I personally am for universal healthcare in the United States. Not because I am socialist, but because i look to capitalist doctrines. A bigger group can demand lower prices. Its why walmart gets things so much cheaper then your local mom and pop store. Beyond that, they can demand quality. Walmart also gets the best.
Now lets look at healthcare. First of all, most consumers do not research healthcare well. And insurance companies will take advantage of them and give them minimal coverage. Next, most of the people deemed in the worst position are already given health insurance by the government. As Hilary Clinto showed before the election, the majority of the uninsured are the least likely to be at risk. To insure them would cost very little in comparison, and with them we could insure the people insurance companies deem uninsurable. Third, the US spends the most on healthcare and has some of the worst results in the developed world. Cuba, a border where they do have socialist policies has some of the best even though many of their best doctors came here during the revolution. Lastly, the United States government can force pharmacutical companies to maintain a fair price on their product, for 10 years they have a monopoly and will charge a price that is unsuitable to save a life. Lifes shouldnt be about money. They should be about the quality of life and the will to live.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Saturday, March 21, 2009
The catholic Church
I have never liked organized religion on principal: Religion is MY set of beliefs, not what the Pope tells me. Of course i agree that there can be moral "experts" or people to come to for advice, much as you have a consultant in buisness. I could make a many page blog on the subject, but todays is on two recent acts infuriate me: "the Catholic aid agency Cafod is bound to uphold the official teaching of the Church, and it makes clear that it does not fund or advocate the supply, distribution or promotion of condoms."
So the church is against condoms. That is perfectly fine with me. But the idea that 1. the pope would go so far as to condemn them and 2. Ensure that people who cant afford them otherwise wouldnt get them is appalling. Who in their right mind can actually advocate the spread of AIDs? Even if we believed in a perfect world, there should be no condoms, we are far from living in this perfect world and people will have sex. To believe otherwise isnt just ignorant, its well behind the times. The church needs to stand up and say "We do not like condoms, and in a perfect world they should not be used. But if youre going to have sex, use a condom." And fund the condoms, even if they dont like them. Its the only morally correct thing to do.
The other thing is my problems with Brazil:
1. Many people by now have heard about a 9 year old girl being raped and getting pregnant with twins by her step father. "a Church spokesman says all those involved [in the abortion], including the child's mother and the doctors, are to be excommunicated." Is this a joke? There is evidence that proves nearly without a doubt she would have died if she didnt have an abortion. But wait... just when you think the church is bad enough, the step father was not excommunicated because repeated rape of two young people for many years WAS NOT as serious as abortion. This is just beyond my comprehension...
and 2.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7913981.stm
A priest was suspended for advocating contraceptives and talking about problems in the church. Clearly the church needs to be open to discussion - We need contraceptives in some areas, letting priests have sex will stop some of the rape cases that happen. it will also bring people like the pope to realize that people do have sex, and need contraceptives.
So the church is against condoms. That is perfectly fine with me. But the idea that 1. the pope would go so far as to condemn them and 2. Ensure that people who cant afford them otherwise wouldnt get them is appalling. Who in their right mind can actually advocate the spread of AIDs? Even if we believed in a perfect world, there should be no condoms, we are far from living in this perfect world and people will have sex. To believe otherwise isnt just ignorant, its well behind the times. The church needs to stand up and say "We do not like condoms, and in a perfect world they should not be used. But if youre going to have sex, use a condom." And fund the condoms, even if they dont like them. Its the only morally correct thing to do.
The other thing is my problems with Brazil:
1. Many people by now have heard about a 9 year old girl being raped and getting pregnant with twins by her step father. "a Church spokesman says all those involved [in the abortion], including the child's mother and the doctors, are to be excommunicated." Is this a joke? There is evidence that proves nearly without a doubt she would have died if she didnt have an abortion. But wait... just when you think the church is bad enough, the step father was not excommunicated because repeated rape of two young people for many years WAS NOT as serious as abortion. This is just beyond my comprehension...
and 2.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7913981.stm
A priest was suspended for advocating contraceptives and talking about problems in the church. Clearly the church needs to be open to discussion - We need contraceptives in some areas, letting priests have sex will stop some of the rape cases that happen. it will also bring people like the pope to realize that people do have sex, and need contraceptives.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
School System continued
The next school post will be on four topics: Tenure, Colleges, private vs public education and the school in the modern day world. #4 also divulges on the other areas a little, as well as provides my main part of this post.
