In a word, Yes. I do believe that Americans are becoming more isolated by the day. When I was growing up in the 80's and 90's, we didn't have as much technology at our disposal. We went outside and played until dark. Video games were around, but that was a rainy day activity.
Nowadays, you see children going to Kindergarten with cell phones. Yes, I can understand in case of emergency, it is nice to have; but if we had an emergency in Kindergarten back in 1984, that's what the telephone in the Principal's office was for.
People are becoming more dependent on technology, and although I can see the good points, there are some bad points. Nowadays everything is done "via email". Not very ofdten do people have to have the face to face conversations, which is shortening our social life more and more. Some teens text so often that the question rises in my mind, what are they going to do when they get into the real world? Not having that face time in many important situations, but using texts and email instead (even for things like breaking up with girlfriends and boyfriends, or sending homework, or talking with their parents about important issues) is just going to hurt them in the long run.
Yes technology is a great thing, and advances keep us interested...they are always coming out with bigger and better things; but I think the way things are headed, we are going to reach a place in the future where interviews are all done via email...and people will not know how to act in face to face situations as much, as the "older generation" dies off.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Week 5: The Criminal Justice System: Are Prisons The Answer?
After reading in my textbook, I decided to write about Prisons, and if the use of them is really necessary: for very violent crimes (for example, first degree murder), the answer would be yes. To me, they are classified as monsters. An example would be the Colorado shootings at the movie theatre, just a few months ago. But when it comes to drug dealers, petty crimes, theft, I believe it costs way to much to house an inmate, and for the smaller crimes, such as theft and drug dealing, I can honestly say prison would not change a person, in my opinion.
If a criminal wants to do these things, what is sitting in a cell for 30 or 60 days going to do to a person? Especially when some (not all, I know for many it is probably very rough) have it better in prison than they do on the street! Think about it: 3 meals a day, an area to exercise, read, even take college courses (as I saw in "A Class Divided"), and a warm place to sleep (even if it is a concrete pad). I can see why some homeless end up in prisons repeatedly. It's a better life IN prison, than out in the street!
I think if we are going to spend money on the non-murderous criminals, it should be in the form of a rehab of some sort. Forced counseling should be used first, and exhaust that opportunity before just throwing them in jail.
Maybe the guy who robbed a bank, was trying to feed his wife and children, because he got laid off and they lost their home, and are now living in a car. No, it is not right to commit this crime. But is throwing him in prison for X amount of years, away from his children the answer? I really don't think so. I think some extreme community service, and mandatory counseling is the answer.
Some people do belong in prison: the ones who are a physical threat to others. On the Eastern Shore alone, I see reports of people getting their 9th (NINTH!) DWI, and they get a slap on the wrist; they get their license taken away, but they continue to drive. That person would be considered, by me, as a threat to others: what will happen when he gets that 10th DWI? Will it take killing someone? Have they tried treatment programs?
But on the other side of that, I hear of people going to prison on ACCUSATIONS of rape, or writing a bad check. America seriously needs to rethink its priorities.
If a criminal wants to do these things, what is sitting in a cell for 30 or 60 days going to do to a person? Especially when some (not all, I know for many it is probably very rough) have it better in prison than they do on the street! Think about it: 3 meals a day, an area to exercise, read, even take college courses (as I saw in "A Class Divided"), and a warm place to sleep (even if it is a concrete pad). I can see why some homeless end up in prisons repeatedly. It's a better life IN prison, than out in the street!
I think if we are going to spend money on the non-murderous criminals, it should be in the form of a rehab of some sort. Forced counseling should be used first, and exhaust that opportunity before just throwing them in jail.
Maybe the guy who robbed a bank, was trying to feed his wife and children, because he got laid off and they lost their home, and are now living in a car. No, it is not right to commit this crime. But is throwing him in prison for X amount of years, away from his children the answer? I really don't think so. I think some extreme community service, and mandatory counseling is the answer.
Some people do belong in prison: the ones who are a physical threat to others. On the Eastern Shore alone, I see reports of people getting their 9th (NINTH!) DWI, and they get a slap on the wrist; they get their license taken away, but they continue to drive. That person would be considered, by me, as a threat to others: what will happen when he gets that 10th DWI? Will it take killing someone? Have they tried treatment programs?
But on the other side of that, I hear of people going to prison on ACCUSATIONS of rape, or writing a bad check. America seriously needs to rethink its priorities.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Week Four: Nature or Nurture?
Nature or Nurture is sometimes a heated debate, and I can see why. I see the same arguments daily on similar topics, like "Religion vs The Big Bang Theory", "Pro-Life vs Pro Choice", even "Democrat vs Republican" can get pretty ugly.
When it comes having to side with the Nature side of the debate, I can see that side. But I could not just choose a side, as I personally feel a little of both is "the right side".
Nature, for obvious reasons: men have more Testosterone, therefore are considered to be the main provider (by some), or the hunter. Women are biologically the only ones who can give birth to children. These are the obvious, but they are there. Women are born with a competitiveness in them, back to the cave person days where the women fought competitively to get the mate they wanted, and have strong children. The same can be said all these years later, but in the form of reality television, winning at competetions to win the man.
