A.D.D. etcetera
Do drugs which are used to treat Attention Deficit Disorder (and similar conditions) bring an individual's capacity to focus to a level which the individual would have obtained if born without the "defect" in receptors, etc., or do the drugs enhance an individual's capacity to focus to an extent that we may consider said characteristic unnatural to the individual?
If these drugs enhance an individual's capacity to focus to an extent that we may consider unnatural to the individual, should we be altering chemical compositions to bring individuals "up to par" with society? The "par" society creates is alterable; the US has determined that "par" is completion of schooling and the retention of a career.
To assert that individual's must be brought "up to par" is to offer support for the superficialities of our society, as "success" has come to mean that an individual performed well in academia, went on to higher education, found a career with a large income. If you disagree with my assertion that wealth = success in the US in general (there are exceptions), consider how society looks upon the high school dropout, or worse, the college graduate with a low income job.
In part, this is why I disagree with the comment from my original post, no matter how ideological I am being:
I do think the real problem is one of where does one draw the line at normal/abnormal activity. I really don't have an answer as to how to do that, though; one simply can't just set an arbitrary limit as to what constitutes abnormal. I think that what has to be done is to evaluate whether an individual can function effectively in school, work, etc., then if its deemed necessary, administer medication.
The arbitrary limit has been set; it is the ability to function in society's arenas for success: school, work, etc.
The origins of attention deficit diseases are also critical to this argument:
- Are individuals born and live until diagnosis with this condition?
- Do individuals create the condition via their lifestyle?
The first question: "Are individuals born and live until diagnosis with this condition?"
I feel that I have expressed my ideological stance on the first scenario in the paragraphs above. The less ideological part of me feels, that if an individual is born with one of the attention deficit conditions and wishes to receive medication, he or she should be able to receive this medication once they are well informed on medical science's evaluation of the disease at present time.
The challenge is providing minors with the responsibilities of an adult. Admittedly, this seems implausible as we are forcing children to make extreme moral decisions which an adult often times has difficulty making, and the courts (a piece of society) have displayed overwhelming faith in a parent/guardian's ability to make the right decision for their child. Nonetheless, I still question whether another individual (parent/guardian)--a member so much a part of society's of arbitrary successes and failures--is more qualified to pass moral judgments onto an uneducated minor. These drugs are critical to many children at a young age, and its not as though they will be able to make an unbiased decision once they reach adulthood on whether they should abandon something that has, in a sense, protected them for so long. The question becomes, when can you ask the individual how much they want to be a part of the game?
The second question: "Do individuals create the condition via their lifestyle?"
If television or a lack of reading at a young age attribute to attention deficit conditions, I would eagerly await the response of a proponent for medicating diagnosed individuals. To blame a young adult's inability to focus in school on a parent/guardian's inability to force that young adult to watch less television or read more often, is to take a position contrary to the society which asserts that the young adult needs medication to function in. One is saying that an individual can not function in society because the parent, who the courts (THE REPRESENTATIVE OF SOCIETY) have asserted is qualified for making decisions for the minor, was unable to make the correct choices for the minor. In essence, the individual cannot succeed in society, because society has not allowed him to succeed in the society!
What the discussion needs now is more answers from medical science. Until we can make decisions on how attention deficit conditions are to be diagnosed and treated, we must know how these conditions come about. Until we find some answers, I would suggest we proceed with caution.
what our celebrities say about us
Every year, with the advent of summer vacation, I revel in my newfound freedom. The sense of liberation after months of a lonely, grueling struggle, is truly profound, and, I imagine, akin to what the Iran hostages must have felt on the day of their glorious release all those years ago. Most kids dream of the days when they will be able to make use of their free schedual by not using it at all. They enjoy sleeping in, and, whether it is because they just have no reason to get up or they are truly lazy, showing off their youth and energy by moving as little as possible. My plans slightly diverge from these atypical ones.
Instead of laying senseless for hours I get up at a reasonable time. I grab my clicker and try to catch up on classics and discover the shows that aren't programmed at a reasonable hour for working people. Years ago, all this would have meant was that I liked to watch Baywatch. Today, it means that I like to watch Happy Days. This show is obviously clever and very socially meaningful. However, you ask, why bother bringing this up. The reason, my good friend, is spawned from a phrase in a book I read recently. The book was entitled "Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs" and the phrase went a little something like this: "When did being condescending become a synonym for being cool?" This brings me back to Happy Days.
