Heath's Blog

Heath is a student at the University at Buffalo studying Nuclear Medicine Technology

[nyheath-blog]

[nyheath-blog]

[nyheath-blog]

Can someone at Genius please hire me?

[nyheath-blog]

[nyheath-blog]

[savannahearitt]

Harvard Sued Over Discriminatory Practices

Harvard has always been a prestigious university and also an expensive one. Historically Harvard is a college that only the wealthy were able to afford tuition for. With tuition, room and board costing $58,000 dollars for just one year over the course of four years families were looking at a total cost of $230,000 or more simply for undergraduate studies, so one can only imagine the total cost of tuition with a four year graduate school as well, this will easily raise the cost of an eight year education to more than $400,000 dollars and that is more than most families can afford. With Harvard being sued for its discriminatory practices, we can expect to see a raise in the amount of scholarships given to students, as the university will be forced to look into the economic background of the student and provide subsequent aid for students who qualify for aid regardless of economic status. Also the university has been cited for race discrimination as well, the university has been known to limit the amount of Asian American students it accepts and despite the increasing amount of qualified Asian American students there does not seem to be an increase in the amount of Asian American students present in the university population. Another issue is the “legacy student” in which the university chooses student’s whose relatives have attended the university previously over students who would be the first of their families to attend. These current policies are unfair and a university should choose its students based only upon their academic qualifications.

Read the entire article:

http://www.ibtimes.com/harvard-affirmative-action-lawsuit-2014-schools-sued-over-discriminatory-college-1725064

[nyheath-blog]

I agree that the "legacy student" advantage is utter unethical are should not be practiced by Harvard. It diminishes the meritocracy in education that is supposed to reward you for your academic effort. However, I am sure that there is a greater reason for the constant among admitted Asian American students. The number of admitted Asian American students most likely remained constant because the number of students of other races, African American and Latino, admitted increased. The university probably was not willing to accommodate the cost of admitting any more Asian American students. Is this ethical, I would argue it is not, but Harvard already admits a number of students that reflect the general population. That being said, there is an inequality in the admission of certain races into universities.

[rachaelherbst]

In class we watched a disturbing movie about health care by Michael Moore. After watching this I was shocked at how the health care system works. Health care is supposed to be there to help but according to he video as soon as you are in need of help the insurance company will drop you. All they...

[nyheath-blog]

The answer to "why do insurance companies exist," is because there is the opportunity to capitalize on people becoming sick. Since there will always be sick people, insurance companies will never go away. But this is or course not the answer you and I want. The solution to this problem would be to have the government regulate the health care industry so that health care companies could not drop patients so easily. But it is evident that that will never happen because the health care industry has become so large that it can buy off politicians active in reform. Before the health care industry can change, there must be a political change in Washington that cannot be bought.

[savannahearitt]

Anti-Obama Signs

You may find it curious that in 2014, many americans still harbor feelings of racism deep down inside them. Regardless of whether they act on those feelings in their daily lives, the feelings regardless are still present. However there are a few who do dare to come out and say what they are feeling. The video details one such man who lives in Georgia and owns a local oyster bar, on one side of the sign is an advertisement for his business but on the other side and also the side that faces the highway, it says “I do not support ni**ers in the white house. The sign is blatantly referring to President Obama and his family. Although many people were quite offended by the sign, the owner refuses to take it down and say stubbornly he doesn’t care how it makes other people feel and doesn’t care if it hurts them. He also says that let someone put a sign of their choosing up and it wouldn’t offend him. This would be quite a shock to me as a person with such strong feelings of hatred and anger would almost definitely have something to say if he saw a sign downgrading his own race. The saddest thing is that no matter how successful an african american can be, in the eyes of this Georgia man no african american in any position will ever be good enough. Which I find quite amusing because the President of the United States is 100x the man this disgrace to society will ever be.

[nyheath-blog]

The problem with this person is not that he is speaking out against the president, but that the language he is using is derogatory and anachronistic. People still have the right to say what they feel, even if it is against a political figure you support. But when the person's words offend someone is the point where those words should be disregarded. The sign should still be taken down because of its racial slurs, not necessarily because of the man's political beliefs.

[imastermarrett]

Carrie Packwood Freeman and Debra Merskin’s piece “Having It His Way” may be one of the most obnoxious pieces of feminist literature that I have ever read. Early in the piece they talk about how humans were primarily vegetarians until 20,000 years ago. They say that when this happened men made...

[nyheath-blog]

I am not sure if it is this the most obnoxious piece of feminist literature ever. The authors are drawing a connection to how the ancient association of masculinity with meat and femininity with plant based food. I agree that there is not much of an argument for feminists because women are not being denied the right to eat this food. The ecofeminists are aggravated by the depiction of meat as being only for men in advertisements. It is technically an inequality, just not the most significant one feminists should be focusing on.

