Country confidence

I was watching The American Country Music Awards earlier tonight, and I came across a commercial that I thought really connected to what we have been studying in class. It was a GM commercial that explained their nine month payment protection along with other money protection plans they offer as a company.  With the economic crisis in full swing, they are offering a more secure way to buy a car. It is a smart move advertising wise because it gives people reason to buy again, and lets them know that their money is safe. The commercial also makes a good move by talking about the country as a whole first. As a viewer you don't know what the commercial is for right away. It begins with explaining the need for a country comeback, and finding a confidence to help bring us back from the economic crisis. This overall message gives people a strong sense of nationalism and hope. It lets people know that we can get through this hard time, and GM is going to help us in the process. After receiving this hope, the commercial then goes straight into the advertising for the cars. We feel better about buying a car because GM just gave us reason to believe everything will work out.

I found this commercial very interesting for two reasons. After having watched Roger and Me in class this past week, it didn't really seem that GM cared for the people and their incomes. The company cared more about itself and its own income when it laid off so many workers. Now the company is taking a completely different persona. Another thing I found interesting was that it played during the American Country Music Awards. This show is highly watched by the people who "love" America, and live in the "real" country parts of the nation. When we think country we think of the heart of America. 

I have to admit that no matter the angle, this commercial definitely pulled at my heart strings, and I think after having watched it I do believe the future will be a little bit brighter. 

Is old money really so great?

This past week in class we discussed the topic of new money vs. old money. This whole topic really interested me, especially the fact that old money looks down upon those of new money. You would think it would be the opposite. These people with old money were born rich, and didn't have to do anything for the wealth they now possess. It was simply inherited because someone before them made enough to share. Whereas new money had to work hard for what they now have. They rose above the odds and earned their way to riches. Looking at the definitions it seems obvious that the latter should be the one to praise. This whole topic emphasizes the fact that society has flaws, and old traditions are hard to break.

I decided to research a little on the topic, and I wasn't suprised to see Paris Hilton pop up on my computer first. She seems to be the young face of old money. As the great granddaughter of the Hilton Hotel Founder, she was born into money. She is an actress, model, singer, and icon. She seems to be all over the Hollywood circuit. With Paris as the covergirl, I can't help but question what is so great about old money? What separates them from the average person? Paris parties, she has been arrested, and has even served jail time. She makes mistakes just like anyone else, but I thought people of old money were the classy and dignified ones. Atleast, that is what they seem to argue when comparing themselves with new money. I think that since these young teens and even adults were born into money, they don't fully understand the reprecussions of their actions. They never have to worry about losing their jobs or hurting their chances for success. They will always have their money to fall back on. I am not saying that all people of old money act like this or feel this way. I just think that old money shouldn't consider themselves superior to new when they are far from perfect.

The sweatshop debate

After having talked about sweatshops and brutal working conditions in class this past week, I decided to do some extra reading on the topic. In class, we learned that these situations are extremely harsh and very much detrimental to the people that work in it. That is why I was very surprised to come across an article arguing the opposite.

In the article The Case for Sweatshops, David Henderson argues that these sweatshops really aren't that bad. The conditions of the factories in these third-world countries are actually much better than the agricultural jobs they would be working in otherwise. Countries like Malaysia and South Korea used to use sweatshops as primary providers, but now about forty years later, no longer rely on them. The reason being their workers now have developed individual skills and earned capital. The sweatshops aren't used in South Korea and Malaysia anymore. They weren't forced to discontinue, but instead grew better on their own. We as consumers, Henderson explains, shouldn't discourage sweatshops, but instead we should continue to buy from them, and then let them develop on their own.

Henderson goes on to even speak highly of child labor. He thinks that the sweatshops keep children out of trouble. Without the work to keep them busy and making money, they would live on the streets as prostitutes or starving for food.

Having heard one opinion about sweatshops for so long, it was hard for me to read this article and agree. I see the point that Henderson is making, and I also see the point of opposition argued by many as well. I think in terms of sweatshops, we should try to find a middle ground. The idea of sweatshops as a system that provides jobs to many should remain constant. It is the conditions that need to change. They need to become safer and cleaner. The workers need to be treated more like people.   

Is the financial aid test the new ACT?

With the economic recession in full force, more a more students are in need of financial aid for college. Even as the economy seems to be crumbling beneath us, college prices are as high as ever. The financial aid form is the only hope many teenager have to receive a college education. "As of Feb. 15, the Department of Education had already received 2,213,408 forms, 20 percent more than at this time last year." The only problem is that the six page form, that contains over 100 questions, is not an easy task to complete. The questions are extremely difficult, and it asks for a lot of information that families aren't able to find without hassle. The test itself is so tough, that families are paying people to fill it out for them. Companies like Fafsa charge up to 100 dollars to complete the test. The test is very intimidating, and because of this many families are steering clear from the aid form. They are steering clear, and as a result they won't be able to pay for their kid's college.
The financial aid form can take hours to complete, and even when finished isn't very accurate. Congress is currently trying to simplify the test, and make it easier and more efficient. President Obama has plans to get rid of the financial aid form, but it doesn't look as though it will be redone this year.
This past week in class, we have been talking about privilege, and what comes along with the title. The idea of a high class education came up as something that can go under definition. After having read about the financial aid form, I now have a better understanding of the number of students who cannot afford to go to college. Why does it have to be a privilege to go to college? Shouldn't every student have to the opportunity to continue their education? The financial aid form shouldn't to hold people back from the rights they deserve.

