Dr. Evil: Why make a trillion when we could make... billions?
Austin Powers' arch nemesis may have the right idea. The news that Afghanistan has now hit the 'trillion' dollar jackpot may be more of a curse than a blessing. Not to say that a few billion dollars is pocket change, but Afghanistan may have been safer with a smaller sum. Naturally, the potential of a trillion dollars is going to attract more eyeballs. Specifically, the eyeballs with a pinky at their side... Like the country didn't have enough stability problems to begin with, now the incentives for corruption has just expanded...infintely.
Lucky for us Americans, though, we are over there with a hardly significant presence to be able to a) capitalize on the wealth or b) ensure that the country doesn't fall into sierra-leone like conditions because of it. Well, I don't think it would get that bad, but the stakes for regime stability in Afghanistan just got a lot higher.
There has been a lot of speculation about the fourth world war being that over scarce resources, namely water. Who knows...this could kick it off. Afghanistan is already in an extremely strategic location next to our best friends Iran and Pakistan, which makes it even more crucial for western powers to have a presence there...to see that it doesn't fall into the hands of our "peaceful nuclear energy using" comrades. Imagine Afghan's wealth combined with Anti-american sentiments: the consequences are foreboding.
The alternative of course would be a return to imperialism. Yeah right. I think the best we can hope for is a Dubai-esque situation where Afghanistan would quickly spend its new found wealth on indoor skiing and man-made islands. Short-term entertainment + eventual bankruptcy= a lot of immediate jobs with less room for corruption and destruction. Granted these findings are extremely fresh so who knows what is actually there and what it could actually lead to...
4.17.2010
The Exception[ality] of ART
A few years ago, casino-made-billionaire Steve Wynn decided to sell one of his Picassos. While he was showing off the nearly 50 million dollar painting, his poor vision and depth perception led him to put an elbow through it. Oops. The joke was that because it was Wynn who caused the damage and is so valuable himself, it actually increased the value of the painting.
While this is in jest, it lends commentary to what I believe is an important notion to consider in today’s society.
Sure, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But when that beauty in art translates into a rigid monetary value and there is an overwhelming commercialist interest that outweighs the innate sublimity, I believe that beauty is invalidated.
Why do artists make art? I am not much of an artist myself, but I believe it is one of the select “industries” that exists outside of the business realm. Artists clearly (for the most part anyway) do not prioritize money over their work. They try to sell when they can, but from what I have observed, their masterpieces are more rewarding for them than the check received.
For the most part, I believe that capitalism trumps all. In rare instances with art or classical music, I think them to be something of an escape for the materialistic world in which we live. And sadly, this serenity is succumbing to the commercial market.
I know there are true art lovers and collectors, but so much of art is a sign of wealth and status. This is nothing new… in fact for hundreds of years governmental establishments across the globe have commissioned artists to construct pieces to make their kingdoms shinier than the next. We can thank that for the renaissance.
The difference is that other cultures have perceived art as a lifestyle and have treated it as such, keeping it a priority in their societies. It is a source of pride and the beauty is certainly not lost to commercial value in European countries. For us, the appreciation, the culture of the art is lost to the curiosity of financial worth. Art is an excuse for many to flaunt financial success. Plain and simple.
Wealthy elites tend to accommodate their homes with art not so that it can be appreciated by many, but so that their gross ability to finance some million dollar painting can be shown off to few.
Another point is the, for lack of a better word, “criticism” regarding copies and “fakes” in the art realm. There are companies that will hire painters to copy any piece of art for a few hundred bucks. And for the untrained eye, I don’t see how the copy would bring any less joy to an observer than the real thing. Except for that the real thing is that much more monetarily valuable.
I am not trying to downplay the incredibility of a masterpiece such as Picasso’s “Guernica” that could never be successfully copied to have the same effect. I respect the originality of design and experience, I only believe that too much weight is placed on having an original for the mere clout of having an original that is worth so very much. A value that has been calculated by the calls of the commercialist world and free market structure today.
How do we remedy this? I wish I had the solution. Increasing education of art appreciation is a step in the right direction, but the problem is larger than this. We have placed such a high value on simple money and displaying such that we need a return to authentic appreciation of beauty and intent. Like I said, I believe that the capitalist system is a necessary and good one, but it is should not be all encompassing.