Arthur Fonzerelli (aka the fucking man, aka the Fonze) is without a doubt one of the "coolest" people to ever grace the entertainment industry, to ever strut his stuff for the American public. When used in relation to him we can all take comfort in the fact that this is one of the few instances in which the tragically overused word 'cool' isn't rendering us a little doubt-ridden. The Fonze was a lady's man and a guy's guy all at the same time, not to mention simultaneously being an expert on motorcyles, the art of teaching and leather jackets. I truly believe he was and is essential to our country, epitomizing an era and flawlessly integrating his own personal flair. But despite all his credentials the most important thing about Fonzi, and unfortunately the thing that makes him different from our modern day icons, was that he was a caring person who respected respect and cared for those he loved. He was very simply, a good person. I recently saw an episode that really put his postive pyshe on display. During the episode a man from his past confronted him asking for a fight. Instead of meat-headidly beating him up (this guy was a young Tom Hanks so it wouldn't have been hard), he pushed aside his ego and the more obvious gain to stand true to his girlfriend and take the path of understanding. While it may seem wimpy to offer the man a free, vengeful punch, the Fonze made it look gracious. This event really speaks to what type of person Fonze was. He was not the person out only for themselves, not the person out to humiliate others for their gain, not even the guy to lose his cool and take revenge and be inconsiderate. Rather he was the guy to shun viciousness and campaign for respect among people. This is all even more important because while TV has always been fiction, it has always had a basis in reality (except maybe those reality shows), and that basis in reality can represent a time. Who we idolize as a society can make or break an opinion for future generations. The Fonzi era is in the clear as far as I am concerned and I think it is now important to more carefully consider who we deem cool.
Over the years to be condescending has become to be cool. No longer is dignity a consideration. Whether you are looking at the way the early mafia that respected family has turned into the wife-beat wearing thugs of today who respect no one and nobody, or just the Fonzi versus David Letterman, Jon Stewart and Sugar Ray, it is clear we are headed in the wrong direction. Let me use my notes about these three celebrities who have deemed the same status as Fonzi once held.
Within the last week or two Letterman had Nicole Kidman on the show. Instead of letting her promote whatever she was there to promote and exchange the witty banter that keeps these shows on the air, Dave attacked her and hit below the belt with questions about her ex-husband and long time friend Russel Crowe. As I watched part of it I was made sick to my stomach at the childishnish and absurdity that DL was showing the gracious Nicole. David showed me that to talk down to people and put them in spots in todays culture is not only just doing your job, but fun and a way to make your living all the more profitable. I think this is a harsh criticism of not only him but of our society.
Another celebrity who is probably even more famous for doing what Dave does (I wish I could say infamous) is Jon Stewart. This man lives off of other mans mistakes and while pretentiously trudging through everyones business and personal affairs enjoys a label that is supposed to be reserved for those with caring and understanding personalities. At one point during his demoralizing career this menace went on to a show co-hosted by Tucker Carlson to promote his book, "America: the Book." He attacked the conservative commentator making rude remarks about his bow-tie and calling him a "dick." After this event Stewart's populartity soared and Carlson's show eventually went down in flames landing him on MSNBC. Enough said.
The differences in cool evident between the celebrities of today and Fonzi, the disparity between the non-condecension cool and condecsension cool, is maybe the most obvious when considering the 'coolness' podium that Sugar Ray looks down from. Consider for a second the scene earlier described in which Fonzy chose to not have a hot head. Sugar Ray faced with a predicament similiar to the Fonzes in which a kid allegedly called him "Sugar Gay," chose to ignore the example of Happy Days' star nad harrass the kid repeatedly. What a joke.
Stars today are so built up and so ridiculous, yet they are not the only ones who speak down and try to make friends and allies by alienating 'weaklings.' The celebs represent a societal trend that, to put in plainly, sucks ass. So I say, in the words of the great and mighty Ed Byrne, "Don't put up with put downs." And, oh yeah, like bikes.
it's what we are all thinking
There's something wrong with me. Now, I can't say for sure whether my condition, or predisposition I suppose, should be dealt with by a philosophy major or a physician, but there is no doubt in my mind that the contagious disease that I have contracted is in dire need of intense study. My lament (this time) is not that I simultaneously like The OC and Frank Sinatra, or that I don't think Jennifer Lopez is hot (something worthy of 40 lashes apparently), but instead what I like to call passive-agressive-suck-at-life-iness. At this point you have no idea what I am talking about. Let me explain.
