I recently read that in Denmark taxes are levied as much as fifty percent sometimes. I cannot imagine Americans tolerating something like that and I think this is sad. The reason that Denmark taxes its members so heavily is to provide guaranteed government funding for all its members. The members get time off for childbirth, regulated work hours, etc. I don’t think Americans would tolerate what they would perceive as government interference in their lives. But I don’t view it that way. I believe in a society that believes in all its members. I have always been an idealist, and probably a bit of a socialist at heart. I simply don’t understand, at a gut level, why we live in one of the richest countries in the world and have 47 million people uninsured. Or why we have tax breaks for the rich while good portions of our population are policed away from public areas for the “crime” of being homeless. I think these disparities between what we profess to believe and the way we actually live make ours a poor, not a great nation.
Instead of increasing the distance between our well-off citizens and those who are not making it, why can’t we craft government policies that benefit all? I don’t know how to do it. But I do believe, feverently, in the right of all citizens to have equal access to good health care, family benefits that allow families time off after giving birth, day care centers that allow women to work and a liberal arts education for all children that everyone can afford, regardless of race or socioeconomic status. Imagine what our country would be like if we had in place, preventive programs that provided support for every member of our society. Would things be perfect? Of course not. Humans are not that predictable or easily pidgeonholed. But it would be a great way to show what our values are as a country. Do we value material things more, or people? I think that if we were to begin treating all our country’s members as valuable, we would be on the right path to being a truly great nation.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Monday, April 14, 2008
Full time Idealist
My ideal job is to work in a prison teaching gardening as a therapeautic skill. So far I have nearly gotten my social work degree, but I really like the idea of using plants as a teaching tool. I also want to get a degree in horticulture, and then blend the two skill sets. I would like to work in a prison setting because I believe that people who have been marginalized and face being disenfranchised from the American system need to have a way to reintegrate. Horticultural therapy offers people a way to learn or re-learn nurturing skills that may have been lost in an institutionalized setting. I think being able to nurture something is a significant way to connect with other human beings and "set the stage" for being a valued member of society.
I believe firmly in an America that is inclusive. It needs to offer those who live on the fringes of society a way to become fully functioning members. I worry that we are becoming a country of haves and have-nots, and the only way to fix this is to work at offering opportunities to all our citizens. I think I can contribute to this ideal through using plants to form connection with people. I believe that giving people the chance to care for another living thing connects them, and us, to our humanity. This is my version of the American dream.
I believe firmly in an America that is inclusive. It needs to offer those who live on the fringes of society a way to become fully functioning members. I worry that we are becoming a country of haves and have-nots, and the only way to fix this is to work at offering opportunities to all our citizens. I think I can contribute to this ideal through using plants to form connection with people. I believe that giving people the chance to care for another living thing connects them, and us, to our humanity. This is my version of the American dream.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
School Daze
My best and worst educational experiences at UMBC are different in the details, but boringly similar at their base; both share the common denominator of the instructor as the deciding factor in a good or bad class.
My best class involved an instructor who zipped into the room like a pinball, talking a mile a minute, immediately engaging the class. She spoke loudly and enthusiastically and constantly stalked the classroom. It was hard to not watch her. From the first, she made her expectations glaringly clear, brought up talking points and solicited every member of class for an answer. No matter what they answered, she found at least one thing the person said that she could highlight as a good point. Her tests included detailed study guides and one essay portion that was take home and could be written open-book. Her whole goal was to see every student succeed. You could see she took pride in her students' success. I believe her teaching methods helped me consistently got A's, as did most of her students.
My worst class was also oriented to the professor's behavior. This class was supposedly discussion, but the instructor spoke in never-varying soft voice and sometimes cut people off if their contribution was not, in her opinion, contributing to the lesson she wanted to teach. For paper writing, she gave us a guide that was excruciatingly detailed, but she refused to take questions about those papers during class time. If you didn't understand the study guide, I suppose you were just out of luck. I tried to follow the minutiae of her instructions, but consistently brought back papers with highly critical feedback. This just made me angry and withdrawn in class, which made it even tougher to sit through 2 1/2 hours of her monotone. After 2 weeks, I realized that I would get nothing out of this class, so I grit my teeth and resolved to slog through to the end. I wound up with a B, but I'm still mad about it. Oddly enough, I think this professor cared about her students' grades too. She just didn't know how to motivate.