4.03.2010
Digging a WAY TOO DEEP Hole
Some would argue that the recent elections in Iraq and Afghanistan are the beginning of a path leading towards a democratic and peaceful Middle East. I would argue this path is now beginning at the base of the Mariana Trench. In other words, it has a REALLY REALLY REALLY long way to go before surfacing as a democratic region. And without any air for these countries to breathe on their own, they’ll suffocate due to foreign intervention suppressing their sovereignty
A nation’s ability to govern itself stems from its personal history and culture, not the other way around. A foreign government cannot effectively be used to shape culture, as we have seen time and time again through imperialism, colonialism, and now the seemingly selfless democratization. Reality check: these three words are essentially the same concept that has resurfaced under different names throughout periods of history.
America needs to accept that it can’t unilaterally solve the world’s political problems particularly in the Middle East, and while it can aid other countries, the US cannot completely redefine them.
The US political system has just evolved at an exponentially quick pace compared to those of other countries around the world. This is in part because we were so able to overthrow our colonialist roots. Hint Hint. Yet the fact that the US has fully embraced democracy and the system is functioning well at home does not mean that this political system is appropriate for all countries, at least at this point in time. This self-inflicted mentality that America is here to spread democracy across the world is prevalent, yet I believe unjustified.
The perpetual conflict between the Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish people is a deep religious and cultural battle that we in the western hemisphere attempt valiantly to understand. And while we can study the histories extensively, we cannot seem to sync these conflicts with out intended democratic solutions. We cannot superimpose our own ideals upon these people and expect them to put their own political cultures aside to conform to ours.
In order for a government to be considered “legitimate”, the leaders must be deemed authentic by the local people. Hamid Karzai has been endorsed by the US to lead Afghanistan, most recently in the 2009 election. Yet the election was ridden with fraud and ballot stuffing on both sides. While no suspicions of US involvement with the fraud have been proven, the suspicions themselves are enough to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the presidency. The people of Afghanistan need to have faith in their leader in order to follow him, and without this support, there can be little progress.
The truth is that the election of a US-supported candidate is not enough, and we simply do not have the resources to promote democratization indefinitely. It really is a long-term commitment of financial support and manpower.
In the 2002 creation of the Middle East Partnership Initiative, Collin Powell said “any approach to the Middle East that ignores its political, economic, and educational underdevelopment will be built upon sand”. Without continuing support in all of these areas, the countries will never be able to stand on their own. The US cannot cope with these needs alone.
Of course I am not condoning unchecked tyranny. But using political reform as the primary source of democratization is a mistake. There is the much quoted notion of “winning the hearts and minds” of the people. Well, the civilians don’t want to learn from the same people who have overturned their countries. Sending in US intelligence officers and troops to manipulate the media is not the answer. We need to put US tax dollars out of the equation and leave the work to civil society and NGOs. We need to reform international organizations like the UN and utilize multilateral support. The US already failed at doing this with the unilateral invasion of Iraq. I hope that history will not again repeat itself in this respect. While international organizations are not known for their efficiency, maybe by the time they are able to aid civil society better, the Middle East will be ready for a democratic system of government.
America is not here to baby sit and hold the Middle East’s hand. America is here to help illuminate a path through the darkness. Although the use of civil society and supranationalism is preferred, the ultimate responsibility is left to the afflicted countries. I am a firm believer that people, and likewise states, rise to occasions when they are presented with whole responsibility.
A nation’s ability to govern itself stems from its personal history and culture, not the other way around. A foreign government cannot effectively be used to shape culture, as we have seen time and time again through imperialism, colonialism, and now the seemingly selfless democratization. Reality check: these three words are essentially the same concept that has resurfaced under different names throughout periods of history.
America needs to accept that it can’t unilaterally solve the world’s political problems particularly in the Middle East, and while it can aid other countries, the US cannot completely redefine them.
The US political system has just evolved at an exponentially quick pace compared to those of other countries around the world. This is in part because we were so able to overthrow our colonialist roots. Hint Hint. Yet the fact that the US has fully embraced democracy and the system is functioning well at home does not mean that this political system is appropriate for all countries, at least at this point in time. This self-inflicted mentality that America is here to spread democracy across the world is prevalent, yet I believe unjustified.
The perpetual conflict between the Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish people is a deep religious and cultural battle that we in the western hemisphere attempt valiantly to understand. And while we can study the histories extensively, we cannot seem to sync these conflicts with out intended democratic solutions. We cannot superimpose our own ideals upon these people and expect them to put their own political cultures aside to conform to ours.
In order for a government to be considered “legitimate”, the leaders must be deemed authentic by the local people. Hamid Karzai has been endorsed by the US to lead Afghanistan, most recently in the 2009 election. Yet the election was ridden with fraud and ballot stuffing on both sides. While no suspicions of US involvement with the fraud have been proven, the suspicions themselves are enough to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the presidency. The people of Afghanistan need to have faith in their leader in order to follow him, and without this support, there can be little progress.