The Black Heart

I recently read the book The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien. The book tells the story of many Vietnam soldiers and their experiences not only in battle, but in life before and after the war. Many soldiers die in battle, while others are wounded as well. Along with those injuries, many soldiers suffer from injuries that aren't as visible. Post-traumatic stress disorder is extremely prevalent in soldiers who have been in the Vietnam War. The events that soldiers have seen and experienced are so traumatic that it can affect the soldier months or even years after the actual incident takes place. They are haunted by nightmares and flashbacks that constantly bring them back to war. They try and find their place back in society, but nothing compares to what they experienced in Vietnam. They find themselves in a depressed state that they cannot escape. It is a horrible disorder that many men have to live with for the rest of their lives.
After having read The Things They Carried, I was shocked to find out that soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder aren't given the the Purple Heart. "Historically, the medal has gone only to those who have been physically wounded on the battlefield as a result of enemy action." Even with so many soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, the Pentagon recently made the decision that soldiers suffering from the disorder do not recieve a Purple Heart, and many are very upset. The "invisible wounds" that come from post-traumatic-stress disorder aren't recognized, but injuries like a “perforated eardrum" are given the Purple Heart instead. Who is to say a soldier suffering from a broken leg has a greater struggle than one suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress disorder?
With this new decision made by the Pentagon, many have been protesting for those suffering from the disorder. The idea of a Black Heart medal has come up. This would be a medal given to soldiers who are or have suffered from post -traumatic stress disorder along with other combat stress. This way, all men injured in battle can be recognized.

Plastic surgery: not as good as they say it is

Women all around the world seem to be diving into the plastic surgery pool. It has become so popular that woman are treating surgeries more like a shopping trip than a procedure. Instead of buying a shirt, they are purchasing a new nose or pair of lips.
The craze has its benefits, I mean it has to or else it wouldn't be so popular. You can basically reverse the job of mother nature. You can pick out of a selected gene pool, and make your big nose small and pointed. It can also speed up a diet by simply not having to diet it all. The "tummy tuck" can now take care of that extra fat you don't want anymore. Plastic surgery gives women, and men, the opportunity to make themselves look better. At least they think they are making themselves look better, and I guess that is all that really matters. Plastic surgery can give people that confidence boost they always wanted.
With all of these advantages that plastic surgery offers, is it really worth all the hype? I think that plastic surgery may have it's benefits, but I don't think it is as good as people make it out to be. Sure plastic surgery can improve certain "problem" areas in your body, but I can never really change the way you feel about yourself. It could be argued that by having plastic surgery you are really diminishing your confidence because instead of finding the beauty in yourself, you are finding the beauty in what a doctor can turn you into. I'm not saying plastic surgery is bad by any means, but people make it out to be so important, that it becomes something much more than it is. It began as something to aid in reconstruction after trauma, then led to fixing slight imperfections, to now becoming a way of life for many men and women as they grow in age or grow tired of their look. I believe that plastic surgery is romanticized to a point where the goodness that once coincided with it has been lost.

What is a sin?

In class this past week, we have been discussing the conscience of the character Huck Finn in the novel Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain. The specific passage we have been examining involves the decision Huck has made to steal Jim out of slavery. In his heart, he knows that Jim is one of his best friends, and is a man equal to him. The only problem is that society and his conscience is telling him the opposite. As a result of this, he believes he is committing a sin, and acting against god. Is it really a sin to go against society when society is wrong?
Is it a sin to act irrationally when your beliefs tell you it is right? The Puritan's of early America believed that the numerous people they hung were in fact witches and acting with the devil. Their faith proclaimed that the devil would temp the souls of the "weak," and then Satan himself would act through them. They truly believed that they were in danger, and that the people accused needed to be stopped. They didn't understand that accusing people without a fair trial is unjust. They didn't realize that the rumors may have been false or untrue. Though, did they commit sin? They didn't believe they were doing anything wrong. They were afraid for themselves and their community, but even so, many don't believe that is an excuse for the murders they committed.
Is it a sin to do wrong when you know you won't get caught? Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps was recently spotted smoking what was believed to be the illegal substance cannabis. The swimmer is an Olympic champion, and a role model to people all over the world. He disappointed many when the picture was published. The sad truth is that many people believe what he did wasn't wrong. The mistake instead was letting himself get photographed. He is under the spotlight constantly, and he should know that he cannot create a bad image for himself; especially during a time when he is making millions in endorsement deals. If the picture of Michael Phelps had never been brought to the publics’ attention, would people still think he committed a sin?
What is a sin? This question seems to be asked over and over again, and the answer only seems to be getting more blurred as time passes. Is there a general rule for when something sins or does it differ from person to person? This unspecific conclusion only makes it harder for rightness to be enforced.