My best class involved an instructor who zipped into the room like a pinball, talking a mile a minute, immediately engaging the class. She spoke loudly and enthusiastically and constantly stalked the classroom. It was hard to not watch her. From the first, she made her expectations glaringly clear, brought up talking points and solicited every member of class for an answer. No matter what they answered, she found at least one thing the person said that she could highlight as a good point. Her tests included detailed study guides and one essay portion that was take home and could be written open-book. Her whole goal was to see every student succeed. You could see she took pride in her students' success. I believe her teaching methods helped me consistently got A's, as did most of her students.
My worst class was also oriented to the professor's behavior. This class was supposedly discussion, but the instructor spoke in never-varying soft voice and sometimes cut people off if their contribution was not, in her opinion, contributing to the lesson she wanted to teach. For paper writing, she gave us a guide that was excruciatingly detailed, but she refused to take questions about those papers during class time. If you didn't understand the study guide, I suppose you were just out of luck. I tried to follow the minutiae of her instructions, but consistently brought back papers with highly critical feedback. This just made me angry and withdrawn in class, which made it even tougher to sit through 2 1/2 hours of her monotone. After 2 weeks, I realized that I would get nothing out of this class, so I grit my teeth and resolved to slog through to the end. I wound up with a B, but I'm still mad about it. Oddly enough, I think this professor cared about her students' grades too. She just didn't know how to motivate.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Power to the People
Steven Shames’s documentary photograph of George Jackson’s funeral epitomizes one of the central themes of the Black Panther movement. The photo features Panther leader Huey Newton delivering the eulogy at the 1971 funeral.
The black and white photograph is visually stunning for its details of two unidentified party members openly displaying loaded shotguns, flanking either side of the coffin. The other major point is that there is seems to be no deliberate focal point in the picture. Newton is actually in the background of the shot. The coffin is static and not shot in closeup. Neither are the gunmen. They aren’t even facing the camera, and their eyes are covered in sunglasses. Their bodies are rigid and tall, while the shotguns are slung loosely across their chests.
The power of the photo is that your eye is still drawn to the shotguns. They are not being pointed, the men holding them are still, but the feeling of menace is overwhelming. The viewer is forced to acknowledge these deadly men above all other details of the image. The black and white photo is stark and bleak. It emphasizes both the solemnity of the occasion and the party members’ seriousness of purpose.
This photo ably demonstrates one of the Panthers’ central party themes; self-defense. Formed after Malcom X’s assassination, the Panthers advocated armed resistance. It’s hard to imagine why they felt the need for self protection at a funeral, but the clear message is that they stand ready to protect their party. They look like dangerous, serious men, and those who might challenge them need to be aware; those men will shoot to kill.
The black and white photograph is visually stunning for its details of two unidentified party members openly displaying loaded shotguns, flanking either side of the coffin. The other major point is that there is seems to be no deliberate focal point in the picture. Newton is actually in the background of the shot. The coffin is static and not shot in closeup. Neither are the gunmen. They aren’t even facing the camera, and their eyes are covered in sunglasses. Their bodies are rigid and tall, while the shotguns are slung loosely across their chests.
The power of the photo is that your eye is still drawn to the shotguns. They are not being pointed, the men holding them are still, but the feeling of menace is overwhelming. The viewer is forced to acknowledge these deadly men above all other details of the image. The black and white photo is stark and bleak. It emphasizes both the solemnity of the occasion and the party members’ seriousness of purpose.
This photo ably demonstrates one of the Panthers’ central party themes; self-defense. Formed after Malcom X’s assassination, the Panthers advocated armed resistance. It’s hard to imagine why they felt the need for self protection at a funeral, but the clear message is that they stand ready to protect their party. They look like dangerous, serious men, and those who might challenge them need to be aware; those men will shoot to kill.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Be a Pepper? Heck Yeah!
My son loves Dr. Pepper. He loves it, even though I have tried several times to get him to switch to a cheaper brand. He admits that it tastes okay, but he will always choose Dr. Pepper, even though it costs more. It can’t taste that much different from knock-offs; they all use high fructose corn syrup. What is it about Dr. Pepper that makes him so loyal? I think it’s this: he wants to be a Pepper.