The truth is that the election of a US-supported candidate is not enough, and we simply do not have the resources to promote democratization indefinitely. It really is a long-term commitment of financial support and manpower.
In the 2002 creation of the Middle East Partnership Initiative, Collin Powell said “any approach to the Middle East that ignores its political, economic, and educational underdevelopment will be built upon sand”. Without continuing support in all of these areas, the countries will never be able to stand on their own. The US cannot cope with these needs alone.
Of course I am not condoning unchecked tyranny. But using political reform as the primary source of democratization is a mistake. There is the much quoted notion of “winning the hearts and minds” of the people. Well, the civilians don’t want to learn from the same people who have overturned their countries. Sending in US intelligence officers and troops to manipulate the media is not the answer. We need to put US tax dollars out of the equation and leave the work to civil society and NGOs. We need to reform international organizations like the UN and utilize multilateral support. The US already failed at doing this with the unilateral invasion of Iraq. I hope that history will not again repeat itself in this respect. While international organizations are not known for their efficiency, maybe by the time they are able to aid civil society better, the Middle East will be ready for a democratic system of government.
America is not here to baby sit and hold the Middle East’s hand. America is here to help illuminate a path through the darkness. Although the use of civil society and supranationalism is preferred, the ultimate responsibility is left to the afflicted countries. I am a firm believer that people, and likewise states, rise to occasions when they are presented with whole responsibility.
3.27.2010
TaBoo or Not TaBoo [That is the question]
Our political leaders are here to, well, lead. And in ways you might never expect. A few days ago Vice President Joe Biden dropped the F-Bomb. In regards to the passing the health care bill, Biden said that this was a “big F-ing deal”. No matter what side of the political spectrum you are on, the healthcare bill is a big deal, either good or bad. Biden was just illuminating this for the public.
Naturally, this comment brought on a slew of controversy in the media. Yes folks, our Vice President swore. Big time. But who are we kidding? First, I would imagine nuns swear at some point. Second, he wasn’t saying anything derogatory. Third, isn’t transparency what we all want—we want to know what the leaders of our society are really thinking? Well, now we do. And finally, are there even words that are still considered taboo at this point? I feel like many of them have lost their “shushing” effect.
Personally, I have felt the taboo levels of swearing decrease significantly throughout the past few years. Only a short while ago, I wouldn’t say “damn”, even if it was referring to the water barrier kind... just because it was so hush hush, for me at least. Not that I have a "potty" mouth now, but I will swear in casual conversation because it doesn’t actually mean anything that bad anymore. There are still certain words that I avoid, but for the most part not too many people are phased when they hear the F-word amongst their peers.
Biden was not using the F-Bomb in its literal meaning. The word is literally defined as having sexual intercourse. I am pretty confident that he was not saying that the healthcare bill was a big “having sex” deal. It is merely an exaggerated exclamation. I doubt that the word seriously offended anyone, though some may claim otherwise to make a statement. We are a decade into the 21st century people, lets start acting like it.
This is what the evolution of our language has become. Although it may have been a slip up on Biden’s part, the public got a slice of his true excitement and thoughts, and isn’t that what we have been begging for in recent years, instead of the monotonous rehearsed speeches that ring with insincerity?
The media has taken the first steps in undermining the poor connotations of swear words. In the 50s, it would have been considered abhorrent to use foul language in entertainment. Now it’s commonplace. For those of you who are concerned about our younger audiences being exposed to foul language: all kids over the age 13 have access to swear words in films, and even television. If there is a kid under 13 watching press conferences and comprehending the speeches, then they are probably more mature than many adults and do not need to be worried about.
Politicians are people too. It’s pretty refreshing to see that once in awhile. Give it a few months and the next Sanford might be publicly labeled by his colleagues as a whore instead of just insinuated as such.
3.07.2010
Embrace the I in amerIca
Alaska is a state of beauty, wilderness, and nature’s unseen miracles. Yet beneath the surface, there is a huge potential for oil and energy resources. People are afraid to tap into these resources because they don’t want to risk losing the beauty on the surface…or the view of Russia from their backyards. In all seriousness, though, the United States is pretty similar metaphorically. On the surface, the American dream and multiculturalism make the US a state of superficial beauty, but buried deep below there is so much room for potential. There is a façade that America embraces the individual, and also the path towards social and economic equality. This is a contradiction, yet one that needs to be remedied and demands attention. Society does a fantastic job of claiming to encourage innovation and individualism, but in practicality it is doing quite the opposite. The American people and government need to actually embrace cultural and intellectual individualism in order to progress as a nation. Through education reform and a less strict “learning” mold for citizens, the approach towards full individual potential can be realized and benefit not only the American people on an individual level, but on a national and international level as well.