The first of these is tenure. As mentioned by one of the comments on my last post, teachers who people complain about cant be fired and new teachers work their asses off for less pay. I agree that at the college level there needs to be tenure for controversial professors, but at the high school level there really is very little need for it - this
was a good publication i liked. My belief is tenure might be needed to give adequate financial security for teachers in a public school system, but in my third point it will be addresed as why this system should be changed. Tenure can cause teachers who need to be fired to not be - teachers who are incapable of teaching are still being paid due to a lack of ability to fire them. This is a clear example of some of these problems - 200-450,000 bad teachers putting a drag on a system that constantly "needs" more money. Most of these teachers cant teach - and that is beyond the adequate needs for a school with tenure. Therefore, a school should be able to fire someone for adequate reasons:
1. If the teacher molests/rapes/sexual abuses kids in any way
2. Teacher deals drugs/alcohol or any illegal substances
3. Teacher uses the above in front of students
4. Teacher comes to school with hangovers on a regular basis.
5. Anything that results in jail time
6. Attacking a kid/ physical violence
7. Must meet basic skills test tri yearly (i propose tri yearly as it seems cost effective yet within reason to make sure on top of the game).
As well as any other requirements i missed.
Also competency should be factored into their merit pay from my last post, and new teachers who pass with flying colors on their competency tests should get higher raises. Those with lower need to be monitered yearly at the least to make sure they dont hurt students future growth (from the first article).
For colleges:
This was brought up briefly in my Macro Economics class - we arent doing long term solutions to problems as they arent beneficial to companies. This is where i believe universities need to come in. Universities are mainly non for profit to begin with. I like how the system works as is in essence(not some policies, but on balance), the changes i propose are small:
Have colleges design alternative fuel - government funds for that, as well as private and corporate donations
Work on vaccines - same ways
Other long term projects that will greatly help the environment and our economy in the long run, but arent cost effective to companies. The reason for this is simple - they will open the research to the public allowing it to be worked on and made better for everyone at the cheapest way. It will lower future medicine costs as generics can instantly be made, and alternative fuels will lower carbon emissions fastly and cheaply.
For private vs public - a continuation
My belief as i said previously is this:
We need public and private together. There should be no distinction besides public schools are needed in areas where private companies wont go. Each student has money granted to a school - i propose that money can go to whatever school they go to. Thus a private school will be as "free" as a public school. This will start to level out the school system providing an equal opportunity as well as provide more reason a school will have to keep above the curve. Ones that dont dont get money and are put out of use.
My last and final point for today is about internet. This is mentioned in the school video briefly, and i would like to highlight the one main point that I greatly believe:
Sparknotes is in the real world. People can just get the information. Its why my firm belief is AGAINST memorizing in schools - in fact i believe we should be encouraged to use sparknotes and the like. They will help us understand, and clearly dont give us everything. Proposals: maybe adapt to the current idea of students - short stories that arent on spark notes and that also fit attention spans. Or, drop active reading. Its a joke... It has been, no teacher has even given me the slightest reason otherwise besides its in the system. "If its not broken, dont fix it". My response is twofold: 1. Its miserably broken, and 2. If we wait till the system collapses, we are starting over. We should instead salvage what we can and move forward. And also, the topic for today was horrible - the internet is here to stay, the pros and cons dont matter...
My school system as a whole is this:
Class 1 - Research. Learn Research skills to do projects in all sorts of subjects, and learn search engines, how best to not plagerize, cite sources, best sources, etc. Research is a key skill necessary for the current world.
Class 2 - Technology. Learn about the kindle, types of computers, how best to use many of the different programs on computers, how technology helps us and how to best apply it. Also, programming. Most if not all current jobs require recent technology, almost all will require it in the future.
Class 3 - Writing/Reading. This class is age old and actually is useful with modifications. There will always be a need for papers. For resumes, newspapers (maybe blogs) etc. Also analyzing data, interpreting bias, etc.
