Kami is a staple character on the Nigerian and South African versions of Sesame Street. Sweet little Kami is supposed to represent a young girl you is HIV positive. Kami is a good character for these versions of Sesame Street because HIV and AIDS is a huge problem in Africa. Millions of men. women, and children have been infected by HIV or AIDS. The research has shown that Kami has been a very positive influence on the children in South Africa and Nigeria. However, this week's question is "Would a character like Kami be helpful/appropriate for the US version of Sesame Street?"
My answer? Helpful, yes. Appropriate/Necessary, no. Yes children need to understand how HIV and AIDS are transmitted and how they cannot be spread through hugs or sneezes. It is also important that we let go of the stigma that people with HIV or AIDS are either gay or some kind of drug-addicted convict.
In the 80's and 90's Ryan White received a blood transfusion that was HIV positive. Ryan, only a young boy at the time, became infected with the disease. He was tormented by not only his peers, but adults as well. Rumors circulated that Ryan was gay. The school administration didn't know how to handle Ryan either. He was separated from the other children as if he would infect them by his presence alone. If we taught children about HIV and AIDS people would be able to let go of the untrue stereotypes that still plague the people who suffer from these diseases.
However, because HIV and AIDS are not as prevalent in America as they are in countries such as South Africa and Nigeria it is not necessary to have Kami on our Sesame Street. Although I do believe that it is necessary to educate children on HIV and AIDS, I do not believe it is necessary to do so at such a young age. Like I previously stated, this is because HIV and AIDS are not as big of a problem in the US as they are in other areas of the world.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Week #13 - Academics vs. Education
Still feeling cynical, by the way. Be warned. Here lie dragons.
"Tell me and I forget, teach me and I remember, involve me and I learn."- Benjamin Franklin. From this quote the question was asked "How can your education at USI be based on involvement?" Well for starters, we could get more professors that actually care about their students. The ratio, in my opinion, of caring to shit professors is about 50/50. Half of my professors are really great and teach in a way that I understand and connect to. However, the other half could care less about their students and instead they drone on and on in their lectures not even looking us in the eyes. (You know who you are!!!)
If teachers were more involved, their students would be more involved. For example, my psychology professor was teaching us a lesson about neurons. And since people don't really regularly see or talk about neurons, they can be hard to understand. So to get us to understand how neurons worked, the professor go the whole class to stand up with our arms in a certain position and we had to pass a ball around like a neuron would transmit a signal. She involved us, and we learned!
As I preciously said, a lot of our classes are basically a serious of lectures where the professor drones on and on about a subject you could not care less about. Instead if classes involved more discussion and hands on learning people would be able to learn better. For example, in my English 201 class we spend a lot of time discussing current issues. Even if you knew nothing about an issue before the class, after the discussion you have learned both sides on an issue. Getting students talking in a class is key. Most people need to think out loud and discuss in order to cement knowledge into their brains. I know that discussing something after I have learned it makes me understand the concept much better!
So bottom line? You want us to be involved? Involve us.
"Tell me and I forget, teach me and I remember, involve me and I learn."- Benjamin Franklin. From this quote the question was asked "How can your education at USI be based on involvement?" Well for starters, we could get more professors that actually care about their students. The ratio, in my opinion, of caring to shit professors is about 50/50. Half of my professors are really great and teach in a way that I understand and connect to. However, the other half could care less about their students and instead they drone on and on in their lectures not even looking us in the eyes. (You know who you are!!!)
If teachers were more involved, their students would be more involved. For example, my psychology professor was teaching us a lesson about neurons. And since people don't really regularly see or talk about neurons, they can be hard to understand. So to get us to understand how neurons worked, the professor go the whole class to stand up with our arms in a certain position and we had to pass a ball around like a neuron would transmit a signal. She involved us, and we learned!
As I preciously said, a lot of our classes are basically a serious of lectures where the professor drones on and on about a subject you could not care less about. Instead if classes involved more discussion and hands on learning people would be able to learn better. For example, in my English 201 class we spend a lot of time discussing current issues. Even if you knew nothing about an issue before the class, after the discussion you have learned both sides on an issue. Getting students talking in a class is key. Most people need to think out loud and discuss in order to cement knowledge into their brains. I know that discussing something after I have learned it makes me understand the concept much better!
So bottom line? You want us to be involved? Involve us.
Week # 12 - The Trolley Problem
Warning! I'm feeling cynical.
A trolley is racing down the tracks, as it reaches the crest of the hill the driver sees that there are five people on the track. The driver slams on the brakes, but the brakes do not work. There is an alternate track coming up that the driver could take to avoid the five people, but when the driver looks at the alternate track he sees that there is a person on that track as well. No one can here him yell and he can't stop. Which track should he take?
For me, the answer to this question is quite simple. There is no good option, but there is a better option. Obviously the better option is to take one life instead of five. The discussion should really end there, but as it goes with these aimless scenarios it does not. Some people say "well if you continue to go straight you accidentally kill five people, but if you take the alternate track, then you are intentionally killing one person." That logic however is weak at best. These what ifs literally serve no purpose but to start fruitless arguments among the foolish.
If you actually use logic to solve this (non-)problem you will realize that five lives > one life. Simple math. which number is bigger, 1 or 5? Obviously five. End of story.
