Bethany's blog!

To start off, I must say that I really enjoyed this topic! 🙂 It is an interesting concept. I knew before reading these articles and watching the video that the penny as well as some other currency costs more to make than than it is worth. I think that the article and the video did a good job of arguing against the production of pennies. However, I was wondering this: would the savings that our country make from discontinuing the penny be less than the cost of rising prices to the nearest 5 cents? I also think that Walmart would strongly object to this, since everything in their store is an odd costing number. Their company as well as many others relies on trying to lower prices as much as possible; a 1 cent difference makes a huge impact upon the companies and their profits.

I do think that abolishing the penny would be helpful, but one should consider the negative effects that it would cause as well. Companies might lose some of their business, causing them to cut back on the number of employees and therefore increasing the unemployment rate if they lose more profit than they gain from rounding the prices to the nearest 5 cents.

Before I begin reading this essay about sexism and politics, I would like to say that I still believe that sexism exists in our culture. Our society is patriarchal; men are seen as more privileged over women simply because of gender. In 2012, sexism is still alive and well, but there is a difference between the sexism of today when compared to yesterday; sexism in our culture today is more subtle. Sure, women can vote and hold the same job that many men do, but the women will be continued to be scrutinized and paid less because of their gender. I understand that there are psychological and physical differences between men and women, but denying women the same opportunities to work in a “man’s field of work” is not ethical. I believe that the cause for sexism lies in the ideals that our society holds for women and men and ignorance when a man says, “You need someone to take care of you.”

I found the stereotypical roles of women to be fascinating because they contradict themselves in so many ways. I don’t remember much about the Palin/Clinton candidates except for the fact that the media did seem to focus on the fact that they were women a lot more than their platforms. I feel that this is unfair for women because they are at a disadvantage when compared to men in this regard. Women must try harder to disprove the negative stereotypes without embracing the positive ones; otherwise, she will look like a hypocrite. I feel that the dilemma lies in the fact that some women embrace the sexual nature of being female, while wanting to be seen at the same level of a man. This paradox is best explained by girls from my high school who wanted to be chased after by different guys but then complained that they were treating her as a sexual object. If you do not want to be seen as merely a sexual toy to guys, then don’t portray yourself as one by dressing provocatively.The problem lies in the way that women are viewed by society and the way that they view themselves. If our society could progress to show that women are more than just a pretty face, without having a negative connotation, this world would be a more equal place.

Basically, I feel that we as Americans are too dependent on our cars. We are always looking for newer ways to make them more fuel efficient without realizing that one day the oil that powers your car will run out. Therefore, I feel that the other alternatives to powering a car need to be used, even if they are equally detrimental to the environment. However, I did not know if these lithium manganese batteries are the only ones that could be used. Also, I feel that people should be using other ways of transportation that does not rely on any fuel; examples would be biking or walking if able. In addition to doing this, people should try to reduce the number of trips they take with their car as much as possible.

I realized that there was no other forms of eco-friendly fuels, such as solar or wind in the articles that we read. I do not know if this would have a big impact on the industry, but it was something that I noticed.

When reading this, I realized a couple of things. One, I believe that you can be moral and not religious. Second, I think that the conclusion of this reading is that one can always strive to be a better person morally. I would find it pretty impossible to do all of these things listed in order to achieve moral perfection, as deemed by Franklin, and not go a little crazy. I feel that in always trying to be perfect, there are going to be times when you mess up, and then you would beat yourself up about it. Your personal growth would not be so high if you were always stressing about arriving at perfection. Therefore, I think it is important to make moral choices whenever possible, but realize that you will never be perfect, no matter how hard you try. This is simply the way of life; when you do make a mistake, try to reconcile it in the best way possible according to your moral code, whether that is from a religion or from secular thinking.