Class 4 - Math. This class is needed up to algebra and maybe geometry with changes. Higher levels could be taught, as an encouraged elective. Math is necessary for computers, for most jobs and can be taught with a logical aspect to teach us basic logic skills.
Class 5 - Life skills. Balancing budget, Relationships, Common teen problems - this needs to be a class in any society. Just basic skills for life.
Class 6 - History/Language. I feel for a good many years in school we need to learn the history of the world and how we became who we are. I really dont care about if we give kids the full impact of Columbus in 1st grade, i believe in that.
Other classes: Give basic classes in other areas throughout middle school and junior high to teach kids the areas as 1. they arent ready to choose, and 2. its good to get them out of their areas for a little while if only to socialize with other groups of kids. Clearly these classes can change, and are only a very brief basic outline, but i believe we need to change the core classes to a modern society, in fact i believe technology should always have been a core class.
The rest of the current classes can be electives - if there is a demand for them they will be taken and taught if not, they wont. Provide a surplus of offerings and then ask kids to switch if their class isnt offered. Can merge like classes if needed, or other options provided by the administration.
There is so much more to say, but so little attention span of my readers to do it. So thank you for your time and please provide any feedback you would like. I read all comments.
The first of these is tenure. As mentioned by one of the comments on my last post, teachers who people complain about cant be fired and new teachers work their asses off for less pay. I agree that at the college level there needs to be tenure for controversial professors, but at the high school level there really is very little need for it - this
was a good publication i liked. My belief is tenure might be needed to give adequate financial security for teachers in a public school system, but in my third point it will be addresed as why this system should be changed. Tenure can cause teachers who need to be fired to not be - teachers who are incapable of teaching are still being paid due to a lack of ability to fire them. This is a clear example of some of these problems - 200-450,000 bad teachers putting a drag on a system that constantly "needs" more money. Most of these teachers cant teach - and that is beyond the adequate needs for a school with tenure. Therefore, a school should be able to fire someone for adequate reasons:
1. If the teacher molests/rapes/sexual abuses kids in any way
2. Teacher deals drugs/alcohol or any illegal substances
3. Teacher uses the above in front of students
4. Teacher comes to school with hangovers on a regular basis.
5. Anything that results in jail time
6. Attacking a kid/ physical violence
7. Must meet basic skills test tri yearly (i propose tri yearly as it seems cost effective yet within reason to make sure on top of the game).
As well as any other requirements i missed.
Also competency should be factored into their merit pay from my last post, and new teachers who pass with flying colors on their competency tests should get higher raises. Those with lower need to be monitered yearly at the least to make sure they dont hurt students future growth (from the first article).
For colleges:
This was brought up briefly in my Macro Economics class - we arent doing long term solutions to problems as they arent beneficial to companies. This is where i believe universities need to come in. Universities are mainly non for profit to begin with. I like how the system works as is in essence(not some policies, but on balance), the changes i propose are small:
Have colleges design alternative fuel - government funds for that, as well as private and corporate donations
Work on vaccines - same ways
Other long term projects that will greatly help the environment and our economy in the long run, but arent cost effective to companies. The reason for this is simple - they will open the research to the public allowing it to be worked on and made better for everyone at the cheapest way. It will lower future medicine costs as generics can instantly be made, and alternative fuels will lower carbon emissions fastly and cheaply.
For private vs public - a continuation
My belief as i said previously is this:
We need public and private together. There should be no distinction besides public schools are needed in areas where private companies wont go. Each student has money granted to a school - i propose that money can go to whatever school they go to. Thus a private school will be as "free" as a public school. This will start to level out the school system providing an equal opportunity as well as provide more reason a school will have to keep above the curve. Ones that dont dont get money and are put out of use.
