Happy Belated Constitution Day!

For anyone who doesn't know, yesterday (Sept. 17) marked the 225th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution.  (I personally have Facebook to thank for the reminder, because whoever printed my calendar decided to leave this holiday out).  Anyway, I'd like to urge anyone out there to use the time they would have spent reading the novel-length posts that I usually write, and instead go and either read the Constitution if you're not familiar with it or just reflect on it.  Or if you're in a pinch for time, you should look up the School House Rock version of the Preamble, which I think is pretty darn cool and informative.  

These Are a Few of My Favorite Films

I had to make some tough decisions when abridging this list of my favorite movies, because there are so many really good movies that I would love to recommend.  But, in the interest of not making this post super-duper long, I’ve only included my absolute favorites.

You’ve Got Mail

This movie happens to be my favorite rom-com of all time.  Period.  Even though I own the DVD, I always have to stop and watch this movie whenever I see it as I’m flipping through the channels.  The chemistry between the characters and the setting is fantastic, the dialogue is great, and the storyline is so sweet and charming.  It’s just one of those movies that you watch and always end up with a smile on your face by the time the credits start to roll.  

Driving Miss Daisy

This is one of the sweetest movies I’ve ever seen, and not sweet in a sugary, toothachy way, but sweet as in just plain good for the soul.  This movie is another example of what good writing, good actors, and good chemistry can accomplish.  Plus, the musical score is really, really nifty.  (Semi-spoiler alert) My favorite thing about this movie is the simplicity of the final scene and how it explains so much about the relationship that those two characters had built over the years.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame

This film happens to be my favorite Disney movie!  I remember how much I loved the gargoyles and the music from when I was younger, but watching this movie again years later really brought this film to a new level and solidified it amongst my list of all-time favorites.

Amadeus

Whoever knew that the guy who voiced Quasimodo was also Mozart? My Classical and Romantic music class watched this film last year, and it has since become one of my favorite movies.  Even if you’re not a fan of Mozart’s music, the storyline is quite interesting, albeit not entirely historically accurate. 

The Sound of Music

Makes me want to go frolic and sing in the hills of Austria.  I always have watch the entre ‘act, because I love seeing all of the pretty shots of gorgeous Austria.  This movie is such a classic. 

West Side Story

Even though this movie is a mere shell of what the stage musical is, I still love it.  Score wise, this is probably one of my favorite musicals of all time.  I remember watching this movie for the first time and being shocked when the gang members started dancing ballet, which I thought turned out to be kinda different and cool, no pun intended.

Schaffner’s Planet of the Apes

Even though I’m not a huge sci-fi fan, I really enjoyed this movie.  I remember years and years ago the first time I saw this movie, and the ending really stuck with me for a while in a way that not many movie endings do.

Waterloo Bridge

With Robert Taylor and Vivian Leigh.  I’ve cried during tragic movies before, but this one affected me differently than any other movie ever has and I’m not sure why.  I’ve included this film on my list of favorites, because I have never seen another movie that touches on the areas of love and humanity that this movie does. 

Gone With the Wind

All I can say is, of all the movies I’ve ever seen this one is my favorite by far.    

Mmhmm, yep, uh huh... Wait, what?

With both the Republican and Democratic conventions happening this week, the subject of politics came to the forefront of my mind.  Don’t worry, I’m not going to go on any political rants, and to be honest, I’m not entirely sure whom I’m going to vote for in the upcoming Presidential election yet.  I know, I need to get on that, but I think that these next few weeks will be very telling… Anyway, that’s not the point of my post this week.  I’ve been watching parts of both Republican and Democratic conventions and it’s interesting to see and listen to crowd responses.  By watching and listening to the crowd’s responses alone, it’s pretty easy to figure out the make-up of each crowd.  Republicans go to the Republican convention and Democrats go to the Democratic convention.  I know, duh.  I definitely think that both conventions serve their purposes well and act as facilitators to rally each party together.  And don’t get me wrong, I think that this is definitely necessary.  My point is that the casual observer notices moments in each convention where there’s lots of cheering and other moments with collective booing, and, not to mention, lots and lots of head nodding.  Like I said earlier, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with rallying together with those whom you share ideologies with.  I just wonder if, after all of the cheering, booing, and head nodding by not just those in attendance, but also by those watching at home, how many people on either side of the political spectrum really give much thought as to what they’re affirming or rejecting.  I think that most of us are guilty of this to some degree, and every so often we catch ourselves doing this.  Something to think about…

Obtaining vs. Maintaining Higher Education

In a short-term sense, higher education is now more accessible than it ever has been before with the increasing accessibility of financial aid and opportunities to attend community colleges before transferring to more expensive and often more academically rigorous four-year schools.  But in a long-term sense, higher education may be becoming less accessible, because students’ loans and grants aren’t always enough to reasonably assist them in covering the rising tuition and supply costs they face.  Also, it often takes years to pay back student loans once one graduates and begins working full time.  A lot of people just don’t think that getting a higher education is worth it if they need to go this deeply into the financial hole to do so, especially in our present economy where many college graduates have a difficult time finding employment.  It seems like today, a higher education is more accessible to obtain but less accessible to maintain.

Years ago, the students who had a passion for learning were the ones who attended college (yes, they usually came from families of good means, but this also occurred during a time when achieving a higher education post- high school wasn’t expected of most.)  However, during this time, people could find decent, well-paying jobs that only required them to have a high school diploma.  But, we’ve gone through some drastic societal changes since then, and this is no longer the case.  But I’m starting to digress…    

Even there are many opportunities to enter into an institution of higher learning; many find themselves unable to complete their higher education, mostly either for monetary reasons or because they were unprepared to work at the level expected.  This is a big problem in our society where the majority of students feel as though they are expected to, or should go to college in order to find a job with a salary they can reasonably live and raise a family on.  I know that money is still a glaring issue, and there aren’t any cure-all solutions that I can think of to suggest.  However, to help fix this, our high schools need to challenge students more and the students need to rise to the challenge; maybe this would help to better prepare students to achieve long-term success in a higher education setting.  The primary point I wanted to make is even though we have ways of making a higher education more obtainable to students, we should be more concerned with making it more maintainable, and the best and fairest way I can think of to do this is by offering students the best education possible at the primary and secondary levels with the hope that they strive to succeed at these levels which prepare them for a future in higher education.