America prides itself on being a melting pot and a land where anyone can do anything. Our freedoms are immense, and as Michael Walzer says in Multiculturalism and Individualism, “we are free to plot our own course, plan our own lives, choose a career, a partner, a religion, a politics, a life-style. Free to ‘do our own thing’.” Walzer argues that the US “isn’t homogeneous nationally or locally; it’s heterogeneous everywhere.” I do agree with these points of diversity and freedom, as they are nearly impossible to refute. These freedoms are crucial to the basic definition of America, but hidden catches are prevalent in American society. I am of the opinion that cultural diversity is a benefit to societal experiments, but for me, race is not what makes people individuals. Individuals develop from experience and their own innovative thoughts and ideas.
Walzer comments “this country is not only a pluralism of groups but also a pluralism of individuals.” I agree that this statement may have been true during the foundation of the United States, but it has digressed since. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and the other fathers of American society exemplified individualism. They only had a loose concept of historical traditions to base this new country of America on, so they had to be innovative. They embraced freedom of religion and the pursuit of happiness, and set a precedent for the cultural integration and intellectual appreciation for years to follow. They developed an entirely new model for society, one that if carried on today, would have made for the most imperfect but wonderful nation the world will ever see, not one that is losing its foothold as a hegemony in the 21st century.
America has become preoccupied with social equality. Don’t get me wrong, social equality is of the utmost importance, but the way it is being approached is inhibiting the rest of society. As Walzer says, we are in a “historical period when social equality outdistances economic quality”. Economic quality develops from innovation and intellectual progress, which cannot be simultaneous with a prioritization of social quality. This is because a determination to keep everyone “equal” staggers growth as businesses, schools, and even the government get caught up in the technicalities of what is equal and can not focus on what is best for societal progress on a whole.
How do we fix this dilemma? We start with policy that will reform our education systems. Walzer says “if we want the mutual reinforcements of community and individuality to work effectively for everyone, we will have to act politically to make them effective.” True. Yet we have to begin with the future of America, the youth. Because, in all honesty, the working generation today is economically not worth fixing. It’s too expensive to change the current workforce all at once, and I somewhat go along with the saying that “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks”. We need to start with the kids.
We have a serious problem with America’s education system. John Taylor Gatto argues in Against School that the education system is crippling America’s youth, and I quite agree. He asks, somewhat facetiously, “is it possible that George W. Bush accidentally spoke the truth when he said we would ‘leave no child behind’? Could it be that our schools are designed to make sure not one of them ever really grows up?” The US has placed so much importance on keeping everyone equal, that they are hindering the potential for advancement in education. Students are hardly required to use critical thinking skills or logical skills in today’s school system. They are bred to do well on standardized tests and to have supreme memorization skills. Much of the taught material is not actually comprehended because multiple-choice tests, well, test test-taking skills. If you can memorize information for the test and forget it the next day, you are in the clear. Gatto says that “we have been taught in this country to think of ‘success’ a synonymous with, or at least dependent upon, ‘schooling’.” Yet the quality of the schooling is absolutely crucial to consider. Unfortunately, this isn’t a priority for those in Washington deciding the national curriculums and requirements.
“We don’t need Karl Marx’s conception of a grand warfare between the classes to see that is in the interest of complex management, economic or political, to dumb people down, to demoralize them, to divide them from one another, and to discard them if they don’t conform.”- Gatto
We have to stop catering to the lowest academic level in not leaving any child behind. We must push their minds to the limits, and as Gatto says, “urge them to take on the serious material, the grown-up material, in history, literature, philosophy, music, art, economics, theology.” America is supposed to be the pioneer for innovation and knowledge, but Gatto quotes the American Mercury for April in saying that “nothing could be further from the truth. The aim…is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality.” Gatto says that “people who conform are predictable, and this is of great use to those who wish to harness and manipulate a large labor force.” This is true, and controlling the population would be a benefit to the government, concerning efficiency. That’s what Stalin thought too. That’s a hyperbolic comparison to Communism, but hey, it’s a slippery slope.