Last week when I was online, probably, ahem, reading the news of course, an ad popped up. At this point I knew it was an ad (I'm not that much of a moron), and immediately went to close it. Until, I noticed the repulsively intriguing content. It was formatted in that all-too-familiar three-squared rectangle. "Which one of these is Jessica Simpson?" it read. As I clicked the correct picture, I had a less than profound sense of deja vu. I had done this every time a similar ad had popped up. For some uncontrollable reason I had needed to see the results of this ad and each other like it. Now don't mistake me for an ape. I knew conciously and subconsiously that no one who had been sent the ad did not know the answer and that there is not a bugger out there with the drive to hit the wrong answer on purpose, yet still, despite the objection of sense, I had to see. It's not that I had to make sure of anything, but more like the force was propelling the mouse to the right (or metaphorically wrong) spot. My hand on the mouse was moving the cursor on the computer like one of those stupid boards teenage girls (and Michael Jackson) use to tell them what car they are going to lose their virginity in. At that point in time (actually about 20 minutes before I wrote this) I was amazed and horrified by the realization that I had lost and that my losing symbolized a larger losing on the part of everyone born between the years 1980 and 1993, as well as those weird, up-to-date, aging hipsters. We all want something to do, but at the same time don't want to do anything. My mind was twisting with three questions. Why do I do this, what is wrong with me and society, and why is everyones drive for an excuse to sit alone so high?
After hours of deliberations I have decided upon an answer and that answer lies in the essential flaws of our lifestyle. The parasites in our lifestyle have turned us into technology obsessed, lazyass parasites ourselves. It struck me that we have all deteriorated. We all subconsciously reserved ourselves to find ways to waste time, rather than get up and outside, and unfortunately, they came to us.
No longer does the modern day, "Bubble Boy" generation, only have the ridiculous amount of peanut infected kids to its credit, but now we have to live with the fact that with cancer chasing us down from every concievable device, we have never lived with people in the way our parents and grandparents did. We all have too much time and having more time to spend has made us less driven to use it. Technology and our apathy towards schoolwork has made up for time that would have been lost to work, and all we have done is lost it again, this time, in a celebrity motivated and even more pointless way. The internet, cellphones and AIM have contributed to this phenomenon and the lack of face-to-face contact. As we lose the need for any concievable amount of energy or atention span, we are genetically becoming less adapt to do anything meaningful.
The only remedy for the vaporization or interaction is something horrible, or just seemingly horrible. Take the blackout in NY for example. People were outside, meeting neighbors they had lived next to there entire lives and never said a word to. For a short period of time, people were living in "The Grapes of Wrath." They were living in a community for a change rather than a lot of identical solitude pits, aka apartments. Let me flashback now and make this random post even more so.
Recently, I was hanging out with my brother, sister and aunt at my grandparents house. My grandparents house is on the water and during the baby boom the beach was crowed everyday with kids swiming, flirting and having fun. As I walk with my companions on the littered, and sparesly populated shore, my aunt thinks back to her days growing up.
Aunt: We would be out here everyday learning to swim. The whole town would flood the beach for our early morning lessons in the freezing water.
Me: That sounds really cool actually.
Aunt: Oh, it was.
Me: You know, that's the difference between then and now. Back then, you were taught how to swim. Today, we're just given a life jacket.
So what now? To tell you the thruth, I'm not that sure. We have hours of time and nothing to do. So 'just do it' I guess and sit back at the computer screen and pray for a nation wide blackout. Until it happens, at least I have questions about Eminems orientation to fill the time.
i just can be ashamed of my idealism
When news of the 'crisis' in the Church first made its way onto America's ten o'clock news programs, I am afraid I must admit that I did not grasp the magnitude of what I was being told. However, later, when I realized the disgusting and perverted nature of the transgressions, it swiftly became apparent to my psyche that to characterize the situation of the Church as a 'crisis', was the furthest thing from a misnomer one is likely to ever encounter.
I soon started to question, and even doubt, the Church, including, God rest his soul, Pope John Paul II. My concious forced me to consider the situation critically and doubtfully.