Everyone gets a gold star!

Just so you all know, I’ve taken a very open interpretation of “current events” for my post this week.  I had an experience this past weekend that relates to a current social issue that I’ve wanted to write about, so here I go…

A few nights ago, my family and I went to a popular sporting event (I may be a little paranoid, but I don’t want to be too specific with the unnecessary details) and, as with most sporting events, the night began with the singing of our national anthem.  When the announcer introduced the singer, I noticed that he was really talking the guy up.  Apparently the singer was an American Idol finalist and had auditioned to sing back up for a famous pop musician (the word auditioned should have raised a red flag because anyone can technically audition for anything, but I wanted to be excited and I was hoping to hear someone good).  The stands were packed and I would guess that there were about 1,000 to 1,500 spectators there that night, and after that grand introduction, I got my hopes up and thought that we were really going to hear something special.  Well, we ended up hearing a rather unexpected version of our national anthem.  The guy started singing, and then he ended up changing keys after the first line (I can understand that this kind of thing can happen when you’re singing in a huge open space through a fuzzy sound system), but then he changed keys again and again and again.  The singer had a very pleasant voice and all, but by the end of the song, he had sung in just about every key known to music.  I couldn’t believe that I had just heard a person sing our national anthem that badly in front of so many people.  It was obvious that the singer had some vocal talent, but he needed practice.  More importantly, he needed someone close to him to tell him specifically what he was not doing well so he would have a fair chance to work on and eventually fix whatever it was.    

I think that this is a big issue in our society today.  Everyone gets a gold star whether they deserve one or not.  The labeling of “above average” has become the new “average” and “average” has become the new “below average.”  Anyone who was in the grandstand that night was shown a prime example of why this is problematic.  Just so we’re clear, I’m not trying to hate on the poor guy, because he definitely had a natural talent.  I know firsthand that singing for a large number of people through a fuzzy sound system is nerve wrenching, and he may have been nervous or just having an off night.  But for someone with his resume, I was surprised that no one close to him, whether it was a friend, family member, or vocal coach, had told him what parts of that song he needed to work on before performing it for an audience.  It seemed like everyone was so focused on his accomplishments and how naturally gifted he was that his talent was never really harnessed to its full potential.

I’m not saying that it’s everyone’s place to tell others what they need to fix and how they need to do it, because that’s unnecessarily rude and it rarely ends up being constructive or useful in any way.  What I’m saying is that accolades often replace encouragement, and they shouldn’t.  Everyone needs encouragement, especially when they have talent and, most importantly, drive.  Accolades, or praises for achievement, should be limited to when they are deserved.      

...but you don't have to take my word for it!

Back in the good old glory days of elementary and middle school, I used to read practically non-stop.  And then when high school started the homework load increased dramatically and I started staying after school to for rehearsals and team practices, so I’m sad to say I haven’t really read as much for fun as I used to.  I wanted to start off my post for this week with this little tidbit of information, mostly to help explain why I’ve included so many “kid-lit” books.  Not that I haven’t read a lot of great books since, but a good number of the books I read during elementary and middle school have really stuck with me and they continue to be some of my favorites to this day.  Anyway, I’m going to start with some of my favorite children’s books that are totally worth reading, even if you’re not a kid anymore, and progress into some of my favorite non-children’s fiction and non-fiction books. 

A Light in the Attic and Where the Sidewalk Ends by Shel Silverstein

I remember when we used to go to the library in elementary school and the librarian had to start a list of whose turn it was that week to check out either of these books, which were a collection of Silverstein’s children’s poems (or anyone’s poems, really).  A lot of them still make me chuckle as I’m reading. 

Stone Soup by Marcia Brown

 I was recently reintroduced to this story the other day, and in the 15 of so years since I had last heard it, I had forgotten how much I liked this book and still do.  It’s a good lesson-within-a-story about sharing and cooperating with others that I wholeheartedly recommend to anyone who needs a good book to read to small children. 

The Little House series by Laura Ingalls Wilder

I read these later on in elementary school during the long bus ride home, and they’re still some of my favorite books.  The books are historical fiction, but they were inspired by the author’s life in a pioneer family growing from a child into a young adult.  I guess it’s a book that more girls than boys would like because it’s told from Laura’s point of view, but anyone interested in the time period might like it. 

The Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling

I think I’ve already mentioned a few weeks ago that I didn’t read these books until my senior year of high school, but I’ll add to that by saying that I kind of wish I had read them sooner, but I’m glad that when I did start to read the series 1) because the entire series had already been published, so I didn’t have to wait for the next book to come out, and 2) because at 18 years old, I was able to read the books quickly and they weren’t as confusing as they would have been if I had read them in elementary or middle school.  But regardless of when you read the books (and you should), the story is really good.  

To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee

I’m so glad we had to read this book in 9^th grade English class.  This is a prime example of good storytelling paired with a great story.  I’ll just say that this story taught me a little about a lot concerning life in general. 

Othello by Shakespeare

Another jewel from a high school English class, this one being from the 10^th grade.  I could do without some of Shakespeare’s comedies, like A Midsummer Night’s Dream, but of his tragedies, this one was one was among my list of favorites.  I would really love to see this play performed live one day.

The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald

A really good book about the “Roaring ‘20s” that still contains modern sentiments that the audience can relate to.  I’m really excited for the Baz Luhrman movie, but, based on the creative liberties as a director he’s taken in the past, and I mean this with greatest respect to both author and director, I would recommend reading the book before seeing the movie, just sayin’.

