Blogging Around

Conner discusses the two sides of the healthcare debate; he focuses on the "public option".

I agree with you Conner. I believe that a public option would not ultimately be the best solution. Aside from the fact that its unsettling to me to have the government involved in my personal health*, I feel like we don't have the money right now to initiate such a program.

The main agruement behind the public option is that it would drive down costs because of competition. States hold a virtual monopoly on healthcare, and currently you cannot insure people across state lines, but what if we changed that? If we had national competition for healthcare wouldn't that drive down the costs too? If we simply allowed insurance companies to sell health insurance across state lines like they do auto insurance, we could drive down costs and insure low income Americans without involving the government. Conservatives are happy because of more capitialism and less government, and liberals should be happy because we provide the public with low cost healthcare.

*I realize it is an option I don't have to choose, but it has the potential to drive private insurers out of business and then I could be forced to take on a government option.

Chelsea wrote and intriguing post on a favorite song of hers, and in that post she discusses the importance of cliches.

Great post Chel! I agree, I think that as corny as cliches are, they hold some meaning. Before they were thrown in the washing machine we like to call "society" they held value. At some point they were someone's clever joke. Over time, their reputations tarnish, and they become the punch lines of bad sitcoms, but most of them are true life lessons. For example, "money doesn't grow on trees". A classic cliche but it gets at the importance of understanding the value of money. "An apple a day keeps the doctor away," tells us that healthy habits keep us out of the doctors.
Although many people associate cliches with stupidity, I enjoy them. The have a sense of nostalgic value. How else do you teach children basic life lessons without ruining their innocence?

iMedia: Sleep Through the Static by: Jack Johnson

Music allows us to express ourselves and criticize society, but because its music, people tend to be more receptive. In this single song of Jack Johnson's he points out our societies' blind following of the media, neglect of major world issues, and constant warfare. But you can't help but be soothed by the music.

Johnson points out some very interesting aspects of our culture. Through lines like "You could watch it instead from the comfort of your burning beds …Or you can sleep through the static", Johnson points out that we tend to ignore worldly issues and just watch them unfold from our own homes. All the while, we fail to realize the impact on our own culture and lives the events can have; we don't realize that our beds are burning. We just "sleep through the static" or we ignore important things and cast of warnings as "static".

Songs like these are extremely important for our culture. It is a way of getting opinions out there, that might otherwise come off as the whining of a passive generation. Since we let our guard down when we listen to music, we open our minds. Once we have open minds we can listen to interesting ideas without being exceptionally critical. In a subconscious way, we can begin to accept the faults of our society and culture.

Music can also affect our culture negatively. Music with intense violence, sexuality, and music that objectifies women is not a positive subconscious influence. I am not advocating a worldwide clean-up of popular music, I would be a hypocrite if I said I didn't listen to this kind of music, but we should be careful with how openly we accept it. We should embrace eye-opening music and cautiously digest more vulgar music.

Connection: King Lear and Richard III

Shakespeare's play are not only beautiful works of art, but they also teach us something about the culture of the time period, especially in the context of social norms. For instance, both King Lear and Richard III share characters that illustrate the Elizabethan view of deformities and illegitimacy.

In King Lear we are introduced to Edmund the Bastard. We quickly become aware of his evil intentions and power lust. It was the Elizabethan view that illegitimate children were destined for evil. Lear even insults Reagan during the play calling her a "degenerate bastard". There is obviously a strong connection in the notion of evil actions and being of illegitimate birth. But in Edmund's soliloquy at the beginning of the play we discover another layer. Edmund feels oppressed by his position in society, he feels like the entire world is against him, therefore being an abomination gives him the right to be evil. Society molds him and fills his head with expectations that he feels compelled to live out.

Richard show striking similarities to Edmund in the play Richard III. Richard was born with a hunched back, and in Elizabethan times physical deformities were thought to have a direct correlation to a deformity of character. Shakespeare uses Richard's deformities to alert the audience that Richard is an evil and twisted man, the definitive antagonist of his play. Although similarly to Edmund, Richard gives a speech at the beginning that tells how society has oppressed him and that he feels like he has been a victim.

For a modern perspective we now understand that the circumstances of one's birth has little effect on what they turn out to be. Whether or not you were conceived while your parents were married or not does not directly translate to whether or not you will be a cruel and evil villain. To a modern reader, Edmund and Richard may appear to be victims of society and cannot truly be blamed for their actions. We view them with a twisted sense of compassion. But to Shakespeare, their impure births justify the tragedy of their stories; in his world the social outcasts do not win because they are inherently evil.

This confusion of perspectives further illustrates how even though societal views may change, Shakespeare's works shed light on human nature in a timeless way.

Dialectics: Unity and Separation

When I decided to blog about this topic, I started by trying to think of a really obscure and interesting dialectic connection. I was trying to find something that could arguably not have an opposite, when I came to the conclusion that everything I could comprehend had an opposite. Black and white, beginning and end, happy and sad: everything in the reach of my intelligence had an opposite.