Kids need to play and experiment in order to innovate and expand their horizons. I don’t think, for instance, science can be effectively learned from a book. Students can memorize the properties of elements and principles, but they don’t actually get it unless the have something tangible to learn from. There’s a science museum called, “The Exploratorium” in San Francisco, and after reading about it, I think all schools could take a page out of The Exploratorium’s book, literally. Something Incredibly Wonderful Happens is a book that outlines the history, development and philosophy of the museum. The museum encourages discovery and learning without worry of right or wrong. It provokes “intuitive connections that people make by messing around with multiple examples of things” through playing. The books says that “when everything seems unconnected and unexplainable, we are like children sitting in the dark,” but when you know why things happen, “it brings with it a long existential sigh of relief”. Students need this push of motivation, and it would be most effective if it came from within instead of pressed upon them by educational benchmarks.
Thus, work ethic has become a problem. Students are told to do what they can to get by and get good grades, but not to do as much as they can for their own future endeavors. This dominating thought molds them into conformity, replicas that have no need to be unique and creative. In Class in America, Gregory Mantsios tries to figure out what it is exactly that is creating this mess. He says that “when we look at society and try to determine what it is that keeps most people down—what holds them back from realizing their potential as healthy, creative, productive individuals- we find institutional forces that are largely beyond individual control.” There needs to be a collective movement of the masses to reform education. The problem is that young minds are being manipulated to think that there are no options other than the textbooks presented. They need to test well in school and do their homework. For the most part, they have not matured enough to question the education system outside of not wanting to write a paper. By the time they realize the woes in education, it’s almost too late.
Personally, I believed that I was the model student from kindergarten through high school. I got “straight A’s”, and always tested highly on the standardized tests. Oh! I was so wrong. It’s pretty embarrassing how little I retain from my education pre-college. I could calculate differential equations and methodical calculus problems, but I have absolutely no idea what they mean. I studied my butt off for the Calculus AP test, but guess what, I have no idea why any of that was significant. I memorized fact after fact for history, and equation after equation for chemistry. My high school offered electives, but I was always so concerned with keeping the most impressive academic schedule to get into college. So no photography for me.
And then I went to college. The vision of having a 4.0 quickly evaporated, and it has taken me up until this point to stop caring, sometimes I still struggle with it. Yet even though my grades aren’t pristine, I have learned exponentially more. I care about what I am learning, and the reasons for such material. I have been able to explore fields in politics, particle physics, ethics, entertainment, philosophy… you name it. I’m getting credit for a theater improvisation class, which I have learned more from than some of my most rigorous international relations courses. I am privileged though, and most Americans do not get the opportunity to go to such an open and progressive university. I am discontent, however. If I cared as much about learning and thinking from the get-go fifteen years earlier, imagine where I would be today. Imagine where the rest of America’s youth would be. With an emphasis on logic, creative thinking, life skills in general, we could have achieved world peace by now instead of how to crack the SATs…well, maybe. It’s a start.
The beginning of this new education system is in the works. In Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work, Jean Anyon analyzes the different schools in existence today. There is a type of executive elite school in which “schoolwork helps one to achieve, to prepare for life”. The graduates of these programs come out on top in society, succeeding in almost any field they choose to pursue. She comments, “the executive elite school is the only school where bells do not demarcate the periods of time.” The silly technical rules that apply to most schools are irrelevant here. The kids are there to learn and to stretch their minds to the furthest limits, and that is exactly what happens. The kids are happy, too, and learning is not a chore for them. It really shouldn’t be for anyone.
I don’t want to make it seem like I don’t appreciate American advancement in general. I just believe we have the potential for so much more. We seriously could knock every other nation out of the park intellectually, and consequently economically and technologically. We could also set an example for every state to follow, and tap into the potential for creative advancement worldwide. The possibilities could be endless. International scholastic collaboration could lead to achieving huge advancements together instead of less significant advancements apart. We just have to get the ball rolling.
America prides itself on being a melting pot and a land where anyone can do anything. Our freedoms are immense, and as Michael Walzer says in Multiculturalism and Individualism, “we are free to plot our own course, plan our own lives, choose a career, a partner, a religion, a politics, a life-style. Free to ‘do our own thing’.” Walzer argues that the US “isn’t homogeneous nationally or locally; it’s heterogeneous everywhere.” I do agree with these points of diversity and freedom, as they are nearly impossible to refute. These freedoms are crucial to the basic definition of America, but hidden catches are prevalent in American society. I am of the opinion that cultural diversity is a benefit to societal experiments, but for me, race is not what makes people individuals. Individuals develop from experience and their own innovative thoughts and ideas.