The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins

This trilogy is probably one of my favorite series’ of Young Adult books, right next to Harry Potter.  I thought that both the characters and story were so interesting and well developed (If you happen to notice a pattern forming, simultaneous character/ plot development is really important to me J ).  I’ll admit it, I’m so glad that I jumped on The Hunger Games bandwagon, because I think the story and characters were really well-executed.         

A Little Bit Wicked: Life, Love, and Faith in Stages by Kristin Chenoweth with Joni Rodgers

I was a fan before I read the book, and now I’m an even bigger fan after I’ve finished reading it.  Chenoweth has always been one of my favorite musicians and performers, and now that I’ve read this book, I must say that I also emulate her outlook.  Reading this book was like listening to your most hilarious friend tell you a bunch stories that were both funny and honest.  If you don’t know who she is, I say that she is definitely worth looking up!       

 

A Separate Peace by John Knowles

If you were to pick one book off of this list to read, I would recommend this one.  I’ll try to not give much away about the plot, so I’ll just say that the story revolves mostly around two best friends and their classmates at an all-boys boarding school in New England during the mid-twentieth century.  Even though I can’t relate to the setting or the gravity of the story itself, I was able to relate to how the characters were feeling, because a lot of their sentiments are universal, regardless of setting.  Anyway, I’m afraid this little snippet doesn’t do the book the justice it deserves… As they used to say on “Reading Rainbow”: “but you don’t have to take my word for it.”  

And The Medal Goes To...

With the 2012 London Olympics in full swing, I thought I’d use this week to write about an Olympic-themed news story.  Like many, I’m a casual Olympic spectator, and while I know next to nothing about most of the sports or any of the Olympic committees, I do enjoy cheering on team U.S.A with family and friends from the comfort of my living room.  So, when I looked over the Sports section of the newspaper this morning, I saw an interesting headline near the top of the first page about the taxation of bonuses that U.S. athletes receive for winning medals in the Games.  Apparently, the U.S. Olympic Committee rewards North American gold-medal winners with $25,000, silver-medalists with $15,000, and bronze-medalists with $10,000, all of which is taxed, just as any other income is taxed.  But when this information became public, some of our U.S. legislators are calling for the revocation of this law, saying that the athletes who volunteer to represent our country should not be taxed on the rewards they earn for brining glory to our country.  So, where does that leave us?

Well, long story short, we have an income tax, so income needs to be taxed.  This isn’t meant to take anything away from the athletes who work hard to represent our country in an international arena, because that would be doing them a completely uncalled for disservice. However, hardworking people who aren’t world-class athletes have to pay taxes on their income, and that includes performance bonuses, every year.  And when you think about it, every two years, or four years depending on how you look at it, athletes “bring glory to our country” on a gigantic international stage at the Olympic Games, and that’s something special in and of itself.  But, ordinary people also “bring glory to our country” everyday in different ways, ranging from small and unnoticed to sometimes big and newsworthy.  And yet, they are still expected to pay taxes on whatever bonuses they receive.  So, it seems only fair that Olympic athletes should be expected to pay taxes on their bonuses, just like everyone else.  Besides, Olympic athletes have numerous options for tax deductions in things, say travel expenses.  
  

What does "level playing field" really mean anyway?

Continuing with the pattern— I am a white female and, like many others, I come from a middle class background.  I wish I had thought to share more about my background sooner, because I think that our circumstances play a great role in shaping what our opinions.  It kinda seems like good stuff to keep in mind when you read anything.  On the issue of anti-discrimination law, I think that as long as discrimination exists, anti-discrimination laws need to exist.  I know that I’m stating the obvious, but this is pretty much common ground that reasonable people can agree upon.  But, the question over whether our current anti-discrimination laws working too hard or not working hard enough? That’s a bit more complicated.

In some cases, anti-discrimination laws can help to level the playing field by creating “equal opportunities”.  Sadly, an outside force cannot really create equal opportunity; there are just too many factors that can’t realistically be addressed.  A teacher at my high school once told my class about a struggling student who was in one of her classes a long time ago.  This student rarely did his homework, he slept during class, and he performed poorly on tests and quizzes.  By this point, I was wondering what this kid’s issue was.  Why didn’t he go to sleep at home and actually try to pay attention during class?  So then my teacher told the class that when she talked to the student about his performance, he told her that he was rarely able to get a full night’s sleep because his dad would wake him up at one or two in the morning and get him to help with some kind of overnight work related to his job, and that’s why he had a hard time staying awake in class.  Now, I have no idea if this story was true or not, but it sounds pretty plausible for the time and place that it supposedly occurred.  Long story short, the kid received tutoring and he was able to pass, but he certainly wasn’t about to head off to college, because his dad needed him at home.  So even though some factors can be addressed, we can’t put anyone on true equal footing, and that’s something that we need to keep in mind.  

Anti-discrimination laws can also open new loopholes for those looking to gain the system, and often times those who the laws are set up to help aren’t receiving the benefits they should.  I know that loopholes can be found within any set of laws, but I’ve seen far too many people take advantage of “equalizers” that they didn’t really need just because they knew how to twist the facts in order to work the system, and they end up taking away from someone who really could have used the benefits.  That, and sometimes the people who benefit from anti-discrimination law are able to take their benefits too far, and that’s not good either.  Behold, a new can of worms is opened.  

To echo what Brandon said earlier this week, it seems that a lot of anti-discrimination laws aren’t really solving issues so much as they’re providing quick fixes to problems.  I agree; if we really want anti-discrimination laws to work, then we have to look at the root of the issue.  I think that the terms of many anti-discrimination laws need to be refreshed to ensure that the laws are serving their purpose as best they can.        Anti-discrimination laws will never be able to do what we really need for them to do, that is, to end discrimination or create an environment where discrimination cannot exist, anti-discrimination laws are definitely necessary in a world in which discrimination exists.    

Assisted Suicide: Does Legalization Do More Harm or More Good?