Or not. The next scenario starts off in a similar fashion, however this time there is no alternate track but rather two friends on a bridge above watching the scene happen. One friend is described to be "fat" (which by the way is weightism, and is neither cool or okay to use the "fat" person in this scenario as the disposable person. Not cool bro.) while the other person is not described at all. The non-fat friend sees that the trolley driver is going to kill all five of these people because he cannot stop. So in an effort to save the five people the non-fat person pushes the "fat" person off of the bridge and in front of the trolley; successfully stopping the trolley, saving the five people down the track, and killing the "fat" person. So the question now is "Is it okay to sacrifice one life to save five?" The answer is hell no. If you wanted to throw a body off of that bridge to save those people you can throw your own damn body off of the bridge. Throwing your friend off of a bridge is bad. (Remember this little life lesson kids!) In this scenario the "fat" person is murdered because he neither willingly gave his life nor was his life accidentally taken.
I am tired of these hypotheticals. They are bullshit. Sorry for my language, I told you I was feeling cynical. Also, I'm a big kid now so I get to use big kid language every now and again.
A trolley is racing down the tracks, as it reaches the crest of the hill the driver sees that there are five people on the track. The driver slams on the brakes, but the brakes do not work. There is an alternate track coming up that the driver could take to avoid the five people, but when the driver looks at the alternate track he sees that there is a person on that track as well. No one can here him yell and he can't stop. Which track should he take?
For me, the answer to this question is quite simple. There is no good option, but there is a better option. Obviously the better option is to take one life instead of five. The discussion should really end there, but as it goes with these aimless scenarios it does not. Some people say "well if you continue to go straight you accidentally kill five people, but if you take the alternate track, then you are intentionally killing one person." That logic however is weak at best. These what ifs literally serve no purpose but to start fruitless arguments among the foolish.
If you actually use logic to solve this (non-)problem you will realize that five lives > one life. Simple math. which number is bigger, 1 or 5? Obviously five. End of story.
Or not. The next scenario starts off in a similar fashion, however this time there is no alternate track but rather two friends on a bridge above watching the scene happen. One friend is described to be "fat" (which by the way is weightism, and is neither cool or okay to use the "fat" person in this scenario as the disposable person. Not cool bro.) while the other person is not described at all. The non-fat friend sees that the trolley driver is going to kill all five of these people because he cannot stop. So in an effort to save the five people the non-fat person pushes the "fat" person off of the bridge and in front of the trolley; successfully stopping the trolley, saving the five people down the track, and killing the "fat" person. So the question now is "Is it okay to sacrifice one life to save five?" The answer is hell no. If you wanted to throw a body off of that bridge to save those people you can throw your own damn body off of the bridge. Throwing your friend off of a bridge is bad. (Remember this little life lesson kids!) In this scenario the "fat" person is murdered because he neither willingly gave his life nor was his life accidentally taken.
I am tired of these hypotheticals. They are bullshit. Sorry for my language, I told you I was feeling cynical. Also, I'm a big kid now so I get to use big kid language every now and again.
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Week #11 - Women in Combat
Personally,
the integration of women into the military does not interest or concern me so I
do not have a vast knowledge of the subject. However, I do believe that women
should be able to fight in combat roles along side of men. A few reasons I
believe that are because women bring a different perspective to the front
lines; the way war is fought now, anywhere can be the front lines: and most
importantly because men and women are completely equal and should be treated as
such. On how women should be integrated, I think it is less complicated than we
think.
For
starters, women and men would need separate tests to be able to go into combat
because the male and female bodies are different and have unique capabilities
and limitations. That does not mean that the test to go to combat would be any
less challenging, just that it would be different for men and women. As for
getting women to want to be in combat roles that seems like the more
complicated part. But combat-pay is always a good incentive. Also, for when men
and women are fighting on enemy land together they will need separate sleeping
and washing facilities, although washing facilities could be dealt with by a
rigid schedule. Chances are, these changes would require little to no new
building.
If you
really look at this problem you will see that it’s basically not a problem at
all! Men just need to let go of the notion that women are fragile and need to
be saved, and begin to look at women as strong independent human beings. In
conclusion, this issue really does not interest or concern me so my opinions on
this issue may not be as well thought out as others. However, the issue of
women being in combat is a non-issue. They will be integrated by 2016, and the
military needs to find way to integrate whether they like it or not.
Week #10 - Jen Chapin and Activism
I thought
that Jen Chapin’s performance was lackluster. First and foremost, I found her
hard to relate to. She was flowery and new agey, and I found that I could not
connect to that. Also, her speech seemed poorly organized. I saw that Jen was
using notes, but it felt as if she didn’t have a precise beginning, middle, and
end. Without good structure, Jen was unable to get a point across. All food is
bad, unless it is organic? Was that the point? I was unsure, especially because
we were given fast-food pizza to eat during the presentation.
As for
Jen’s music it was rather ordinary. Jen’s voice was the more enjoyable half of
her performance. The songs were very wordy and pointed, which I’m sure was her
purpose, however they turned me off from her style.
Although I
did not particularly like Jen very much, I do believe I could be an activist.
As I’ve said on previous blog posts, I feel morally and spiritually obligated
to be an activist. I feel a calling to be the kind of person who advocates for
others, however I do not know what that means in my life now or in the future.
One thing that I hope I will be able to do in the future is spend some time
each summer to work on mission teams to various countries. As I plan to be a
high school English teacher, I know those summers off are valuable and I think
they can be best spent serving God and others. And like Jen, not everyone will
like what I say, or how I say it. And that’s okay, because the point is that
someone is out there saying it!
In
conclusion, I did not connect very well with the speaker Jen Chapin. Jen did
not do spectacularly on either her speaking or her music, but her cause is a
noble one. The one thing that I connect with Jen on is a calling to be an
activist in some way. One day, in whatever way it may be, I want to be putting
my life last, and putting God’s causes before me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)