Mr. Pope, did you know about the horrific things that were happening? Mr. Pope, did you cover up for these fiends? Mr. Pope, if you did not know, then what kind of Pope are you? Sure, you work for many noble causes, but that is no excuse not to criticize. I mean, just because David Berkowitz converts, takes on a new and improved attitude, and starts to encourage people to behave better, that doesn't mean he didn't murder people.
I don't mean to say that the Church's crisis inspired one of my own. In truth, my 'spirituality' was not shaken at all, but I did find myself having to defend my 'faith.' And my questions did not simply evaporate (no worthy ones do), but rang in my ears loud every day and more significantly on the day of John Paul II's funeral.
This is not meant to discredit the accomplishments of what has been deemed a great and worthy man, I just throw this out into the universe: Although it is respectful not to criticize, not doing so lends itself to ignorance. When 2 billion people are watching the funeral, when 4 million line up to see it, I can not imagine that no one has it in the back of their mind the psychological genocide that occured on this mans watch.
However, the silence will soon grow to be a lack of remembrance, which will in turn, mutate into an idealism that has already started to show its face. The problem is, however, that that face that is making its way towards public acceptance, isn't as ugly as it should be. In fact, its downright beatiful, and the truth is, dangerously easy to stomach.
This is my lame attempt to make an analogy to my idealism of the 50s. The only difference as far as I can tell, is that I am generations away from the truth while we have a chance to accept it and move on, to write the history books devoid of the need for later liberal revision.
We all have grown up with preconcieved notions that dominate my thought, politically and otherwise. Whether I put more stock in these than most (it's fair to say I do) is not the point. I am just wondering whether you can rate societies based off of these? Is nostalgia a scale with which we can fairly judge a time period? Most of the times and people that I idealize are conservative and I understand that that is because they are considered noble by the media and don't make controversial news (the revoking of civil liberties rarely is significantly remembered). However, it is revealing that these time periods are not always the most superficially (materially) successful and that character traits, working hard and supporting a family, outlive bank notes. The thing that is least practical and hardest to measure also doubles as the thing that gains the most recognition. This is a fact I wish my generation understood more, but I fear that prayer is in vain.
I don't know if this worked for you guys, but it helped me to understand myself more. The thing is though, I don't feel ashamed, and I don't really feel like changing. At least not yet...
college in terms of the american dream
After WWII the country developed a sense of invincibility. Euphoria over defeating the 'evil' in the world led to strong nationalism and extreme confidence. Our ability to overproduce and overpower lesser nations quickly sparked an ambitious and enthusiastic population. Finally, we had definatively proven to the rest of the world, that America's self-elected role was not a farce. Our 'superiority' in the war had provided evidence of our superiority on other fronts. However, being the light to the world is not an easy task. Although it had become more managable via our success, our standards had been multiplied by ten times that. People had something to live up to. People had hope and ideals that they were responsible for achieving. Our very nationhood beckoned us.
One way in which people set out to manifest their elitism was through a college degree. This is not to say that the common man was not first and foremost on a mission to provide for their family, as all 'great generations' do, but I do believe it was in the back of their mind. We are modern day Puritans, we are the light, we are the strength of democracy and capitalism (two words that I must point out are very far from synonyms). It is our duty to be all that we can be and ask what we can do for our country.
This trend lasted for years and insighted great achievments all across acadamia. The SAT was developed so that no longer was it the smartest kids from Phillips Andover going to Harvard and screw everyone else. Competition was encouraged and breeded an intellectual country (stop me fellas if you want because I'm definately talking out of my ass).
Fastfoward a few decades. It is 1999 and a movie from the mind of Mike Judge has just come out and already begun to symbolize the new and disillusioned American culture. We had set unrealistic expectations and a fall from grace, a surprise when technology led to apathy instead of the perfect society, was prompted. Peter Gibbons and millions like him sat on the couch, treasuring their leisure time more than the pursuit for knowledge. Watching TV while other countries like Japan and China gained the competitive edge in the fields of math and science.
You see, the question is not whether higher education is worth it or practical, but instead who cares? We are in the middle of an epidemic, an epidemic of laziness and discouragement. "Why bother," says the white suburban kid at public high school. "Why bother," says the black drug dealer in the Bronx with his 1500 SAT caliber intellect.
My answer to your question takes the form of another question: Why not?
response: a welcome and a challenge
“Is higher education in America today worth it?” Well, I think one has to consider the "it." Does this refer to the money spent on education, or does it refer to one's own notion of success in life? I'm going to go at this issue by looking at the latter of these questions, because I think a library card will get you far greater access to knowledge for your dollar than a college education will.