As far as my personal opinion goes, I’m not positive on exactly where I stand on the issues of suicide or assisted suicide.  I don’t know if I think that it is our place as humans to decide when to end a life, even if it is our own.  But then again, it’s not up to us to legislate morality either.  However, legalizing assisted suicide does have its sticky wickets that we would have to deal with later.  I’m sure you can tell that I’m still kind of going back and forth even as I write this post, but I promise that I’ll eventually get to a point if you hang in there with me.

Regardless of where I personally stand on this issue (I’m not entirely sure where that is anyway), there are a number of important things that need to be taken into consideration.  The first thing that comes to my mind is the potential slippery slope that could come into effect if assisted suicide was legalized.  What would the procedure be? What kind of opportunities would making this option legal open up to people with the wrong intent?  I guess the ultimate question is whether legalizing assisted suicide would do more harm than good.  And no one can completely answer that question.

The other major point within this issue is whether assisted suicide is necessary.  Many of those who are against assisted suicide in cases of terminal illness urge patients to instead stop their treatments, take painkillers, and allow themselves to die naturally.  Since I’ve never been close to anyone who had a terminal illness, I have no idea how or if this works.  Then on the other hand, in many cases, it could save a family their much-needed money if their terminally ill family member wanted to use the option of assisted suicide so they could die peacefully and relieve their family of financial and emotional strain.

Another major thing to think about is the Hippocratic oath.  I’ve never read the oath in full, but I do know when discussing this issue, that the primary section of this document up for debate is the affirmations that doctors make to “never do harm to anyone.”  The way I see it, this phrase can be used to support either side of the debate depending on interpretation.  “Harm” could be interpreted as purposefully killing someone (even if they asked you to do so) or it could be interpreted as continuing to keep someone alive against his or her wishes.  It all depends on the kind of approach is taken, although I’ll admit the second interpretation is a bit of a stretch for even me.

As I said before, I don’t know exactly how I feel about the morality of assisted suicide, but I don’t believe it should be legalized or banned based on anyone’s opinions on the issue.  That being said, there are legitimate facts and concerns that back each side of this issue; however, if I were to vote on the issue today, I would favor the option to legalize assisted suicide.  Overall, I believe that this option would do the greatest amount of good for the most people.  Taking precaution against any foreseeable foul play that could arise, terminally ill patients should have the option to choose if they want to peacefully end their lives to avoid any further mental, physical, or financial suffering.

Kelsey will be back tomorrow to wrap up the discussion of this week's topic.  Thanks again for reading!

Morals, Music, and Cupcakes

As far as favorite television shows go, I have quite a few for someone who doesn't watch that much TV.  I guess the best way for me to go about organizing my post this week is to start with a few basic categories:

Oldies but Goodies
The Andy Griffith Show
I think it would be so nifty to go visit Mayberry for a day or two.  I know it's so sweet it should give you a toothache, but I think that's just part of its charm and the reason that we love it so much.  
The Twilight Zone (the original, not the series from the 80s)
On a completely different note, I have absolutely no desire to enter into any of the worlds created for this show.  I really like shows that urge the audience to think about what they're watching, and once you go past the creepiness of storyline, you can't help but wonder "what if..." and "what would lead to something like this?"  My favorite episode of the whole series is entitled "Back There," and it's about John Wilkes Booth on the night of Lincoln's assassination (I think the history tie-in was what pushed this episode over the edge in my book!)  Anyway, really, really good episode and good series.

A Somewhat Recent Show
Gilmore Girls
I wish everyone could talk this fast in real life (at least if we could all be as hilariously witty as the characters in this show).  I usually only understand about half of the references in any given episode, but the banter between characters was still great.  And on top of smart dialogue, you still cared about the characters because they were incredibly human.  I tended to like Rory's character less and less after about the middle of the 5th season, but I guess that's true to reality in that people change as they grow.  All of the characters made many mistakes, but they still learned to forgive each other and live with each other's eccentricities.
Law & Order
It's amped up drama, but it's entertaining.  During it's time, an episode would bring up some of the hot button legal and moral issues being discussed in the news at the time.  Like I said earlier, TV that makes the audience think never gets old.

Current Shows
Chopped, Sweet Genius, Cupcake Wars
All in a somewhat similar vein, I just can't pass up a good cooking show/ competition.  I don't know how they do it, but the creativity and knowledge that these people possess never ceases to amaze.  Seriously, if you can make a cupcake with hot sauce in it taste good, you deserve some serious props.
Glee
Once you get past the boundaries of reality and continuity, this show is pretty darn entertaining.  Despite the oft overworked audio engineering, the performances usually turn out pretty well, some are even outstanding.  And every so often when you're feeling fed up with the show's antics, a really amazing number comes from out of nowhere and you remember why you put up with all of nutzy stuff that the writers concoct.  "Don't Stop Believin'" is still my favorite number from the entire show.  The arrangement was excellent, the musicians sounded incredible together, and the story line really made me want to root for the characters without trying too hard.  I just wish this would happen more often.
The Glee Project
You know, I think that this show is more "glee" than Glee itself.  Some of the contestants are a tad bit annoying, but I really enjoy watching these people learn more about themselves as they go through a sort of "performing boot camp" after which one of them will win a guest starring role on Glee.  Sure, it's reality TV and a lot of what we see is either manufactured or cleverly edited, but I think this show does a really good job of capturing the spirit of performance while simultaneously showing the audience a small peek into the reality of show business.
The Newsroom
I've only seen a couple of episodes of this show, but so far so good.  I'll definitely have to watch these episodes again to understand what some of the characters are talking about (newspeople in this show tend to talk really, really fast, which I guess is accurate) but the show seems to be well written, and I'm excited to see where it goes.
Southland
Last but not least, one of my favorite favorites.  Again, very well written, but I think it also provides the audience with another (albeit fictional) point of view concerning law enforcement that we don't get to see in shows like Law & Order.  The show is well written and very well acted.  My great uncle is a retired state trooper, and I can see a lot of the way these characters act and see the world in him.






                

Foundations and Interpretations

When I think about the dichotomy between traditionalism vs. modernism in any religion, I try to examine how we use each approach to determine the ways we should go about living our lives according to our religious beliefs.

