Hannah Hecht's Blog

Until this week, I had heard that there was a conflict in Syria, but I had no idea what it was about. One of the things that really struck me as interesting was how Bashar al-Assad was supposed to come in as an engine of change with all kinds of Western Democratic ideas, and he actually ended up being worse than his predecessor. Over 7,000 people have died in the conflict, and Assad continues to hold power and literally crush his opposition. The situation kind of reminds me of how in the 1920’s Germany was in a huge depression and the people elected Adolph Hitler as a savior to pull them out of their economic hard times. In both places, things got a little better, then a lot worse, and innocent people were murdered.

Another thing that I found really interesting was how Iran continues to support Assad’s rule, and even tries to help the government avoid the UN sanctions. This aspect really complicates the problem, as other countries (such as the US) are reluctant to help for fear of Iranian backlash. Instead, the Obama administration is trying to help out in Syria through the UN, which as effective as direct US involvement would be.

I don’t know what my opinion is on the issue, just because I have a very superficial understanding of it. Luckily, that’s what honors is for and I’m excited for our discussion.

As a little kid, I was a Disney fanatic. I would sit in my basement and watch Cinderella, Dumbo, or The Lion King straight through, and then when it finished, I’d rewind and watch the same movie again. It’s kind of funny for me to watch one of the old movies now, because I find myself thinking all of the dialogue before it comes up and singing every song word for word, even though I haven’t seen some of the movies in ten years. Just as I was unconsciously memorizing the dialogue and scenes, I was also unconsciously taking in all of the commentary on society that the movies contained, whether it was intended or not.

Right now, I’m taking an Intro to Literary Analysis class and it’s really interesting. One of the main things that we’ve learned is that although an author may not intend to send across a point, and though audience may not always perceive it, that doesn’t mean that it isn’t there. Every piece of text, film, clothing, advertising, etc. is a product of the time period and culture that it was created in, and therefore, represents the feelings and thoughts of people at that point in time.

Similarly, the racist and sexist references in Disney movies may have been put there on purpose or on accident, but either way they are there and little kids, whether they know it or not, are picking up on it. I mean, how many little girls out there want to marry a prince and become a princess? How many kids believe that if you wish something on a star, it will really come true, without any work on their part? How many little boys are watching the Disney heroes and learning that physical strength is the most important asset to have?

One of the things that surprised me the most was that a lot of the politically incorrect references and horrible lessons to teach kids were in the Disney movies of our own generation. While, “What makes the Red Man Red?” probably wouldn’t fly in a new movie in today’s society, a lot of the more subtle problems were found in the more recent Disney classics, such as Aladdin, The Lion King, The Little Mermaid, and Beauty and the Beast. This makes me wonder if similar themes are present in movies that are being created at this very moment. Has society really changed all that much?

I’ve read recently about how Disney-Pixar’s summer 2012 movie Brave is supposed to have a “new” type of heroine. I wonder if it really will, or if the movie will go back to Disney’s same old song and dance.

Brave Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEHWDA_6e3M

This week’s articles explored the issue of politics in music. Some people think that music is a useful and effective way to convey political ideals while others believe that art and politics are two completely separate things and ought to remain separated.

One composer and critic of politics in music made the comment, “Art is pure and politics is about winning, a concept meaningless to art.” Honestly, I think that this statement poses a much greater problem than that of politics in music. I mean, should politics seriously be solely about winning? It’s really scary to think that current politicians’ main goal is to win, not to effectively run our country. And yet, the opinion that politics is only about winning is a really common one among the American people.

Okay, so hypothetically, let’s just say that politics is about winning. Political parties have no other real function than just to get their people into office. Then, where do the people turn to express their opinion? How are they heard by the chronically competitive politicians? Through art! Music can give a voice to the unheard and let the politically suppressed have a voice. Music touches the human soul and allows people to express the inexpressible. When done correctly, government should give the people a voice, but if the government is corrupt or no longer functions correctly, people can still find a voice through art, music, and popular culture.

Separating politics and music would not only deprive citizens of free speech, it would also deny them the means to express their feelings and ideals (whether political or not). Who says that songs should only be about love, breakups, and partying? Such ideas are ridiculous and limit the power of art greatly. Art is supposed to be about expression, and isn’t that the entire goal of politics? To give a voice to every man and woman under the government of an area? Together, art and politics can accomplish so much more than they ever could when divided. The idea of separating them is completely ridiculous.

Out of the three texts, the Cracked article was the one I found the most interesting. Not only did it explore the issues of marriage and plastic surgery, but it also discussed reality TV and its effect on America. It talked about how reality TV celebrates the worst of the worst people. It makes the most ruthless, narcissistic people into celebrities and rewards them simply for being able to “play the game”

Brideoplasty teaches women who are already insecure that they are not good enough and need plastic surgery for their husbands to accept them. This show is a huge step back for women. Instead of having marriage celebrate two people who want to spend their lives together, it changes marriage into a reason for women to change themselves so that they are “good enough” for their husbands. Everything about the Brideoplasty situation is bad enough, but what makes it worse is how people across America will be watching it. Reality TV shows like this teach people all of the wrong lessons.