My last and final point for today is about internet. This is mentioned in the school video briefly, and i would like to highlight the one main point that I greatly believe:
Sparknotes is in the real world. People can just get the information. Its why my firm belief is AGAINST memorizing in schools - in fact i believe we should be encouraged to use sparknotes and the like. They will help us understand, and clearly dont give us everything. Proposals: maybe adapt to the current idea of students - short stories that arent on spark notes and that also fit attention spans. Or, drop active reading. Its a joke... It has been, no teacher has even given me the slightest reason otherwise besides its in the system. "If its not broken, dont fix it". My response is twofold: 1. Its miserably broken, and 2. If we wait till the system collapses, we are starting over. We should instead salvage what we can and move forward. And also, the topic for today was horrible - the internet is here to stay, the pros and cons dont matter...
My school system as a whole is this:
Class 1 - Research. Learn Research skills to do projects in all sorts of subjects, and learn search engines, how best to not plagerize, cite sources, best sources, etc. Research is a key skill necessary for the current world.
Class 2 - Technology. Learn about the kindle, types of computers, how best to use many of the different programs on computers, how technology helps us and how to best apply it. Also, programming. Most if not all current jobs require recent technology, almost all will require it in the future.
Class 3 - Writing/Reading. This class is age old and actually is useful with modifications. There will always be a need for papers. For resumes, newspapers (maybe blogs) etc. Also analyzing data, interpreting bias, etc.
Class 4 - Math. This class is needed up to algebra and maybe geometry with changes. Higher levels could be taught, as an encouraged elective. Math is necessary for computers, for most jobs and can be taught with a logical aspect to teach us basic logic skills.
Class 5 - Life skills. Balancing budget, Relationships, Common teen problems - this needs to be a class in any society. Just basic skills for life.
Class 6 - History/Language. I feel for a good many years in school we need to learn the history of the world and how we became who we are. I really dont care about if we give kids the full impact of Columbus in 1st grade, i believe in that.
Other classes: Give basic classes in other areas throughout middle school and junior high to teach kids the areas as 1. they arent ready to choose, and 2. its good to get them out of their areas for a little while if only to socialize with other groups of kids. Clearly these classes can change, and are only a very brief basic outline, but i believe we need to change the core classes to a modern society, in fact i believe technology should always have been a core class.
The rest of the current classes can be electives - if there is a demand for them they will be taken and taught if not, they wont. Provide a surplus of offerings and then ask kids to switch if their class isnt offered. Can merge like classes if needed, or other options provided by the administration.
There is so much more to say, but so little attention span of my readers to do it. So thank you for your time and please provide any feedback you would like. I read all comments.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Education
I need to clean up all of these posts maybe add pictures and links in the near future. But for now i will continue with education.
Over the years i have read so many articles about No Child Left Behind and how the school system needs revamping. But what have we done? Not much. The problem i propose is public school systems in the US.
Here is a list of problems and solutions.
1. Attracting teachers:
The pay needs to be based on merit rather then teaching longer. The average teacher takes 3 years to pay their college debt. Why try to teach? We need to encourage the best and the brightest to teach in the system. Merit pay can lead to the best teachers making easily enough to stay in the business from early years and lead to them actually caring if their class succeeds. There should also be rewards for teaching in the cities.
2. Private schools
My proposal is a private school system paid not by parents but by the state, at least to some extent. You choose the school, the state pays the amount it would to a public school you would go to. This will allow you to have very cheap private education and will force public schools to compete or go out of buisness. I believe private schools are good for 3 reasons:
a. they can kick kids out. It is extremely hard to kick kids out or punish in regular school. Acting out in class, fighting. What can a school do? Suspend you? So youll get to hang out out of school? At a private school they could have other kinds of disipline addressed in part 3.
b. parents pay. This means that they will pressure kids to stay in them and work hard.
c. are forced to do well. In the public sector we just through money at the problem. From 1978 to now we spent 2x as much adjusted for inflation on education. In the private sector you dont work you go out of buisness.
3. Disipline
I feel community service can be a disipline. Act out in class? Get sent to principal? Is suspension really going to help? Community service can show you the world around you and open your eyes. It can teach morals to kids and show them how they can succeed.
Also, allow kids to have to clean up if get in trouble like a lunch room or help a janitor. This would help to pay for certain aspects of a school for cheaper as well as be a big reason kids dont get in trouble as then they have to actually work.