A traditional approach tells us that all of the answers can be found in the scriptures.  Followers of a religion need to base their lives on their scriptures, but there can be a risk of using individual scriptures to answer a question, instead of considering the entire body of work to determine the intent of the higher power for one’s life and behavior.

A modern approach can focus more on the individual’s application of the scripture to his own life and behavior.  This more often includes a consideration of the entire body of the scripture, but can leave the believer open to misinterpretation of the intent of the scripture.

According to most religions, scripture covers everything, but I believe that it needs to be critically applied.  Context is very important, and I think that approaching religion from a purely traditional viewpoint often causes us to miss out on what the faith itself stands for.  My own religious beliefs, and the beliefs of many others, are based around the concept that we should love God and love one another. However, I think that the concept of loving one’s neighbor often gets lost in the translation when we read scriptures for their face value and forget to apply the concept of love to the principles of our faiths.  (See 1 Corinthians 13.)  A lot of times, traditionalists and modernists alike can get bogged down by judgment and “straining gnats while swallowing camels.”   Following a combination of both forms can help believers stay true to the overall concept of love for one another.

But he isn't wearing any clothes!

I think it would be appropriate to begin my entry for this week by saying that the only thing I actually know about visual art is that I either like something or I don’t.  But either way, regardless of whether the majority of people like a creation, whether it be visual or acoustic, it can still be regarded as art, in my opinion, as long as it evokes some kind of emotion from the people who experience either seeing or hearing it. 

When I first read our topic for this week, one particular artist came to my mind.  About a year or so ago, I went with a small group to see a travelling exhibit of some of Pablo Picasso’s works that had come into our area.  I said earlier that I am not an art expert, and I’ll add on to that statement by saying that I haven’t studied Picasso since my last elementary school art class, so I knew next to nothing about the artist before we went to the show.  But we knew that an exhibit like that wouldn’t likely come anywhere close to our area anytime soon.  So, why not go see it?  Anyway, the exhibit was pretty massive, and it had a number of Picasso’s works from the many different periods of his artistic life, starting with the earliest and moving progressively.  I thought that most of his earlier works didn’t look like what we think of today as typical Picasso.  And maybe I’m a little bit boring, but my favorite piece in the entire exhibit was in one of the first rooms; it was called “La Celestine.”  I don’t even really know why it was my favorite, other than the fact that I was really intrigued by the elderly woman in the painting and I wanted to know more about what her back story was, even if the painting wasn’t done from life and the subject was completely fictional.  I also sensed a kind of eerie tone in the portrait with the lighting and positioning of the figure.  This piece is an example of what I think is art.  I was intrigued by it, even though I didn’t love enough to want it in my house. 

As we continued on through the exhibit and into one of the last rooms that contained Picasso’s later works, we saw another piece that kind of stumped us as to why it was even put in the exhibit.  It was a bicycle seat and handlebars welded together entitled “Bull’s Head”.  None of us understood how this piece was considered a work of art, especially compared to the other works or art in the collection.  I started to think if it was like the situation from "The Emperor's New Clothes." I don't know enough to say for certain, but I wondered if maybe the joke was on us and there really wasn't anything to this piece other than the fact that Picasso made it.  But, apparently someone with artistic credentials thought it was important enough to be included in the exhibit, so maybe the qualities that made the piece a work of art was that Picasso was the first person to think to create it, and it’s controversial, so it elicits emotion from those who see it.  I guess the jury is still out on this piece.  I thought it was interesting, but I don’t know if anyone would have called it “art” if it had been created by a random person who knows how to weld and wanted to make something out of parts of a old bicycle for whatever reason.  But I don’t want to entirely write off this piece either, because there had to be some kind of creativity behind the creation of it.  It’s certainly not something I think any random person would come up with and think to construct.  It’s certainly something I wouldn’t have thought of. 

I know this post is already running long, but I didn’t want to finish without bringing up one last musing.  Jackson Pollock.  One of the most controversial and widely known artists to date.  A few years ago, I stumbled upon a documentary called “Who the @#$% is Jackson Pollock?”  I ended up watching the majority of the film because I thought the premise looked interesting.  This documentary followed a retired female truck driver on her quest to find out if the painting she bought for a few dollars at a yard sale was indeed an authentic Jackson Pollock painting.  In fact, at the time of purchase, the woman was unaware of who Jackson Pollock was.  It was her son (I think, it’s been a while since I’ve seen the movie) who encouraged her to have the painting examined and appraised.  So on her son’s advice, she took the painting to a number of art/ Pollock experts, and some believed the painting may be authentic while others believed it wasn’t. 

So, getting back to the point of the discussion, art experts told her that the painting would be worth a great deal of money if it was real, but it would be worth next to nothing if it wasn’t.  And I guess this is really a scenario of determining value rather than what the intrinsic worth of art is, but either way, shouldn’t art be worth something other than a price attached to the name of its creator?  I remember hearing that Pollock had an interesting process for creating his paintings, but I don’t know what it is that sets him so far apart from the rest.  Not to bash his creative process in any way, I can’t really do that when I don’t understand what it is myself.  I guess my point is that a huge component of how we figure what should be classified as art is the process behind its creation.  So, it seems to me the reactions any given piece elicits from those who experience it and the creative process behind the creation is what classifies something as art.  How we as a society choose to value art seems to be an entirely separate process.      

Nature and Nurture: The Allied Powers

Even though our blog topic for the week is on “nature vs. nurture,” I don’t view the two as being in competition with one another.  Aspects from one’s nature and the nurture they receive combine to make up the complete person.  Nature dictates the essence of which one is and nurture influences the way one handles the situations he or she is faced with.  I think that nature kicks in by default when nurture isn’t a big contributing factor to a situation.  And on the inverse side of things, an abundance of nurture means that one will be less reliant on his or her personal nature.  I think it really depends on the person and their individual situation as to which aspect (either nature or nurture) reigns supreme. 