As Newton's Third Law of Motion states, "For every action in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction." I believe this idea applies to life beyond mathematics and physics. I believe it applies to ideas and concepts as well. For examples there are those who believe in god and there are atheists, those who believe in free markets and socialists. This brought me to the intriguing idea of the relationship between unity and separation.

Unity represents a sense of togetherness and being united. But, how could we understand unity without the concept of being separated or in conflict. Separation gives meaning to unity, while unity also gives meaning to separation. We cannot know unity unless we have been separated for a time.

Unity is also the end goal of most conflicts, while at the same time unity can be used to create separation and conflict. One could argue that the unity of the Nazis was not a positive thing. In this case, unity was the negative force, and diversity and being separate needed to be embraced. In the Civil War separation led to conflict, which ultimately led to unity in the end. This brings me to another point, when is unity the positive force, and when does it cause harm? Similarly, when should we embrace separation and diversity?

For human kind to have a relatively peaceful existence, there needs to be a balance of unity and separation. Unity can be destructive, so people should only unite themselves under peaceful pretenses. In the same way separation can be dangerous, so people should not try to separate themselves, while at the same time embracing natural separations such as gender, race, and culture. With this balance of separation and unity a peaceful equilibrium can be achieved.

Metacognition: Kite Runner Essay

When I started to write my essay on The Kite Runner, I believed that Khaled Hosseini wanted us to think that redemption required some degree of insanity. Although that may still hold, as I sat down to think about my thesis, my thoughts took another path.

I thought of how Amir achieved his redemption and it seemed all to clear that Hosseini was trying to say we needed to be irrational to gain peace. But upon peeling back the layers, I realized that while what Amir did was insane that wasn't the point Hosseini was trying to emphasize. Hosseini was trying to tell us that we must face our problems and take direct action to resolve them. The insanity of Amir's action were placed there for a dramatic effect, not for deeper meaning.

When I considered Baba, my thoughts furthered down this same path. When I thought of all that Baba had done to redeem himself, with all the charity that ultimately failed, I found that some could argue that Baba's actions were insane. He forced himself to live a saintly life so that he could try and find inner peace, that is a tad bit insane. I thought then, that there were holes in my original thesis. Why would insanity work for one character but not another? The answer I came up with was that Amir unlike Baba took direct actions to atone for his sins. I had a mini epiphany at that point and realized that I had my new thesis.

I was shocked at how I could change my mind so easily. For an opinionated person, such as myself, changes in thought are especially profound, not to mention rare. I was a little taken back. It also surprised me how effectively and efficiently I was able to answer one of my own questions, "Why would insanity work for one character but not another?". When I first began to question my own thesis I was worried that I would never be able to patch the holes in it, but I did.

I enjoyed how I was able to be my own critic, and play my own devil's advocate. It was a really interesting experience to be able to challenge my own thoughts; I wish I could do this more often. I would like that my thoughts were less linear sometimes. It would make the process of reaching deeper meaning much easier. My thoughts follow a pattern and flow from one related topic to the next, so if I get stuck at one point, my thoughts refuse to reach a deeper level. A little bit more randomness could help me get past those road blocks.

Blogging Around

Lindsay's Connection: The Kite Runner and Jacob I Have Loved

Lindsay wrote an entry on how trying to fill the expectations other people set for us is a dangerous practice.

I completely agree with your point Lindsay. "Expectations can destroy us if we limit ourselves by them." It is dangerous for someone to define themselves by what other people think of them or want them to be. It can lead to a plethora of negative side effects like lack of self confidence and bullying to regain the confidence. Both of your examples beautifully illustrate the destruction caused by these molds.
I wonder if they person setting the mold ever realizes that they are even creating a mold? Do they subconsciously know, or is it more of something that society sets as a whole? It could even be as simple as a parent wanting the best for you and in the process losing sight of your best interest.

Chelsea's "Best of Week: nature. nurture. or maybe a mixture."

Chelsea wrote a blog entry about the concept of nature vs. nurture and consulted experts on both sides of the issue.

I love this debate, it is so fascinating. I also love how you've pulled ideas from leading experts to back up your arguments and to better explore this question of nature vs. nurture. One point that I found really intriguing was, “If environment didn't play a part in determining an individual's traits and behaviors, then identical twins should, theoretically, be exactly the same in all respects, even if reared apart. But a number of studies show that they are never exactly alike, even though they are remarkably similar in most respects” (Powell). This simple life experiment proves that your environment must have some sort of effect on who or what you become. Your friends, family, relationships, and experiences all contribute a little part to the greater you.

Connection: The Kite Runner

Upon first glance, the book The Kite Runner and the movie Mean Girls have little in common. But once you take a chance to analyze character motive and social dynamics, you will see that the two works share some striking similarities.

