums up everything you need to know. But because the intricraces of my religious life might give some insight on the complexities of religion's place in society, I shall continue. And I shall take this point to say hello, that this is my first time talking to you, and I very much hope it gives you some of the insight you were looking for.
Perhaps it is best to start at the beginning, although little happens until I reach High School. I was raised Catholic, although my family was never the most religious. I went to Church on Sundays and took the required Sunday School classes, but even in my own family, that lead to two separate outcomes.
In High School, I accepted that I was not a religious person, that I did not want to go to Church, that there was no connection there, and that, as I feel now, the organization of the Church held no appeal to me, and actually turned me off through some of their policies. There was no defining event, nothing that said "I shall not believe" and suddenly made me feel like I should not be Catholic. It was slow; I learned over time and came to accept that current way I view the world does not hold a place for organized religion.
My brother, on the other hand, who raised in the same religious situation as I was, turned towards religion and become more religious than I thought he would. He was, too some degree, considering colleges because of religious affiliation, which spoke to me of how much of a Catholic my brother was. The same environment, the only difference that he was born two years earlier than me, but we ended up on different sides of the religious spectrum. I think that speaks to the personal nature of religion, that the degree of belief is a deep examination that a person must make by himself. I cannot say where I will be religiously in ten years; I do not know how my life, my world views will change to accommodate religion. The Catholic Church says that may young adult fall out of faith only to return to it, as if that deviation was just a phase in which one must explore other parts of life.
And then I went to college, stopped going to Church, and call myself an Agnostic who cannot come to terms with the existence of a higher power or not. Perhaps if I can ever decide that, choose to believe fully in some being above us, I could move on to forming a deeper religious conviction around something. And as one who does not know what she believes, who sometimes cannot believe in something above it, I can say it is incredibly lonely. Unlike others who may ask "what do I think my purpose in life is?", I prefer not having an afterlife. I do not want people to think I am in a better place when I die because then what is the point of this life if I can just die and move on to a better one. It makes me feel like everything in this life becomes meaningless. Of course, with Heaven and Hell you could argue differently, but belief is not a rational thing, now is it.
Is anyone really interested in what I have to say about religion? It if makes a difference, I have plans to someday read all the major religious texts in the world - Bible, Qur'an, Buddhist texts, Atheist works, anything I can get my hands on. I believe, at the end of the day, in educating oneself to the fullest on all dimensions of the issue. I cannot always promise that in my posts, as time is a constraining thing, but I think especially for religion, exploring and looking at the way other people see the world is always important, and may help with so many of the conflicts around the world today.
Oh dear, that last paragraph got a little away from me, but I think that belief is part of why I view religion the way I do. That - why is one religion more right that the other? There, after all those paragraphs above, there is why I will probably continue to call myself Agnostic. Probably, but possibly not. I will leave you by saying that as religion is a personal thing, very personal experience could change the way I feel. And I suppose the only way to know is to live it.
The favorite television show was easy. My favorite movies, not so much. I'm not just not as interested in movies as I am TV, because the spans are shorter and often times I feel the good ones are all slightly depressing and therefore do not feel like watching again. I can say a couple of the movies I have just seen and currently enjoy and I suppose I do have a favorite movie, which I can state below.