4. Keep kids in school/good grades
The money idea proposed and utilized in inner city chicago has done very well. People i spoke to from debate and other activities after school there actually study because they instantly see an incentive from doing the activity. They get paid for extracurriculars, which will save Chicago well on its police budget (keep kids out of trouble) and get kids to learn more leading to a more equal and better future for america.
There is much more to post but i will save it for the future so as not to overwhelm in a single post. These include: educating for the future, educating for college, equalizing city students with those of the rest of the area, fixing the school day etc.
Over the years i have read so many articles about No Child Left Behind and how the school system needs revamping. But what have we done? Not much. The problem i propose is public school systems in the US.
Here is a list of problems and solutions.
1. Attracting teachers:
The pay needs to be based on merit rather then teaching longer. The average teacher takes 3 years to pay their college debt. Why try to teach? We need to encourage the best and the brightest to teach in the system. Merit pay can lead to the best teachers making easily enough to stay in the business from early years and lead to them actually caring if their class succeeds. There should also be rewards for teaching in the cities.
2. Private schools
My proposal is a private school system paid not by parents but by the state, at least to some extent. You choose the school, the state pays the amount it would to a public school you would go to. This will allow you to have very cheap private education and will force public schools to compete or go out of buisness. I believe private schools are good for 3 reasons:
a. they can kick kids out. It is extremely hard to kick kids out or punish in regular school. Acting out in class, fighting. What can a school do? Suspend you? So youll get to hang out out of school? At a private school they could have other kinds of disipline addressed in part 3.
b. parents pay. This means that they will pressure kids to stay in them and work hard.
c. are forced to do well. In the public sector we just through money at the problem. From 1978 to now we spent 2x as much adjusted for inflation on education. In the private sector you dont work you go out of buisness.
3. Disipline
I feel community service can be a disipline. Act out in class? Get sent to principal? Is suspension really going to help? Community service can show you the world around you and open your eyes. It can teach morals to kids and show them how they can succeed.
Also, allow kids to have to clean up if get in trouble like a lunch room or help a janitor. This would help to pay for certain aspects of a school for cheaper as well as be a big reason kids dont get in trouble as then they have to actually work.
4. Keep kids in school/good grades
The money idea proposed and utilized in inner city chicago has done very well. People i spoke to from debate and other activities after school there actually study because they instantly see an incentive from doing the activity. They get paid for extracurriculars, which will save Chicago well on its police budget (keep kids out of trouble) and get kids to learn more leading to a more equal and better future for america.
There is much more to post but i will save it for the future so as not to overwhelm in a single post. These include: educating for the future, educating for college, equalizing city students with those of the rest of the area, fixing the school day etc.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
School
School. I have advocated for many years a change. Unfortunately Im 15, and even if i could get them argued by someone older, they still would take many years to change. But the need is urgent. This might be an old test, but it has been getting worse and worse with each year. The competition is fierce, and when if you only tie their scores they will seek out those workers as they will work for a lower price you need to encourage better.
The first thing I propose is a more equal teacher salary. I argue the investment in current teachers is leading to a wide difference between the best and worst, and in my society everyone will do better, thus leading to more entrepreneurial ability and more money/jobs in the long run. It is our mistake to not do this while other countries are.
Therefore: I want merit pay. This will mean a good first year teacher can make money and doesnt live their first three years paying off debt as studies have shown. It might weed out some teachers who could have improved later, but unfortunately that is the cost. Someone teaching for 20 years with an outdated teaching mentality, or a new teacher of 2 or 3 years who is top of the line. I agree the 20 year teacher will have experience, and if they show that, they should get more. One of the merit pay methods proposed should be used, I concede I do not have the experience or the time to read each plan offered.
Also we must change the curriculum. In math they have you memorize 50 formulas for the test. I personally have never memorized a single formula, maybe from excessive use. I learn them. Learning them is what needs to be done - anyone can go on google and just look up. But why even do that? If i go to my job and i need to know the area of a circle, google will tell me. Focusing on the methodology is key. Arriving at problems fastest, thinking in terms of logic more then just physical problems so it helps everyone in their future jobs, not just math majors.
Social Studies: Honestly, this class is ok in my school as the ones ive taken. If its a memorization class, only have it as an elective. Essays, Analysis, all those things can help us in the future, memorization of dates? Very little.