Walzer comments “this country is not only a pluralism of groups but also a pluralism of individuals.” I agree that this statement may have been true during the foundation of the United States, but it has digressed since. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and the other fathers of American society exemplified individualism. They only had a loose concept of historical traditions to base this new country of America on, so they had to be innovative. They embraced freedom of religion and the pursuit of happiness, and set a precedent for the cultural integration and intellectual appreciation for years to follow. They developed an entirely new model for society, one that if carried on today, would have made for the most imperfect but wonderful nation the world will ever see, not one that is losing its foothold as a hegemony in the 21st century.
America has become preoccupied with social equality. Don’t get me wrong, social equality is of the utmost importance, but the way it is being approached is inhibiting the rest of society. As Walzer says, we are in a “historical period when social equality outdistances economic quality”. Economic quality develops from innovation and intellectual progress, which cannot be simultaneous with a prioritization of social quality. This is because a determination to keep everyone “equal” staggers growth as businesses, schools, and even the government get caught up in the technicalities of what is equal and can not focus on what is best for societal progress on a whole.
How do we fix this dilemma? We start with policy that will reform our education systems. Walzer says “if we want the mutual reinforcements of community and individuality to work effectively for everyone, we will have to act politically to make them effective.” True. Yet we have to begin with the future of America, the youth. Because, in all honesty, the working generation today is economically not worth fixing. It’s too expensive to change the current workforce all at once, and I somewhat go along with the saying that “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks”. We need to start with the kids.
We have a serious problem with America’s education system. John Taylor Gatto argues in Against School that the education system is crippling America’s youth, and I quite agree. He asks, somewhat facetiously, “is it possible that George W. Bush accidentally spoke the truth when he said we would ‘leave no child behind’? Could it be that our schools are designed to make sure not one of them ever really grows up?” The US has placed so much importance on keeping everyone equal, that they are hindering the potential for advancement in education. Students are hardly required to use critical thinking skills or logical skills in today’s school system. They are bred to do well on standardized tests and to have supreme memorization skills. Much of the taught material is not actually comprehended because multiple-choice tests, well, test test-taking skills. If you can memorize information for the test and forget it the next day, you are in the clear. Gatto says that “we have been taught in this country to think of ‘success’ a synonymous with, or at least dependent upon, ‘schooling’.” Yet the quality of the schooling is absolutely crucial to consider. Unfortunately, this isn’t a priority for those in Washington deciding the national curriculums and requirements.
“We don’t need Karl Marx’s conception of a grand warfare between the classes to see that is in the interest of complex management, economic or political, to dumb people down, to demoralize them, to divide them from one another, and to discard them if they don’t conform.”- Gatto
We have to stop catering to the lowest academic level in not leaving any child behind. We must push their minds to the limits, and as Gatto says, “urge them to take on the serious material, the grown-up material, in history, literature, philosophy, music, art, economics, theology.” America is supposed to be the pioneer for innovation and knowledge, but Gatto quotes the American Mercury for April in saying that “nothing could be further from the truth. The aim…is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality.” Gatto says that “people who conform are predictable, and this is of great use to those who wish to harness and manipulate a large labor force.” This is true, and controlling the population would be a benefit to the government, concerning efficiency. That’s what Stalin thought too. That’s a hyperbolic comparison to Communism, but hey, it’s a slippery slope.
Kids need to play and experiment in order to innovate and expand their horizons. I don’t think, for instance, science can be effectively learned from a book. Students can memorize the properties of elements and principles, but they don’t actually get it unless the have something tangible to learn from. There’s a science museum called, “The Exploratorium” in San Francisco, and after reading about it, I think all schools could take a page out of The Exploratorium’s book, literally. Something Incredibly Wonderful Happens is a book that outlines the history, development and philosophy of the museum. The museum encourages discovery and learning without worry of right or wrong. It provokes “intuitive connections that people make by messing around with multiple examples of things” through playing. The books says that “when everything seems unconnected and unexplainable, we are like children sitting in the dark,” but when you know why things happen, “it brings with it a long existential sigh of relief”. Students need this push of motivation, and it would be most effective if it came from within instead of pressed upon them by educational benchmarks.
Thus, work ethic has become a problem. Students are told to do what they can to get by and get good grades, but not to do as much as they can for their own future endeavors. This dominating thought molds them into conformity, replicas that have no need to be unique and creative. In Class in America, Gregory Mantsios tries to figure out what it is exactly that is creating this mess. He says that “when we look at society and try to determine what it is that keeps most people down—what holds them back from realizing their potential as healthy, creative, productive individuals- we find institutional forces that are largely beyond individual control.” There needs to be a collective movement of the masses to reform education. The problem is that young minds are being manipulated to think that there are no options other than the textbooks presented. They need to test well in school and do their homework. For the most part, they have not matured enough to question the education system outside of not wanting to write a paper. By the time they realize the woes in education, it’s almost too late.