The bulk of my background is definitely in sociology, which is the subject that most people associate with the nurture side of the two.  I’ve only taken an introduction to psychology course, which is usually associated with the “nature side,” so it’s fair to say that I’ve had a lot more experience looking at situations from a viewpoint that examines social activity, while psychology looks at behavior.  But even though my academic focus is definitely more prominent in one area than the other, I don’t think that either nature or nurture is necessarily going to be the most prominent contributor in everyone.  Depending on the person, nature or nurture can dictate more or less of what makes up his or her complete person.  With some people, nature runs more prominent, and in others, nurture may run more prominent. 

I think that a lot of people, myself included, like to think that the things they do and the way that they think is mostly, if not completely in their nature.  Depending on how strong-willed someone is has a lot to do with which factor is more strongly represented in them.  However, stubbornness is something that can also be learned through nurture.  I think that nurture plays a larger role in our complete selves than we normally recognize.  But in the end, both factors have important roles to fill. 

I’m a fairly shy, quiet person by nature, but I’ve learned through nurture that sometimes I have to step out being quiet and shy if I want a chance to do many of the things I want to do, like sing and perform for an audience, for example.  Nurture hasn’t replaced nature, but it has altered nature to an extent. 

The nature vs. nurture debate is a continuing cycle.  Different situations bring out different aspects of our natures.  Aspects from both the “nature” and “nurture” sides affect who we are.  I think that in the end, neither nature nor nurture “wins,” because both work together and figure remarkably and importantly into what we think and how we act.     

Those Fickle Feelings

When I started making a mental list of the things that bug me, I came to the realization that things only tend to bug me if I think that the intentions behind the action were sketchy.  That, and things also tend to bug me when I’m stressed out or just plain peeved about something (usually something that is entirely unrelated).  Also, past experiences with the person in question also tend to effect whether what they do or say bugs me or not.  I realize that this is kind of fickle, and yet totally typical. 

I'll keep this short and sweet by saying that I can't think of any specific actions that do or don't bug me regardless of my mood and past experiences.  These two factors heavily influence what I think about an individual's intentions.   I've found that it's pretty easy to convince myself of someone's good intentions if all is well and I'm in a good mood.  And on the flip side, I often have a very difficult time convincing myself of someone's good intentions if I'm stressed out or in a bad mood.  So, I'm obviously more likely to get bugged by things on days like that, even little things like someone letting a door close and lock when I was just behind them.  That being said, I'm usually a pretty positive person.  I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and not let things annoy me.  Even when I'm stressed out, I try my best to not get bugged by things that I can do absolutely nothing about.  Well... it's a goal anyway.                      

  

     

Fool Me Once, Fool Me Twice

I'll start off my post for this week's topic concerning punishment vs. rehabilitation in the criminal justice system by saying that I'm all for rehabilitating those who can successfully be rehabilitated, but it's often hard to judge who those people are until after they have proven themselves otherwise.  As the old saying goes, "fool me once shame on you, but fool me twice..." you get the point.

I believe that in most first-time cases where mental illness is not a factor, punishment coupled with rehabilitation works as the best deterrent against crime.  I'm a big believer in having the criminal justice system grant second chances, especially to young people who tend to be the most apt to change when given the option of rehabilitation.  However, I recognize that this train of thought is all good and fine in a world that contains infinite resources, but it is very costly in both money and resources to properly undergo both processes.  Since the real world usually forces us to choose one option, I would have choose prioritizing punishment over rehabilitation in the criminal justice system.

My one hope in prioritizing this method in the criminal justice system is that the punishment itself is enough to get criminals' attention and prevent them and potential criminals from committing illegal acts.  However, with our current recidivism rates as high as they are, it seems like punishment itself is not working the way it should.  I'm not saying that we should, by any means, torture or mistreat criminals, but they must be punished for their crimes, and maybe what's going on in our criminal justice system isn't "punishment" enough to deter offenders, wether they be repeated offenders or first-time offenders.  My only problem with rehabilitation is that when our prisons focus on rehabilitating criminals, their time in prison doesn't feel like punishment.  If criminals don't feel as though they are being punished, what's there to prevent them from committing more crimes?  And while rehabilitation does work in some instances, it is simply too risky for our society to rely on rehabilitating all of its criminals instead of punishing them.  There are many people who can benefit from rehabilitation, but quite frankly, there are some people who cannot or will not be rehabilitated.  Unless rehabilitation is coupled with real punishment, I don't view it as a realistic priority for our criminal justice system.

To sum it all up, I think that a combination of punishment and rehabilitation is the best option for our criminal justice system.  Although I think that our criminal justice system needs to put an emphasis on punishment, I also believe that it is important that the opportunity for rehabilitation is available to those who can and will benefit from it.    

        



          

I Just Want to Speak With a Real Person!

Although I've only taken one course online, my experience with online education has been unsatisfactory, to say the least.  During the last decade or so, the population of residents in my county has grown significantly, and the county's one high school has to educate more students with a far greater student to teacher ratio than ever before.  As a result, there are more students in every class, and the school doesn't have the physical space or monetary funds to hire more teachers.  By the time I reached my senior year of high school, I had taken every math course that the state tests required and the school was able to offer in classroom, and that's pretty sad considering that I'm not very mathematically inclined.  At this point, I didn't really have to take another math class, but the other course options during that class period were limited, so I ended up choosing to take statistics online for community college credit.  The only math options available were calculus and statistics, and there was no way that I would take a calculus class without a teacher in the classroom who could answer the many questions that were liable to come.

I'm usually a pretty upbeat person, so I'll start off by stating the positives of online education:
1) Pretty flexible.  I was able to take my statistics course in a computer lab during a class period in the school day, but I could pretty much do all of the electronic assignments like discussion board postings, quizzes and such whenever I wanted to, just as long as they were completed and sent in by the due date.  The only assignment I had to complete offline and during the class period were the tests, which were proctored.  I had my online class in the morning, so it was nice to be able to use that block of time to study for a class that had a test that day... or to finish reading the addictive Harry Potter series for the first time...  I'm more of an afternoon person than a morning person, so I ended up doing a lot of my work for that class at home after dinner when my mind was fully awake and functioning.
2) Options.  If online classes weren't offered, then many schools wouldn't be able to offer a great variety of courses to students.  Even though my online class was not the greatest, if I wasn't taking online statistics, then I would've had to take up a spot in an elective course, like cosmetology or auto shop, that I wasn't really interested in.  At least I was able to earn college credit for taking online statistics.