Both the movie and the book share a character that is the story's bully. In The Kite Runner that bully is the blond-haired, blue-eyed Assef and in Mean Girls the bully is the blond-haired, blue-eyed Regina George. Both represent perfection in the eyes of others, and have double personalities. When faced with adults they act perfectly demure; they are respectful and mature, while radiating confidence. Many adults ignore the eeriness of their ostensible perfection. This mask they put on allows both Regina and Assef to dominate their peers with the support of the adults in control. Adults hope some of their confidence and maturity will rub off on the other kids, while the kids themselves pray they don't cross paths with these monsters. Regina and Assef rule by fear; they harp on insecurities and crush the smallest forms of rebellion. In Regina's case, she uses the threat of social ruin to quiet her subjects, while Assef on the other hand uses his brass knuckles. Although one threat is emotional and the other physical, the result is the same. No one dares to cross paths with either of these children, allowing them to rule supreme and do as they please.

The character Cady from Mean Girls is embodied by the character Amir in The Kite Runner. Cady is initially friends with Regina in an effort to ruin her total control over their high school, but in the end she becomes obsessed with acceptance and popularity. She alienates her true friends in place of fake, conniving, girls whose only interest is in popularity. Cady also begins to force herself into a specific mold to win over the school's heart throb Aaron Samuels. In doing so she fails calculus, throw a house party, and begins drinking just to try and spend more time with Aaron. When she discovers the "burn book", a place where her new friends record gossip, lies, and insults about other girls in the school, she gets caught up and even adds some rumors to it herself. Similarly, Amir leaves his only true friend, Hassan, in search of acceptance from his father. He allows Hassan to be raped, take the blame of theft, and be ridiculed constantly all in order to appease his father. Amir's obsession with trying to fit into his father's narrow mold, ruins everything good and pure in his life. Both Cady and Amir are so focused on acceptance, that they turn a blind eye to atrocities such as rape and the "burn book" and push away their true friends.

Although the stories are set in different countries, cultures, and time periods the social dynamics remain the same; class tension and bullies still plague everyday existence. This connection illustrates the continuities in human nature. We will always compete, and there will always be some sort of division amongst us. Be it as petty as high school cliques, or as profound as racial divisions, the human brain's tendency to "chunk" information will cause us to categorize people till the end of eternity.

Best of Week: Kite Runner

The most important idea brought up this week, while discussing Kite Runner, was the idea of an author versus character struggle. Khaled Hosseini uses this tension to help us better understand Amir. On page 129 there is an amazing example of this. Amir writes, "For me, America was a place to bury my memories". Hosseini gave Amir plenty of chances to atone for his sins while in Kabul, but he rejected them and fled to America. In fleeing to America, Amir is running from his past, his memories, and his destiny. All the while, Hosseini is able to act as Amir's conscience by choosing which memories are evoked by what experiences. We expirience this tension every time Amir thinks of kites, Kabul, or Rahim Khan. With each of these memories, Hosseini allows them to "claw their way out" and rip Amir apart. Each memory cuts into him, like the glass string of kites he used to idolize. Amir continues to fight his past, its almost as though he doesn't believe in his own memories. Amir tries to resist even when he finally summons the courage to return to his homeland. On page 222 he states, "I began to see where he was going. But I didn't want to hear the rest of it. I had a good life in California, pretty Victorian home with a peaked roof, a good marriage, a promising writing career, in-laws who loved me. I didn't need any of this s**t". Amir is begging Hosseini to allow him to go on with his life; he is trying to tell Hosseini that he moved on and has so much peace that he is okay with the one loose end in his life. Hosseini rejects Amir's pleas and shoves his tainted past in his face; he gives Amir the ultimatum, either he can fix this once and for all, or be haunted by loyal, hare-lipped ghosts for the rest of his life. This tension between author and character is the key to powerful writing. Their battle of wills creates a sense of underlying tension throughout the book.

I can see myself trying to carry this idea over into my own writing. The author character tension is such a captivating idea. It draws the reader in until they too are apart of the tension and they begin to take sides with the author or character. The tension drives you into the inner most thoughts and flaws of the character, allowing you to get to know him or her as well, or in some cases better, than you know yourself. As you read, you can feel the electricity in the air. You know that one bold move from the author or character could erupt into the climax of the entire novel.

Carry It Forward: The Kite Runner

Amir's plight in The Kite Runner, shows us that living your life for anyone other than yourself is dangerous. His desperation to please his father is the fuel for this whole story; its the haunting guilt, the passion, and the regret. By spending his life trying and failing to fit his father's mold, Amir crushes his own self-esteem. On page 77 Amir states, "Nothing was free in this world. Maybe Hassan was the price I had to pay, the lamb I has to slay, to win Baba". This perfectly illustrates the danger behind living your life for somebody else.

I see profound value in this idea. Living your life without trying to please others is liberating. With this idea in mind, I can truly follow my own dreams. I don't have to worry about what my parents want me to be, who my friends want me to be, or where they want me to end up. I can be myself and be completely happy with wherever life takes me.