For many, graduating from an institution of higher learning does not serve as an end, but as a mean or accomplishment en route to broader happiness in life. This notion is especially true in America, where wealth is closely (though falsely) associated with success, and college grads have a higher income than non-college graduates on average.
Affiliation with a college or university also provides the superficial notion of success when others congratulate or are in awe of the institution the individual attends or attended. Thus, we have thousands of station wagons (no offense Steve, my mom drives one) with school decals on their back windows and countless sweatshirts sporting college and university names. As America's economy became the powerhouse it now is, following WWII and more people began seeking higher education; the very American notion of capitalism became associated with finding a good job (via college). In this way, it seems college became the "American" thing to do, or at least, a portion of the "American Dream."
With higher education holding such a revered status in American society, Kanye West's depiction of "the dropout" comes as a very counter-culture idea. Maybe it's marketing, or maybe Kanye truly feels that higher education holds little correlation to success, but either way – Mr. West's proclamation revokes a traditional symbol of American success.
My own personal feelings on whether college is “worth it” depend upon who you are, not what you know.
a.) Just as those who go to the finest schools in the world but can not commit themselves to a field will not build successful careers, those who are able to find a job they truly love will succeed in it, no matter what school they go to. This does mean, however, that one must have a degree of financial stability to begin with (i.e. mommy and daddy), as most people are not going to be able to work a job, afford housing and schooling without some monetary backing.
b.) If you believe that financial success is an aspect of "it," then yes, for 99,999 out of 100,000 people, college is worth it.
In conclusion, I think this question will be more answerable in twenty years when I've finished my schooling. But from what I can reason at this early stage, college is not necessary for financial success and even less important for gaining knowledge... but for the rest of us who aren't Kanye West or Malcolm in the Middle and still believe financial stability is necessary for success (which is ultimately content), college is a rather nice safety blanket.
social insecurity
I've noted some misleading tactics being employed by proponents of partially-privatized Social Security:
1.) Proponents of privatization argue that opponents to the president's Social Security reform are suggesting that the current system will not become insolvent at some point in the next thirty to seventy years.
From what I've heard, this isn't what opponents are sugggesting at all when they point to the success of Social Security, calling to mind the cliche "if it aint broke, don't fix it" mantra. What opponents to privatizing Social Security are saying is that Social Security does not need such a rash, structural overhaul in order to accomodate the baby-boomer generation, it simply needs modifications to such things as the 7% cap on income earners of $200,000(?) or more per year. Social Security can not remain a regressive tax if the current age of retirement and benefits are to remain constant.
2.) Proponents of privatization base much of their argument off of the notion that "it is your money, you deserve to spend it as you see fit."
Even a freshmen college student who has taken one introductory course in American politics realizes that Social Security is not a pension program and was never intended to be. The taxpayer is not supposed to receive the amount of money that he has put into his account over his lifetime; but, upon his/her retirement, the retiree's Social Security check comes from the Social Security payed out by current workers. Social Security is not a savings account, it is a program to aid, NOT SUSTAIN, retirees. Privatization would not necessarily lead to a take-out what you pay-in scenario (without a tremendous jump in the economy which, should it occur, would last how many decades/generations before declining naturally?), so even if you don't like the idea of not getting out what you put in, this is no justification too support privatization.
The entire argument around Social Security revolves around the wealthiest in America and whether they should pay in more to the system than the amount they get out (just as most Americans do). I recognize that this is not "fair," but government has never been about fairness, but justice. What is just for American society at this juncture? I can't rationalize the American people accomodating the wealthiest (who are going to be able to afford the help to invest their privatized accounts most wisely and get the most out of privatization) members of society by risking retirement security in a system directly dependent upon the well being of the economy (an inherently unstable beast). Wasn't Social Security a necessity in the first place because of what resulted from the stock market crashing? Seriously, the irony is killing me.
The problem of Social Security goes much deeper than people relying too heavily upon their monthly check, rather than independently saving up sufficeintly for their retirment. High drug costs and the lack of affordable health care strain the Social Security system, and once we solve these problems, dependence upon Social Security may lessen. I'm not saying anyone's got the answers (though I think some are closer than others), I'm just sugggesting some possible problems.
But seriously, whose got time for shit like that when there are so many wars to fight? Iran by August?