When I first read the New York Times article by Roger Cohen, I was automatically reminded of the many internet memes that have cropped up over the past month, poking fun at the Stop Kony platform and ideals. I don’t claim to know everything, or even much, about the issue, but articles and memes like this drive me crazy. The Cohen article is sarcastic, challenges the idea that people can make a difference, and bluntly states that the Stop Kony model is ridiculous. Cohen, instead of offering an alternative solution, or even stating what is wrong with Invisible Children’s plan, just makes fun of the use of social media to promote a cause.

It’s completely infuriating. Nowadays, there’s no shortage of naysayers. In the United States, there’s one prevailing opinion, no matter what the issue: “The issue is too complicated,” people will say, “It’s too big to tackle. The world’s problems are too complex, too intertwined in other issues, for us to do anything about them.” And this is an incredibly easy stance to take. In order to bring down an idea, all it takes is one person exploiting one minor complication. What’s much more difficult is actually finding a solvable problem and then solving it.

And that’s where Stop Kony ought to win. Jason Russell is a man with a plan, which seems to get increasingly rarer in our world. And it’s simple. Just take an idea and spread it. Once the issue is unveiled, it can’t be ignored. If the Stop Kony platform continues to spread, it will become unstoppable and Kony will eventually be brought to justice.

As Russell said, it’s a new era. Technology is a tool, and Invisible Children has found a new use for it. Through technology comes a whole new type of politics, a type where the people can have a voice. If Stop Kony succeeds, it can mean a whole new chapter in Western politics where the people really have a say. And if other issues can follow the Stop Kony model, together we can solve more problems than we ever thought possible.

This week’s assignment was completely horrifying. The fact that there are still people in the world who work on a factory line at all, doing one menial task day-in and day-out, is disturbing in itself. But, the fact that American companies are employing these people to make our technology at $.31 an hour is an outrage. How can these companies make people work like this, knowing that such a situation would be an abomination in our own country? Every aspect of these workers’ lives seems like a living hell: assembling one piece with one motion hour after hour, working 12 to 34 hour shifts, living in a cramped dorm room with eleven other people, losing the use of your hands after years of repetitive motion, the inability to form a union and have a say in your own life, and the knowledge that there really is no escape, not even death, as the factories prevent suicide by installing nets between buildings. If I were in that situation I may work to organize a union, not to actually improve conditions, but to get myself thrown in jail, which would offer much better living conditions.

The story that really stuck with me from the NPR broadcast was the one about a man who lost the use of his hand in a machine. He lost his job and the company didn’t pay him anything for medical expenses. The man’s job had been to assemble the metallic back covering for iPads. The craziest part was that he had never even seen an entire iPad before! As we Americans, indulge in technology and consumerism, we never really stop to think about where our technology is coming from. I, like Daisey, thought that phones, computers, and iPods were assembled by robots in factories, and would have never imagined that every single piece was made in an old-fashioned human assembly line. Just because these workers aren’t don’t live in our country doesn’t mean, as employees of American companies, that they don’t deserve the same worker’s rights as we do.

The Rolling Stone article “One Town’s War Against Gay Teens” was shocking and disturbing to read. The article described the plight of a few different LGBT individuals in a Minnesota school district. This school district has an incredibly high rate of suicide which is connected with the district’s attitudes toward LGBT students. The local evangelical churches pushed for and passed legislation that required teachers to exhibit “neutrality” on the idea of homosexuality. As a result, bullying based on sexual orientation flourished and played a huge part in many of the suicides.

This article and the school district response were an outrage to read. As educators, teachers ought to teach both equality and love for all people, regardless of sexual orientation. The article is completely heartbreaking and it’s crazy that so many suicides took place before the local legislation decided to do anything about it. It amazes me to think that anyone, especially people who call themselves “Christians,” are the comfortable labeling many kids as “inferior.” The fact that so many suicides had to occur before a light was shone on this issue is even more mind-boggling.

The articles for this week described a new movement to establish “concealed carry” policies with regard to guns on public university campuses. Proponents of these new laws hold that students who possess guns are safer and more prepared in the event of shootings, such as those at Virginia Tech. Critics believe that allowing students to possess arms puts the entire campus population at a greater risk.