Foreign Language: I really do not like this class. I actually advocate something I am against. I advocate learning it like we learn english. For like chicago, there could be a facility where we can immerse ourselves in only spanish for a week after a few years taking. Learning spanish in a spanish environment is best, and it would be the same for all others. Also, our school focuses very little on culture, and honestly, those are the things that will be needed in future society.
Science: I like the way my chemistry teacher is teaching it and like chemistry. However i feel the classes taken as the "recommended" classes are ones very very few kids will major in and most people wont care about. Science can be a required 2 years of any order of classes with a wide variety offered.
English: This should focus on what you need in jobs. I understand the need to read books and stuff, but active read? Do as you want. Honestly... if you dont want to, its not purposeful. Also cut down on them as they wont help us in our jobs. In a world of sparknotes, etc. we dont need as much. Focus more on essays, learn about resumes, things that will always be needed, or at least for a while. Proposals, projects, ones that cross the borders of categories for jobs.
There are many more areas to be fixed, including AP tests, college application, etc. and i will likely cover in a future post.
The first thing I propose is a more equal teacher salary. I argue the investment in current teachers is leading to a wide difference between the best and worst, and in my society everyone will do better, thus leading to more entrepreneurial ability and more money/jobs in the long run. It is our mistake to not do this while other countries are.
Therefore: I want merit pay. This will mean a good first year teacher can make money and doesnt live their first three years paying off debt as studies have shown. It might weed out some teachers who could have improved later, but unfortunately that is the cost. Someone teaching for 20 years with an outdated teaching mentality, or a new teacher of 2 or 3 years who is top of the line. I agree the 20 year teacher will have experience, and if they show that, they should get more. One of the merit pay methods proposed should be used, I concede I do not have the experience or the time to read each plan offered.
Also we must change the curriculum. In math they have you memorize 50 formulas for the test. I personally have never memorized a single formula, maybe from excessive use. I learn them. Learning them is what needs to be done - anyone can go on google and just look up. But why even do that? If i go to my job and i need to know the area of a circle, google will tell me. Focusing on the methodology is key. Arriving at problems fastest, thinking in terms of logic more then just physical problems so it helps everyone in their future jobs, not just math majors.
Social Studies: Honestly, this class is ok in my school as the ones ive taken. If its a memorization class, only have it as an elective. Essays, Analysis, all those things can help us in the future, memorization of dates? Very little.
Foreign Language: I really do not like this class. I actually advocate something I am against. I advocate learning it like we learn english. For like chicago, there could be a facility where we can immerse ourselves in only spanish for a week after a few years taking. Learning spanish in a spanish environment is best, and it would be the same for all others. Also, our school focuses very little on culture, and honestly, those are the things that will be needed in future society.
Science: I like the way my chemistry teacher is teaching it and like chemistry. However i feel the classes taken as the "recommended" classes are ones very very few kids will major in and most people wont care about. Science can be a required 2 years of any order of classes with a wide variety offered.
English: This should focus on what you need in jobs. I understand the need to read books and stuff, but active read? Do as you want. Honestly... if you dont want to, its not purposeful. Also cut down on them as they wont help us in our jobs. In a world of sparknotes, etc. we dont need as much. Focus more on essays, learn about resumes, things that will always be needed, or at least for a while. Proposals, projects, ones that cross the borders of categories for jobs.
There are many more areas to be fixed, including AP tests, college application, etc. and i will likely cover in a future post.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
The cons of the ACT and SAT
I feel they are not outdated. I feel they never should have existed. To me, a college should test on what it wants to get in. The individual college. Not only would it curb students from applying to the 10 schools they do now (unless they want to take 10 tests), it would also test what the individual college wanted.
makes me feel good about that. Not only that, but teachers teach towards a standardized tests. If their students are going to a full range of colleges they'll be forced to teach what they believe is important, and not what will get a good score. Also, ACT/SAT tutors will be gone. You can't have an MSU teacher or a GW teacher, its to hard. It will cut down the gap of rich and poor as they wont have the people paying for a full time tutor vs minimal education.
