Journal 13

           Cass Herrington's presentation regarding the media was very interesting and informative.  Among the things she spoke on, one thing that was both disturbing and telling about our society was the picture of a girl in a Target ad.  It wasn't that she was slightly photo-shopped to make her slightly more curve, but that she was changed so much that just after a little bit critical review, it was obvious she wasn't even proportionally possible.  I think this sums up our society's media, and to an extent capitalism.  People who have an influence over others and use it for financial gain is a destructive yet common practice in the US.  Companies known for "making girls beautiful" set the standard too high for the average consumer.  Suddenly, in order to be beautiful like the girls in advertisements, girls have to buy those clothes from that store.  This ability to influence people's opinions about themselves causes companies to push limits further, yielding in greater sale and lower self esteems.  This continuous and vicious cycle has led us to where we are today: finally noticing the problem on a larger scale.
          Even though it seems that the media generally sucks, there is a slow growing movement to tear down the unrealistic expectations vs. reality.  Because people are starting to notice the issue, efforts have been made to attempt to reverse the effects and limit the continuation of such practices.  And this tactic isn't used just in clothing and appearance.  Almost any advertisement involves some type of stretching of reality.  For instance, because of this fact, Dominoes Pizza started a commercial that advertised with only pictures of pizza that were sent in by customers.  I think this is an excellent example of where the media should head and how advertisement specifically should behave.

Journal 12

          Kami, the adorable monster with HIV, is a powerful and compelling member of South Africa's Sesame Street.  Not only is it a first for a character to have HIV, she also is portrayed in a way that removes fear and stigma from the illness.  She, like her fellow Muppets, teaches kids to love and respect one another.  As great as Kami is, how necessary is she in American culture?  Sesame Street teaches kids about common and relevant things.  Seeing as how almost a third of the population of South Africa as HIV, it makes sense for there to be a character with HIV.  However, in the US, only about 1 in 300 people suffers from HIV, which represents less than even 1% of the total population.  There is such a difference in the prevalence of HIV between South Africa and the US that it is almost silly to consider putting a character like Kami in the show.  It isn't that we shouldn't educate our kids, but rather the fact that because HIV isn't super relevant in our culture, especially to children watching the show, it would raise more questions than answers.  It also wouldn't accomplish the goal of the show: teaching children the value of respect and how to get along with others.
          Of course, this isn't to say that, as a nation, we don't to have a conversation about HIV.  I believe that the misconceptions about it need to be addressed, but not through children's television.  If education about HIV is what is needed, it should happen in schools and in conversations between parents and children.  Even though Kami is a wonderful and necessary part of children's TV in South Africa, I believe that education on HIV/AIDs in the US should happen in schools.

Journal 11

          I think that USI does a decent job with teaching to remember, but I don't think that is the endgame plan for USI.  The difference between remembering and truly learning is the difference between books and people.  People who are taught to remember facts and ideas are no different than the books from which they read the material.  It is only when somebody actively participates in the "celebration of knowledge" that can apply the facts and ideas and further them through application and meaningful thought.  The pinnacle of education is being able instill in student the ability and drive to apply their knowledge and use it in the world around them.  How can USI do this better?
          Well, obviously one way to minimize "teaching to remember" and promote "involving to learn" is to stop allowing/having teachers lecture at students.  Critical thinking is a huge part of learning.  This is something that is becoming standard is the sciences but for the most part is lost in liberal arts classes.  My psychology class was one of my easiest classes this year.  This isn't due to the teacher's lenience or my psychological prowess: it is due to the fact that the teacher, and the book from which she was teaching, was more focused on fact diffusion than learning about the how and why of it.  Another way to change the paradigm has less to do with the subject and more to do with the teacher-student relationship.  Throughout my time in school, it is always the teachers with whom I connect on a slightly more personal level that I learn from the best.  An easy way for a teacher to promote this is for them to have a bit more fun in class, or teach about cutting edge/interesting things every once in a while.  Obviously, this student-teacher relationship is also greatly dependent on the students and their willingness to put in the extra work.  Even though I've only been at USI for a year, I can honestly say I have more teachers involve me in one way or another than not.

Journal 10

          The trolley problem evokes philosophical, psychological, and ethical problems; all of which, are related.  It seems as if the general consensus is that it is okay for the single man to die in scenario 1 and the five men to die in scenario 2 despite the fact that one or five men can be chosen in both situations.  From a strictly logical standpoint, it seems foolish to let five men die in scenario 2 when there is a simple way to let one man die instead.  However, because people are part of the equation, nothing is truly black and white.  Many different types of logic come into play when people are determining right from wrong.  Imagine that each scenario is a closed system, the first containing a moving trolley and two tracks, one with five men and one with one man.  Although a conscious decision has to be made to switch the track to the one man, it can be rationalized as simply choosing to kill less people.  Because the one man was already part of the system, i.e. already in danger, it is acceptable to choose to kill him.  In the second scenario, the system is slightly harder to define.  However, if we look strictly at the track and all the possible places to where the train can go, we can logically say that the system includes the trolley and the five men.  Even though one large man could be pushed in front of the trolley and save the five men, that would require adding something to the system.  We can think of adding something to the system as a conscious and meaningful action.  Because we have to consciously add the fat man to the system, we are more than simply choosing to kill him.  We are deliberately putting the fat man in harms way when he was initially in no such danger.   There are also legal factors that play into it.  When looking at guilt, we can also consider liability and fault.
           Ultimately, I think this question is more about analyzing why/how people choose between right and wrong than it is about what is right and wrong.  By analyzing peoples choices and thoughts regarding a simple scenario, we can glean so much more about people and the way our minds work and process the world around us.