Personally, I believed that I was the model student from kindergarten through high school. I got “straight A’s”, and always tested highly on the standardized tests. Oh! I was so wrong. It’s pretty embarrassing how little I retain from my education pre-college. I could calculate differential equations and methodical calculus problems, but I have absolutely no idea what they mean. I studied my butt off for the Calculus AP test, but guess what, I have no idea why any of that was significant. I memorized fact after fact for history, and equation after equation for chemistry. My high school offered electives, but I was always so concerned with keeping the most impressive academic schedule to get into college. So no photography for me.
And then I went to college. The vision of having a 4.0 quickly evaporated, and it has taken me up until this point to stop caring, sometimes I still struggle with it. Yet even though my grades aren’t pristine, I have learned exponentially more. I care about what I am learning, and the reasons for such material. I have been able to explore fields in politics, particle physics, ethics, entertainment, philosophy… you name it. I’m getting credit for a theater improvisation class, which I have learned more from than some of my most rigorous international relations courses. I am privileged though, and most Americans do not get the opportunity to go to such an open and progressive university. I am discontent, however. If I cared as much about learning and thinking from the get-go fifteen years earlier, imagine where I would be today. Imagine where the rest of America’s youth would be. With an emphasis on logic, creative thinking, life skills in general, we could have achieved world peace by now instead of how to crack the SATs…well, maybe. It’s a start.
The beginning of this new education system is in the works. In Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work, Jean Anyon analyzes the different schools in existence today. There is a type of executive elite school in which “schoolwork helps one to achieve, to prepare for life”. The graduates of these programs come out on top in society, succeeding in almost any field they choose to pursue. She comments, “the executive elite school is the only school where bells do not demarcate the periods of time.” The silly technical rules that apply to most schools are irrelevant here. The kids are there to learn and to stretch their minds to the furthest limits, and that is exactly what happens. The kids are happy, too, and learning is not a chore for them. It really shouldn’t be for anyone.
I don’t want to make it seem like I don’t appreciate American advancement in general. I just believe we have the potential for so much more. We seriously could knock every other nation out of the park intellectually, and consequently economically and technologically. We could also set an example for every state to follow, and tap into the potential for creative advancement worldwide. The possibilities could be endless. International scholastic collaboration could lead to achieving huge advancements together instead of less significant advancements apart. We just have to get the ball rolling.
3.05.2010
USA? USA?
Everyone wants to be American, or at least they used to want to be. We were ahead by leaps and bounds in democratic politics, defense, economics and even pop culture. Not that we aren’t still in great shape, but we’re not perceived as the sole leader in everything anymore. The USA is no longer the designated driver for the world coach. How can we amend this?
We need to whip out the crazy card.
I’m not talking Kim Jong-il style by threatening with nukes and all that good stuff. But let’s face it. We have been a little wimpy lately in the world stage. For example, today
“Turkey criticizes Obama admin as weak during Armenia vote” as per one of the headlines. Yeah...because Turkey is really in a position to criticize the US at all. But they think they are, and that is a bad, bad thing. Turkey believes that it can bully the Obama administration into siding with them politically after the US House of Representatives’ Committee on Foreign Affairs just adopted a new resolution to have Obama recognize the Armenian Genocide.
There was also a good article on the situation in this week’s Economist about the situation.
“TWO questions faced an American congressional panel on Thursday March 5th as it considered the mass killings of Armenians during and after the first World War by forces of the Ottoman Empire. First, was it genocide? The historical debate is as hot, and unsettled, as ever. Armenians continue to insist that it was the first genocide of the twentieth century, while Turks call the killings merely part of the chaos of the break-up of empire.”
Man up USA. You are getting a perfectly legitimate spanking by Turkey, a country that can’t even successfully gain full entry into the EU. I understand Obama’s hesitation in labeling the “event” as genocide because it could alienate US-Turkish relations. Turkey is a strategic actor due to several factors, namely its proximity to both Europe and the Middle East, as well as its mixture of Christian and Muslim influence, and of course it’s potential for resources like oil.
But while these are all important factors to consider, if the US does alienate Turkey, in my opinion, Turkey is just going to try harder to get on ours (and by extension) Europe’s good side. We should stop being so chicken and tell Turkey that the mass slaughtering of thousands of Armenians was in fact ethnic cleansing and genocide.