 Now that I've touched on the positives, I can move on to the numerous negative aspects of online education, which I feel can be summed up in this two word statement:
Minimal interaction.  I took my online class in a computer lab with a teacher to "babysit", and bunch of other students, each of whom were also taking online courses.  But, there were only three other people in the lab taking the same course I was, so if none of the four of us could figure out a concept, we would either have to wait until the end of the week to get help from the teacher after school, or one of us could email the teacher and hope that she answered the email before the period was over and we wasted an entire class stuck on one particular concept.  This was sometimes made difficult when one of us was absent or doing something else not class related (and by the middle of the semester, no one really did much work in class anyway unless someone couldn't figure out one of the concepts from the day before).  Everyone enrolled in the class at my high school was required to post and answer questions on a discussion board, which was largely unhelpful when it came to fostering interaction between teacher and students, which I gathered was the purpose of the exercise.  Everyone just seemed to be going through the motions so they could get their discussion board points.  Classroom interaction is such an important component of the entire learning experience.  Being able to ask live questions and get live examples is very important to me in a classroom environment, especially in a subject like math.
        
I mentioned earlier that my limited experience with online education left much to be desired.  Now that I've given credit where credit is due, I have to say that while online education has its merits, in my case it just didn't get the job done.  Yes, I walked away with college credit, but I don't feel like I walked away with the knowledge I should have gotten from an introductory statistics course.  While online education may be a better alternative in many situations, it rarely replaces the real classroom experience with constant interaction between peers and teachers.            

But That's Entertainment

It seems like today we can't even watch the evening news without learning of an act of violence that occurred not very far from our own neighborhoods.  And while we sympathize with the victims of these violent acts, violence seems to occur so often that it would seem strange for there to be an evening where the only reports we hear on the evening news would be about charity events and sports.  Violence also plays a key role in the basis for numerous non-cable television shows such as the Law and Order franchise and one of my favorite TV shows, Southland.  And while the consequences of violent acts are almost always shown, we are still repeatedly exposed to/ exposing ourselves to violence through a media outlet that many families keep on in the background during dinner time.

While many of us hang our heads and talk about what a shame it is whenever an atrocious violent act is committed, for some reason there is something that still attracts us to entertainment media that contains fictionalized violence.  Maybe it is our desire to understand that draws us to media that portrays fictionalized violence.  I mentioned earlier that one of my favorite TV shows is Southland, which is about a group of fictional officers and detectives of various ages, experiences, and backgrounds who work in the LAPD.  The show prides itself on presenting a realistic image of violence and crime and how these issues are dealt with by law enforcement.  Besides the good writing, the main aspect of the show that attracts me is that different characters give their interpretations of why these violent acts were committed and why they continue to happen.  There's just something fascinating about hearing the different views each character has considering their background.  And while I have to remind myself that the show is fictional, many of the characters' thoughts on the reasons for continued violence in the world ring true to reality.  We as a society are fascinated by violence and the reasons for the perpetuation of violence, because even though we are often exposed to real life violent acts, we continue to flock to numerous other media outlets that contain fictionalized violence as forms of entertainment.  The search for understanding may not be the only reason that we are attracted to media, and in my case namely television shows that contain violence, but the more often we expose ourselves to situations containing violence, whether they be real or imagined, the more normative the actions, but not necessarily the severity of the consequences, become to us.

Looking forward to hearing from Kelsey tomorrow!              

Beloved Musicians

I have to say that I'm really excited about this weeks topic!  I could ramble on about my favorite music for days, but I'll condense my post to cover the music that has recently been in my most played songs.  As far as favorite musical genre goes, I like to listen to just about anything excluding anything that is synthesized or of the techno variety (just not my thing).  Also, anyone who knows me will tell you that I have an immense hatred for autotuning (despite the many possibilities it brings to the art of mixing, I personally think that it encourages singers to be lazy about vocal production.)  Okay, now that I've gotten that off my chest, I'll share a little about my favorite kinds of music.

Both of my parents are big country and bluegrass fans, so I grew up listening to artists like Allison Krauss, Emmylou Harris, and Suzy Bogguss.  For anyone not familiar with these artists, just look up music from the movie O Brother, Where Art Thou? to get an idea of what the genre is like.  Today, I still think that Allison Krauss has one of the most beautiful and pleasant voices to listen to.  Some of my favorite musicians from this genre today, to name a few include Allison Krauss, Dolly Parton, and The Zac Brown Band.  I already mentioned Allison Krauss' voice, and I also included Dolly Parton on my favorite artists list, not because I think she has the most beautiful voice, but because she can sing a duet with just about any other artist and make their version of a particular performance sound incredible, no matter what the song is.  Not to mention, she is also a really outstanding songwriter.  Speaking of really great harmony, The Zac Brown Band is one of my favorite country groups right now, primarily because of the groups distinguishing harmonies.  Do their songs sometimes seem repetitive? Sure, but I have yet to tire of listening to the tracks from their latest album.  So as of right now, the harmonies are winning.