One thing that I would add to Franklin’s 13 is open-mindedness. I cannot stress the importance of this in getting to know the world. I believe that this is one of the greatest ways to have personal and spiritual growth. Always question the world around you and what you believe in; without doing this, you cannot truly be an open person until you are willing to look at the things you are most convinced about in an objective light.

The summary of the first part of the essay reflects upon the bad consequences that the Internet has had upon our society. Things included are sexual predators, reduced importance of community and a distancing from reality by not keeping in contact with family members. The Internet users did not belong to as many organizations, keep in touch with family members, and the amount of friends they had as non-Internet users. The survey reported that the Internet did not have such a negative impact upon its users than previously thought, although it could influence them to behave immorally. The conclusion of the essay is that the Internet does not have any impact upon social ties to the world around them, and it is a wonderful tool to improve connection to those around the users.
The second part of the essay had the opposite argument than the first; the Internet is a good thing for humanity because it broadens relationships and allows for much more information to be learned in the same amount of time. The essay points out that for the past 35 years, people have become less involved with the community, and this is simply a change in society that is not connected to the Internet. However, this essay believes that the Internet does not have a psychological impact upon its users when forming relationships, but it does cause for small, but significant distancing from reality. Greater usage of the Internet also had a correlation of depression, even when used for social connections. The friendships made on the Internet are not as “real” as those in real life, and do not have as much worth. Therefore, the essay concludes that the Internet, used primarily for communication, has a correlation to a decrease in social involvement and a increase in psychological problems for the users.

My thoughts:

I feel that the second essay was more detailed than the first. I also find myself agreeing with the second essay more than the first, since there is empirical evidence, however small, to support the negative psychological aspects associated with Internet use. I feel that in order to combat this, a person must be aware of how they use the Internet and how much time they spend on it. Our society is becoming increasingly obsessed with the Internet as a form of social connectivity. I think that this is a good thing, because it broadens our horizons and we can find solace in Internet communities if there is no support. This was the one point that I did not agree with in the second essay: that friendships made online are not worth as much as those formed in our daily lives. Our world is becoming more individualistic, and the Internet is a reflection of this. I believe that it is a wonderful invention not only for social reasons, but because of the impact it has on learning and education. Therefore, I think that reflecting upon the time spent on the Internet, and making efforts to be involved in the community can help combat the negative effects that the second survey concludes.

Initial reaction:

I believe that what the man was wrong for breaking into the place, but he had no other option available that is presented. Also, the doctor is not behaving morally. First, he overcharges for the drug  by ten times, when he could have overcharged by 2 times, so he could make a profit, but also make it more affordable for consumers. Second, after being asked by a desperate man to reduce the price of the drug, he refuses because he is greedy. Therefore, I think the man did the right thing when he had no other option, when in other circumstances, I would think that breaking and entering are morally wrong. There are exceptions to every rule and I think this applies here.

Second response:

I found this analysis very interesting. I remember reading somewhere that boy’s minds are much more logical, and girls’ minds are much more about relationships. This article seems to reinforce that idea. I find it really interesting that these “stereotypes” of how a boy’s mind and girl’s mind work are ingrained at a young age. I find that the Kohlrege moral stages are generally viewed as right, but I don’t like how a woman is automatically put down a step below a man because the study was based on men, and left no room for the way that women think. This is not wrong, it is just a different way of thinking; the boy in this story is focused on logical ways to solve the problem, by removing things from the situation, while the girl is interested in how to fix the problem by talking and repairing the problem through communication and relationships between the three people. I think it’s interesting that I didn’t really respond the way that I, as a girl, am supposed to. I feel that I am a logical type of person, so the focus on relationships does not always apply in all cases. But, I do believe that I focus a lot on how a person will feel before I make a decision. Kohlberg thinks I should have responded with how this affects me as an individual, and not really care about what others do as long as it doesn’t affect me negatively, while Gilligan thinks I should take into consideration the well being of all people, and the relationships that I have with those around me. I think that in order to make a moral decision, you should consider how every one will be affected and not just yourself. We all live in this world together and our actions affect others more than we probably realize.