We need to call it as we see it, without fear. We are the bold US of A, let’s not forget that. I think America would get some much due respect for a statement of that nature and it would show the world that the US is not afraid to do what is right because of what others think of us. We just need to be perceived as a little crazier. A little more unpredictable. A little less concerned about politics and more concerned with real issues. Then other nations won't mess with the best unless it is an issue that truly demands US attention and rationale.
We need to whip out the crazy card.
I’m not talking Kim Jong-il style by threatening with nukes and all that good stuff. But let’s face it. We have been a little wimpy lately in the world stage. For example, today
“Turkey criticizes Obama admin as weak during Armenia vote” as per one of the headlines. Yeah...because Turkey is really in a position to criticize the US at all. But they think they are, and that is a bad, bad thing. Turkey believes that it can bully the Obama administration into siding with them politically after the US House of Representatives’ Committee on Foreign Affairs just adopted a new resolution to have Obama recognize the Armenian Genocide.
There was also a good article on the situation in this week’s Economist about the situation.
“TWO questions faced an American congressional panel on Thursday March 5th as it considered the mass killings of Armenians during and after the first World War by forces of the Ottoman Empire. First, was it genocide? The historical debate is as hot, and unsettled, as ever. Armenians continue to insist that it was the first genocide of the twentieth century, while Turks call the killings merely part of the chaos of the break-up of empire.”
Man up USA. You are getting a perfectly legitimate spanking by Turkey, a country that can’t even successfully gain full entry into the EU. I understand Obama’s hesitation in labeling the “event” as genocide because it could alienate US-Turkish relations. Turkey is a strategic actor due to several factors, namely its proximity to both Europe and the Middle East, as well as its mixture of Christian and Muslim influence, and of course it’s potential for resources like oil.
But while these are all important factors to consider, if the US does alienate Turkey, in my opinion, Turkey is just going to try harder to get on ours (and by extension) Europe’s good side. We should stop being so chicken and tell Turkey that the mass slaughtering of thousands of Armenians was in fact ethnic cleansing and genocide.
We need to call it as we see it, without fear. We are the bold US of A, let’s not forget that. I think America would get some much due respect for a statement of that nature and it would show the world that the US is not afraid to do what is right because of what others think of us. We just need to be perceived as a little crazier. A little more unpredictable. A little less concerned about politics and more concerned with real issues. Then other nations won't mess with the best unless it is an issue that truly demands US attention and rationale.
2.26.2010
Catering to the Masses
In theatrical productions, the same play could be performed identically two nights in a row, one with an incredibly enthusiastic audience and a standing ovation, and the other with a few scattered claps. It depends on the energy of the audience for that particular evening, and that makes all the difference...to the performers, the future of the production based on reviews.
Whether it’s film, theater, music, or any other media of mass communication, the make-it-or-break-it factor isn’t the talent, it’s the audience. So the question is at what point should plots be compromised and lyrics toned down in order to target a larger market, versus one of a more selective nature.
Let’s take “Shutter Island” as an example. I thought it was another genius film by Scorsese. Really well done. But it got some pretty mixed reviews.
(From Rotten Tomatoes, professional critics)
“DiCaprio and Scorcese are a dynamic movie duo but when you add in the brilliant storytelling of Lehane you get movie magic.”
and then...
An overlong, nauseating thriller lacking palpable suspense and clever twists which can't be saved by its exquisite production values and solid performances.
But movie goers were just as conflicted: (From Moviefone.com)
CQBRA03
This movie is a complicated mess that has an ending that for me was very unrewarding and a letdown. Is it all really happening, or is it just in his head? The acting was excellent, but the coming attractions were a lot better than the movie. Just a little to weird for me.
JZekeRed
one star for decaprio...pretty darn good acting BUT, what a sucko storyline - not cohesive, twisted, interesting, frustrating...save your money .
Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, but clearly these people just didn’t get it. But does that mean that the movie industry should cater to the less, shall we say, adept. There is a “type” of entertainment for everyone, so perhaps verbal members of the public need to admit if a certain genre isn’t their cup of tea, instead of just ragging on it.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with critics and reviewers saying, “this movie is fabulous if you have an inquisitive mind, don’t bother if you’re just looking for entertainment”. But they don’t differentiate because of the fear of alienating the audience. Rather, they take it out on the film makers.
Perhaps critics should just take a little step back from their self-proclaimed lime-light. Just because you hated or loved it doesn’t mean everyone else will. I know it’s your job to be critical and offer you opinions, but keep in mind is only opinions that you are offering.
Bottom line: offering different perspectives for different audiences would be much more effective than only taking your own views into account.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)