In my opinion, allowing students to keep guns on their person opens up tons of new campus safety issues. As a Kansan, it kind of scares me to think that many of my friends are attending Kansas public colleges where students can keep guns with them. Logically, allowing concealed carry will give all conflicts the potential to escalate to gun-based violence. For the most part, students who are willing to go out and get a gun and a license are much more willing to use it than the majority of the population, which increases the potential for conflict. Alcohol and drug use are also very prominent on college campuses, and are much more dangerous you add guns to the mix. Neither article cited any statistics that proved concealed carry benefits universities in any way; the potential for harmful actions far outweighs the benefit of possible self-defense.

Instead of putting guns into the hands of more Americans, students or otherwise, the legislature ought to put more stringent regulations on which people are allowed to own guns in the first place. If we could keep guns out of the hands of people that want to hurt others, then concealed guns for self-defense wouldn’t be necessary. It’s not 1776 anymore and we no longer have to worry about facing the untamed wild. Instead of fighting violence with violence through concealed carry, we ought to get to the root of the problem by restricting gun sales.

This week, President Obama presented his “Race to the Top” plan for financial aid to college students. The plan will essentially push colleges to lower tuition by creating incentives for those colleges that give more aid. The first article was written from a more conservative point of view. It pointed out the shortcomings of the plan much more than it emphasized the need for educational reform. The second article was much more interesting to me. Instead of focusing on conflict between the two parties, it worked to actually solve a problem by pointing out complications that may arise and explaining how to fix them.

I had a kind of mixed response to this week’s reading. One of the things that drives me crazy about the current American political system is the utter lack of cooperation in Washington. Whenever either party tries to make some sort of reform, the other party vehemently opposes it, no matter what. The problem in Washington is not that conservatives and liberals have bad ideas and don’t know how to run the country. The problem is that they won’t come to any bipartisan plan or compromise on any issue. On the rare occasions that a plan actually is passed, like the Obama health care bill, it gets so picked apart by the opposite side that by the time it is instated, the plan has been reduced to nothing.

The first article states, “House Republicans have also signaled their desire to deny Obama any legislative wins in an election year.” This idea is completely maddening. If the point of the legislature is to improve the country, why would Republicans (or anyone for that matter) deny every plan Obama presents, no matter the merit of the plan, only because Obama presents it. According to the article, both parties agree that there needs to be some sort of reform in higher education. Why does it have to be the “Republican plan for tuition reform” or the “Democratic plan for tuition reform?” Instead, both parties ought to be more like the author of the second article. They need to agree that there’s a problem, write a plan, and then work together to amend the plan into something functional. If this pointless attacking and argument between the parties continues, it won’t matter who wins the 2012 election, our legislature will continue to accomplish nothing.

“The Heinz Dilemma”
Yes, I believe that the husband was right in stealing the drug. If he had just stolen it outright after discovering his wife’s sickness it would have been wrong, but he exhausted all other options. The husband tried all other cancer treatments, which didn’t work, and offered the local druggist five times the amount that it cost the druggist to make. He was out of options. He could not borrow money from anyone else, nor could he reason with the druggist and talk his price down. And because of his intense love and sympathy for his wife, he simply couldn’t just sit idly by and watch her die. He knew that there was a way to save her and he did what was necessary. This isn’t a case of sacrificing a group of lives for one life, instead it is a simple case of doing something wrong in order to prevent something worse from occurring.

According to Gilligan, as a female, I ought to have answered as Amy did, with a focus on relationships and conflict-resolution, instead of logic and the law. Amy felt that the true answer to the question lay in convincing the druggist to lower his price, not in stealing the drug and then allowing the law system to advocate “true” justice. My answer was actually a lot closer to that of Jake and of Kohlberg. I took a more logical approach and felt that death was much more wrong than theft and that human life is much more valuable than the profit that the druggist would make off of the drug. I guess that I tend to see the world in terms of black and white, or right and wrong, and think in a logical sequence.

I found Amy’s answer to be much more interesting than Jake’s though. Maybe it was just more interesting because it’s always fun to see the world through someone else’s eyes, but her focus on conflict resolution seemed like it might lead to a better solution. She also was able to see into the future and recognize how the current situation may affect Heinz and his wife’s future relationship with each other. Also, if Heinz could convince the druggist to sell him the drug for less, then he wouldn’t have to worry about the consequences of breaking the law later, although the judge ought to understand why he did it. The part that I didn’t quite understand about Amy was her firm aversion to stealing, no matter what. For me, the law should not be followed unfailingly just because it is the law. Legislation is manmade, and therefore, subject to mistakes. Most importantly, laws aren’t written with the foresight of every single future situation that may arise. In this hypothetical situation, with all other options exhausted, stealing is the right thing to do, so Heinz should do it.

Questions:

1. If this study was conducted more extensively and more students were asked, would all of the male and female students give the same answers as Amy and Jake?

2. Would the respective age of the students make a difference?

3. This is more of a statement, but… It would be interesting to look at the case of Amy and Jake and their thought patterns from an evolutionary perspective. How has evolution prewired males and females to think in a certain way?