Wow. That is all that I can say about this article. I feel that this man has a lot of ignorance and clearly does not like Iowa, despite working at UNI for a long time. To me, saying that a group of people in a state all act a certain way is ridiculous; there is no possible way that every person could be the same unless they are all zombies. I feel that there are some people that live in Iowa that may act how he had described; however, there is a mix of people here just like anywhere else. I do not believe that it is a political view that caused him to think this way, but it is just a stereotype that he is perpetuating to others. Not every Iowan is an uneducated farmer stereotype or highly religious; in fact, I would say the majority are not like this in anyway. I find his ignorance and comments about Iowans highly offensive because he claims to have “traveled” extensively and yet he didn’t take the time to talk with people. He only wanted to continue thinking in the way that he always has, and probably always will, if he won’t learn how to grow from others and keep an open mind.

The purpose of these articles was to determine if music can be related in anyway to politics. I think that it is fair to conclude that after reading these articles, that yes, music can be strongly tied to politics in a subtle way. I think that both music and politics have one of the same basic principles: to influence others. That being said, music is another medium that can be used effectively when paired with politics to shape how you feel about something. An example that comes to mind is this: how effective would it be if there was no music in politic ads, no noise in the background? I think that most the music in those advertisements adds something special, something that I cannot precisely name. I only know that it enhances the credibility of the speaker.

I also thought that the articles were interesting because they provided a lot of history with the music and what circumstances caused the music to arise. The “Should Music Be Political” showed both sides of the argument; those people that believe that music and politics are two entirely different entities and should be treated as such. However, I cannot help but think that some of the history behind the music would shape it significantly and change it with the new generation’s struggles and hardships. There has to be this tie, otherwise the message behind music would be meaningless, especially in genres such as calypso and rap.

Therefore, I believe that music and politics are more closely tied than one would think. To say that there is no politics tied to music is a political statement in itself. 🙂

To be quite honest, I was really excited when I saw that this was the topic for this week’s Honors blog. 🙂 I have been trying to follow this movement whenever I have some free time simply because I find it fascinating. I enjoyed reading both of the articles for different reasons: the first article gave me some background information that I did not know, like the movement starting in other countries, like Greece, Italy and Spain. I find it a little amusing that some people who are against the movement in America may find the movement acceptable in other countries because they are more socialist and oppressive than our so called democracy. I like to think of this occupy movement as the beginning of another revolution; people are annoyed and have been annoyed for a long time that the government is letting big corporations have more of a say in things than themselves. 300 some years ago, there were patriots and loyalists; now there are people for and against the occupy movement.
I would like to say that people who are for the occupy movement have various reasons for being there. The second article proved that; each of the interviewed people had different answers: some were angry at Obama, others were not. They all simply wanted to have a democracy again, and not a government that is corrupted by money, power and other things.  Some people who are against the movement would argue that if they want to improve their lives, then why don’t they do something about it? I say that it is not always a person’s choice to not attend college or to go into thousands of dollars of debt. To suggest so is ignorant. That is like saying that all people who are wealthy have worked hard to get there; some inherit money and have companies handed to them.

I for one, am excited to see where this Occupy movement will go. I do not think that the movement should be using violence and riots to get the point across. Eloquence and non-violence are the best way to look mature and take your position seriously.

I enjoyed reading this article about the importance of arts in a school’s curriculum. I have to agree with the author that schools should not take the arts out of the system when faced with a budget cut. I believe that being trained in the arts is seeing things through a different perspective and creates a much more well-rounded individual. There have been many studies that show that music, art, etc. have a great impact on the achievement of a student in academics because it helps them see the bigger picture and have better comprehension of the material. I liked the quote that said, “Art is the representation, science is the explanation of the same reality.” I think that this is a good way to show the difference in the mediums between science/math and the arts: you need both things to create a full picture and to have the greatest meaning.