When it comes to the nurture side of the debate, this is just as important. In our society, children learn at very young ages how to act like boys, or how to act like girls; Boys get monster trucks and G.I. Joe's, and girls have dresses and Barbie dolls. They are pushed in at this young age, even as infants, being dressed in all pink, or all blue. With the girls, you sign them up for dance classes and tea parties. Boys play in dirt and play football. Eventually they grow up and think, as a child, "this" is the way they are supposed to be. Anything out of the norm is looked down upon, according to the society of the twenty-first century.
Example: The little boy who wanted to wear dresses and his father wore a skirt to support his son. Should our children be allowed to express themselves individually like this? Some of the reponses I recorded was this parent should have child services called on him, and some saying he will be to blame when his child gets picked on. Very rare did I see a parent or any adult cheering him on to do what he felt was right for his child, to step out of the approving eye of today's society. Maybe instead of these children picking on others for not following our countries' social norms, we should teach our children to be tolerant and accepting of others. Parents need to learn by example.
Society definitely has a major influence on how our children today are raised. Even hundreds of years ago, men were automatically considered the hunters, the more superior. Was it because they were larger? I am sure there are women in those villages that were more smart than some of the men. Because the women were smaller, it is my belief they were seen as less superior, and just learned how to stay at home and raise children.
I wonder what society will bring in another 100 years....
When it comes having to side with the Nature side of the debate, I can see that side. But I could not just choose a side, as I personally feel a little of both is "the right side".
Nature, for obvious reasons: men have more Testosterone, therefore are considered to be the main provider (by some), or the hunter. Women are biologically the only ones who can give birth to children. These are the obvious, but they are there. Women are born with a competitiveness in them, back to the cave person days where the women fought competitively to get the mate they wanted, and have strong children. The same can be said all these years later, but in the form of reality television, winning at competetions to win the man.
When it comes to the nurture side of the debate, this is just as important. In our society, children learn at very young ages how to act like boys, or how to act like girls; Boys get monster trucks and G.I. Joe's, and girls have dresses and Barbie dolls. They are pushed in at this young age, even as infants, being dressed in all pink, or all blue. With the girls, you sign them up for dance classes and tea parties. Boys play in dirt and play football. Eventually they grow up and think, as a child, "this" is the way they are supposed to be. Anything out of the norm is looked down upon, according to the society of the twenty-first century.
Example: The little boy who wanted to wear dresses and his father wore a skirt to support his son. Should our children be allowed to express themselves individually like this? Some of the reponses I recorded was this parent should have child services called on him, and some saying he will be to blame when his child gets picked on. Very rare did I see a parent or any adult cheering him on to do what he felt was right for his child, to step out of the approving eye of today's society. Maybe instead of these children picking on others for not following our countries' social norms, we should teach our children to be tolerant and accepting of others. Parents need to learn by example.
Society definitely has a major influence on how our children today are raised. Even hundreds of years ago, men were automatically considered the hunters, the more superior. Was it because they were larger? I am sure there are women in those villages that were more smart than some of the men. Because the women were smaller, it is my belief they were seen as less superior, and just learned how to stay at home and raise children.
I wonder what society will bring in another 100 years....
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Week Three: Concepts and Cultures
After watching this video clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyHSjv9gxlE ), I can clearly see that Hugh Laurie is first off a very funny guy, and he clearly got a laugh out of the audience.
From my personal opinion, I think British humor from BBC is kind of strange: sure, you get a laugh, but it is a stupid-funny kind of laugh. The so-plain and basic-so-it-is-funny kind of humor obviously got a laugh out of the audience overseas, as they are used to this kind of humor. For me, I had to watch it a few times.
When it comes to TV shows, and many movies, it seems these companies/actors seem to think basic, dry or "stupid-funny" humor is the way to go. It just does not cut it for me. I like the more intelligent humor, humor that makes you use your mind.
I guess the clip is showing that many "ballads" like this one are overly done to people in other countries. To those who have seen any of the Monty Python shows, however, I get the same feeling....the humor in this "song" comes off like one of the British comedy shows. Goofy, but not so funny you want to tell others about it. All it got from me was a brief chuckle, but "goofy or stupid-funny" was the flag that went up. Seems there are more than one type of comedy!
After watching this video clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyHSjv9gxlE ), I can clearly see that Hugh Laurie is first off a very funny guy, and he clearly got a laugh out of the audience.
From my personal opinion, I think British humor from BBC is kind of strange: sure, you get a laugh, but it is a stupid-funny kind of laugh. The so-plain and basic-so-it-is-funny kind of humor obviously got a laugh out of the audience overseas, as they are used to this kind of humor. For me, I had to watch it a few times.
When it comes to TV shows, and many movies, it seems these companies/actors seem to think basic, dry or "stupid-funny" humor is the way to go. It just does not cut it for me. I like the more intelligent humor, humor that makes you use your mind.
I guess the clip is showing that many "ballads" like this one are overly done to people in other countries. To those who have seen any of the Monty Python shows, however, I get the same feeling....the humor in this "song" comes off like one of the British comedy shows. Goofy, but not so funny you want to tell others about it. All it got from me was a brief chuckle, but "goofy or stupid-funny" was the flag that went up. Seems there are more than one type of comedy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)