That is if we need standardized tests at all...
Most standardized tests are written for the white middle/upper class. There are huge gaps between different groups (as shown on the site) like gender, racial group etc. The tests are written to trick students not test their intellect. People who arent good test takers are not taken into account and on the SAT the idea that if you get one low score it affects you even if you get a high one next time is absurd. One bad day can ruin your life.
There are so many reasons why these tests are bad and so few why they are good. If we need testing, let each individual college test you. My proposal: an online test/essay test. These two options allow for a student to be themselves and be weighed, take away from problems with tests and will allow for foreign language students to use tools at hand. Why handicap anyone from using tools theyll have in college?
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Superbowl
Football. It is one of my favorite sports. Since the 5th grade, I’ve played tackle football in junior Spartans, and flag football even longer. Every year, I watch most of the bears games on television, although over the years as social commitments and school get in the way I watch less and less. The one definite has been watching the super bowl. The game is usually great, some years it has been a blowoff, but the one constant has been great commercials. This year however, I really didn’t see a single one that stood out, that was “great”. Or even that one that got ranked the worst, one godaddy takes pride in trying to get every year. Maybe it was the recession, maybe it was a lack of innovation. But the one thing that surprised me this year was the game. That’s right, the game actually was its own highlight this year. The first half, the game looked like it was going to be a blowout for the Steelers. But near the end, the safety instead of the Steelers getting out. Then there was the touchdown to take the lead by 3 from a 13 point deficit. And then to end it all off, the touchdown to win it all, Steelers winning their 6th super bowl, the most super bowl wins by a football team ever, and almost the first Super Bowl overtime. Super Bowl XLIII, football at its finest.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Gender bias
In english class recently, we have been learning about gender biases: Women portrayed as objects, and men portrayed as buffoons was the main example. There was interesting evidence about racial biases as well, and I was curious to see why advertising uses these, How prevelant they are, and how this affects people more then just demeaning them. I had some predictions about economic impact, but was suprised by what else I found.
First, I saw that it can actually affect patients being treated for heart disease. Women are referred less frequently for bypasses, and the like. Thats a direct harm on their quality and length of life. For the other side, Mexico is running ads to show men what it is like to be a woman, and that there needs to be change. Its goal is to be funny, and highlights the unfairness towards women in Mexican society.
In 2006, only 2% of ESPN air time was women's games. I quote, "[female] volleyball players must wear bikinis while they compete so people will be interested in watching." This might sound funny at first, but then realize its true. Women are so demeaned in sports, and on prime time TV. Not only do they have to be athletic, they have to be pretty too.
Of course, there are some problems with boys - and the effects of shown. "Only boys were shown in anti-social behavior. " And there is some progress over the years - girls have become more active.
I couldn't really find the reason why they are used, but it is likely economic - more girls are likely to like products with guys in them according to the above article. I was curious though, as I thought that "attractive" women would get men to buy the product, maybe if the women are subserviant they'll like it more, but why women aren't in the ads I wouldn't know. For sports, people tune out for for women more, and Men's sports are considered "more athletic and challanging".
First, I saw that it can actually affect patients being treated for heart disease. Women are referred less frequently for bypasses, and the like. Thats a direct harm on their quality and length of life. For the other side, Mexico is running ads to show men what it is like to be a woman, and that there needs to be change. Its goal is to be funny, and highlights the unfairness towards women in Mexican society.
In 2006, only 2% of ESPN air time was women's games. I quote, "[female] volleyball players must wear bikinis while they compete so people will be interested in watching." This might sound funny at first, but then realize its true. Women are so demeaned in sports, and on prime time TV. Not only do they have to be athletic, they have to be pretty too.
Of course, there are some problems with boys - and the effects of shown. "Only boys were shown in anti-social behavior. " And there is some progress over the years - girls have become more active.
I couldn't really find the reason why they are used, but it is likely economic - more girls are likely to like products with guys in them according to the above article. I was curious though, as I thought that "attractive" women would get men to buy the product, maybe if the women are subserviant they'll like it more, but why women aren't in the ads I wouldn't know. For sports, people tune out for for women more, and Men's sports are considered "more athletic and challanging".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)