In addition to country music, I'm a huge showtunes fan.  I'm not really familiar with all of the music from shows that have recently come out, but I'd say about half of the top 20 playlist on my iPod is made up of music from musicals ranging from Rogers and Hammerstein to newer works, most of which have rock/ popular roots.  Right now, Leonard Bernstein of West Side Story fame is one of my favorite composers to listen to in the car or when I'm doing things around the house.  I definitely don't know enough about music to really evaluate his compositions, but there's something about his music that I really love listening to.  Speaking of West Side Story, I also really appreciate Stephen Sondheim, although his compositions aren't my favorite to listen to on a daily basis.  Two of my favorite composers from this genre who are actively working today are Shaiman and Wittman, who are known for writing the music and lyrics to Hairsray and the musical within the TV show Smash.  For the lack of a better word, they're just nifty!  One of my other top played albums is the soundtrack from Next to Normal by Kitt and Yorkey  I got to see this show with my high school chorus/ theater group a few years ago, and I thought that the music was really outstanding.  This soundtrack has a kind of rock feel combined with the way that traditional showtunes have been written, which makes it seem more modern and accessible.  I think it's really interesting how much this genre of music has evolved over time, but that's a discussion for another time.  And I'd better move off of this sub-topic before I spend the rest of the night writing about all of these super-gifted composers!

I also occasionally enjoy listening to classical music.  I could listen to just about anything Beethoven wrote all day long, but I'm also a big fan of Mozart.  In addition to Mozart and Beethoven, one of my other favorite composers from the Classical/ Romantic periods is the less well-known Luigi Cherubini, who wrote one of my favorite operas, Medea.  I can't really do anything to touch on these composers besides giving my proper respect and saying that they're great.


To prevent this post from becoming a short (or very long) novel, I'll finish off listing my favorite musicians and composers here.  For anyone who couldn't tell, I can get a tiny bit enthusiastic over the topic of music.  I look forward to seeing what everyone has to post this week, and I believe we're hearing from Kelsey tomorrow!



           
      

Education Reform in America's Colleges and Universities

I'm not even sure where to begin in discussing this week's topic of education reform.  I know many families who use this topic as a regular discussion topic around the dinner table, and even then, the discussion is varied, so I'll try to focus on one specific area of education, which is the evolving demographic of students entering and completing college.

As a student at a private liberal arts college, I've taken classes with many students who were incredibly intelligent and focused on learning, but there were other students who just seemed to be taking up space as they waited to graduate and shortly after, work in a nicely paying position in the family company.  I'm only vaguely familiar with how other education systems work around the world, but it seems like in the American system, just about anyone can go to college if they are willing to pay tuition.  I don't see any problem with system attempting to educate those who have a strong desire to learn, no matter what their capacities are.  I find it problematic when those who want a better education cannot afford it and these individuals with a greater desire to learn are unable to attend college, simply because they cannot afford tuition.

On a personal level, a number of people I went to high school with had received scholarships and financial aid to state universities, but many of them had to return home after one year or one semester, because they found that they could not afford to take out a loan for tuition.  This is very unsettling to me, especially when I look around the classroom and see so many students who aren't attending college for a rich educational experience; instead, many people are now attending college because they don't believe that they can get a career with a livable wage and benefits without a college degree.  For the majority of people, this is true.  But as the majority of individuals who can afford to attend college go, many people now view a bachelor's degree the same way they once viewed a high school diploma.  Because most Americans who can afford to go to college today can find an institution that will accept their money for tuition, bachelor's degrees in most fields are not as valuable as they once were, and in many ways, they are now viewed as a kind of stepping stone degree.

The demographic of students who are currently enrolling and completing college has greatly changed in  the past 50 years, and in many ways for the better.  While a greater educated youth should be beneficial to society, if nearly everyone who wishes to attend college, for reasons ranging from needing an education to work in a specific field to needing a degree in order to join a parent in the family law firm may, then schools must continue to keep their educational standards high, because a college-educated society isn't necessarily a more intelligent society.

Kiddie Table For One, Please

I’m an only child.  I know the first thing that pops into many people’s heads when they think of only children… only children must be completely spoiled.  I’ll admit it, being an only child does have its advantages.  Only children never have to compete with other siblings for their parent’s attention, and we never have to share our space or our stuff with other siblings.  And while only children may, in some ways, be more spoiled than children who have siblings, most of the only children I know haven’t turned out to be the spoiled brats that generalizations often make us out to be.  At some point all children learn to share, whether they learn to share with their siblings on day one, or if the first time they learn to share is with the kids in preschool.  But, as I’m sure you all have guessed, being an only child can sometimes be lonely, especially when you live in a neighborhood where you can’t just walk over to a friend’s house and spend the day.  However, that being said, my experience as an only child, especially during my early childhood, led me to explore my surroundings more and figure out how to do new things than I probably would have if I had siblings. 

I can only speak from a personal experience, of course, and any generalizations I make can’t be applied to every single individual, but this is what I’ve found from my personal experience.  I don’t know if personality is necessarily shaped by birth order, as I’ve seen both introverted and extroverted only children.  Maybe this is the sociologist in me, but I think that in addition to birth order, there are so many other external factors that play into the shaping of an individual’s personality other than sibling and family dynamics. 

As far as thoughts on birth order affecting intelligence, I feel that when I was growing up, I often found myself compelled to learn more about the details of my surroundings and how things worked, partially because there weren’t any other children in the house to do other things with or distract me from what I was doing.  And while this could be contributed to individual personality, I noticed that whenever my friends came over, I was more interested in playing with them instead of learning about how things worked and why.  When I was younger, I usually stayed at my grandparent’s house during the summer weekdays when my parents worked.  While I was at their house, I used to make up things simple board games, because I didn’t always have someone else to play games with me, and I would write stories for my dolls to play out.  I definitely think that being an only child compelled me to become more creative in order to ward off boredom, and I also think my birth order had something to do with making me more observant of the things that surrounded, because I wanted to use every resource I had to keep myself entertained.  While I wouldn’t say that birth order necessarily affects intelligence, I can say that only children are often put in positions where they have to push themselves to be creative to keep from becoming bored. 

To conclude, I feel that birth order shapes who we are and how we view things from an early age and continues to shape us even after we have grown up and left the house.  While I believe that our birth order has an effect on how we grow up, I also believe that there are so many other factors that take a part in shaping the perspectives we take in our lives, and our family dynamics are rudimentary, but not finite indicators of how we ultimately come to form ourselves.  


Kelsey will be sharing her thoughts tomorrow, so everyone should check back!