Being a Pepper means, in ad-speak, I’m an oddball, and it’s okay! Heck, it’s great. And there are lots more where I came from! Not only am I unique, but so is he, she, them over there, and hey, how about you? Wouldn’t you like to be a Pepper too? By the time you’re done watching attractive people soft-shoe and sing a jingle about how wonderfully different they are, of course you want to be a Pepper too! Who wouldn’t?
Dr. Pepper sells itself as a quirky drink for people who are both special and unique. This ad is from the 1980’s, but is thoroughly identified with the brand. People sing the jingle. This is why it tastes better to my son, but its flavor does not appeal to most people. Therefore, advertisers had make drinkers see themselves as more than the wierdos who like something that tastes like carbonated prune juice. Would you rather be known for drinking some odd drink, or for doing a carefree dance, tipping your hat to the world and exclaiming, "I'm a Pepper, wouldn't you like to be one, too?”I just want to know one thing. If I switched Dr. Pepper for a similar drink and put it in the Dr. Pepper bottle, would my son notice? More importantly, would he still be a Pepper?
Being a Pepper means, in ad-speak, I’m an oddball, and it’s okay! Heck, it’s great. And there are lots more where I came from! Not only am I unique, but so is he, she, them over there, and hey, how about you? Wouldn’t you like to be a Pepper too? By the time you’re done watching attractive people soft-shoe and sing a jingle about how wonderfully different they are, of course you want to be a Pepper too! Who wouldn’t?
Dr. Pepper sells itself as a quirky drink for people who are both special and unique. This ad is from the 1980’s, but is thoroughly identified with the brand. People sing the jingle. This is why it tastes better to my son, but its flavor does not appeal to most people. Therefore, advertisers had make drinkers see themselves as more than the wierdos who like something that tastes like carbonated prune juice. Would you rather be known for drinking some odd drink, or for doing a carefree dance, tipping your hat to the world and exclaiming, "I'm a Pepper, wouldn't you like to be one, too?”I just want to know one thing. If I switched Dr. Pepper for a similar drink and put it in the Dr. Pepper bottle, would my son notice? More importantly, would he still be a Pepper?
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
My Media Habits
My media habits have been both shaped and changed by the technological revolution of the 1990's. I did not grow up with the Internet or cable tv, so my sources of news were my parents': the evening news with Walter Cronkite and the local paper. The only source of infotainment at the time was Johnny Carson's monologue. As an adult, I find myself going back and forth between the convenient sound bites of CNN, MSNBC, and Fox just to get a different perspective from my usual liberal bent. If I want to read, I go to the slightly more in-depth internet news. This offers more writing and a global perspective that I don't get from the Baltimore Sun. I have recently added BBC world and NPR news, which offers in-depth analysis of issues that don't get broadcast on other news outlets. I never watch network nightly news, which feels dated and very very narrow to me. Lastly, I watch The Daily Show, The Colbert Report and sometimes Keith Olberman, because I love the way they actually sneak true news analysis and commentary onto shows where you can also watch a three-way fight between Colbert, Stewart and Conan O'Brien. Brilliant! The best aspect of my news viewing is that I try to go to several sources to get different perspectives and hear about different types of stories around the world. Probably the worst is that I read too much celebrity gossip, because it is sometimes a nice relief from all the somber, distressing news stories out there. I have already tried to improve my news consumption by adding analysis to the sound bites and attempting to incorporate what I'm told into my own personal beliefs and critical thinking ability, instead of just accepting what the talking heads tell me.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Introducing Myself
Hi, my name is Barb Regan and I'm a senior at UMBC. I'm a social work major, and as you can see, I'm supporting Barak Obama in 2008. This is the first election candidate I have ever felt enthusiastic about, so I am, for the first time, becoming a bit of a political junkie! I have two kids, one of whom will be voting in her first election this year. I am trying to get her to come to an Obama rally with me, but no luck so far.
If anyone is on the fence about the candidates, I want to provide a link to Obama's web site. Check out www.barackobama.com and see what you think!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)