[nyheath-blog]

The Death of Eric Garner

Eric Garner was approached by police officers with the suspicion of selling single cigarettes without tax stamps. Garner asserted he was not selling the cigarettes and that he was tired of being harassed. The officers then attempted to arrest Garner, to which Garner resisted, followed by Garner being put in a chokehold. Garner fell unconscious and was pronounced dead at the hospital as a result of the chokehold. Four days later, the officer that administered the chokehold, officer Daniel Pantaleo, was stripped of his gun and badge. Four days ago today, officer Pantaleo was acquitted with no trial despite there being video of him giving the chokehold that killed Garner. There has been a subsequent movement protesting the lack of indictment of officer Pantaleo arguing that he is guilty of homicide. Regardless of Garner's relatively large body and his resisting arrest that necessitated the chokehold, something has to be done about use of the chokehold as an effective means of incapacitation. If this incident proved anything, it is that the chokehold is a dangerous method of subduing a perpetrator that should therefore not be used. Whether or not it was intentional, Pantaleo killed Garner, and should have be indicted. My guess as to why he was not indicted was because Garner had been arrested more than 30 times prior to the incident so it was apparent he was going to resist arrest. Plus Garner had health complications, asthma and obesity, were unknown to the officer at the time of the chokehold. This is all the more reason to abolish the chokehold as a police technique. I am not saying they should have tasered Garner because that could have stopped his heart too. But this incident does bring into question the ethics of police incapacitation methods that have the chance of killing a potentially innocent man.

[nyheath-blog]

Meritocracy Is Only Available In White

Anyone can see the inequality that unearned skin privileges present in society. One of the races most guilty of benefiting from skin privilege in the United States is white people. White people benefit from having their race widely represented in television, government, and the general workplace. This should be expected because white is the race of the majority of people in the United States. White people also have a good reputation in the insurance industry, educational system, and the job marketplace. This is more of a problem because it indicates individuals of one race are benefitting from discrimination while other races are falling behind. This has made the United States less of a meritocracy, a system in which individuals are rewarded for their ability. Unearned entitlements have indirectly made white the superior race in the United States. Programs, such as affirmative action, have already made progress toward countering this skin privilege, but sufficient reform is still decades away.

However, there is the problem with extending skin privilege to other races for the sake of equality. The most recognizable example of this would be with Barack Obama’s election as president. I believe Barack Obama was elected based on merit, for the most part. However, there is the chance that some voters voted for Obama not because of his qualifications, but for the prestige of having an African American president. Although this is marks a significant human rights achievement, voting for a candidate solely to say, “look how far we’ve come” is wrong. My fear is that when a Latino presidential candidate or an Asian candidate comes along, some voters will vote for the sake of representing equality rather than would be best suited for the job.

[nyheath-blog]

Social Networks: The Internet Is Not Free From Discrimination

During the school year of 2006-2007, students were presented with a choice, MySpace or Facebook. This decision might not seem significant, it has shaped how people have new users identify on the Internet and set the foundation for virtual segregation.

MySpace was launched in 2003, and attracted a variety of users who could connect with people who shared their interests, mostly music. MySpace grew mostly from word of mouth until bands associated with the cite drew in fans of indie rock and hip hop. On the other hand, Facebook was initially only for Harvard and then Ivy League “elites.” In 2006, Facebook opened up to all potential users, sucking in much of the mainstream teen population. Some users left MySpace never to return. Many people, including myself, went straight to Facebook without ever touching MySpace. What was the reason for this? One reason could be that MySpace became labeled as a digital ghetto; a place where partyholics, attention cravers, sexual predators, and the “uncool” could live. Facebook appealed to both teens and parents who saw the site as safer and easier to communicate. Soon the main reason people joined Facebook became, “everybody’s on Facebook.”

Looking back on the distribution of groups of people during the first years of Facebook and MySpace, it is clear who went where. MySpace became a haven for the outcasts that previously had their respective lunch tables: the goths, the nerds, the gangsters. Facebook, with its appeal to parents became the forum for affluent, mostly white families. Both sites will continue to exist so long as they have the user base to fuel community discussion. But who knows how the next social network will discriminate. Perhaps the generation following the one currently logged into Facebook will see the site as for old people, and be attracted to a newer, younger version. But one thing is clear, despite not being face-to-face, race and class will still impact how we interact.

[nyheath-blog]

The Latina Stereotype

One of the most disrespectful stereotypes present in society is the presumption that Latino women are sexually mature at an earlier age relative to other races. This stereotype formed out of the misinterpretation of value Latino culture places on dancing, celebration, and romance. In Judith Ortiz Cofer's article "The Myth of the Latin Woman," she states that as a teenager she was told "to behave as a proper señorita," but was also told "to look and act like a woman." This contradiction has generated a distinct culture that is confusing to onlookers. Latinas dress, what would generally be described as sexy, yet behave as women with a Catholic tradition would. Latinos especially respect the virtues of protecting one’s family honor. Women, thus, were free to express themselves within the circle of safety that is their community.

Nonetheless, men especially have adhered to the stereotype that Latinas are naturally romantic and “ripe” for their picking. One story recounted by Judith was that she was dancing with non-Latino boy, and he made a sloppy attempt at a kiss. When Judith responded with a bewildered look rather than a passionate one, the boy remarked, “I though you Latin girls were supposed to mature early.” This anecdote emphasizes why I believe this stereotype is arguably the worst stereotype in society because it pressures young women of Latino ancestry to meet the expectations of lustful men. The general population needs to recognize that the Latino appreciation of the image of a mature woman does not translate to an increase in the availability of the ethnicities young girls.

Link to The Myth of The Latin Woman by Judith Ortiz Cofer:

http://www.quia.com/files/quia/users/amccann10/Myth_of_a_Latin_Woman

[nyheath-blog]

Optional Ethnicities - Not For Long

As the world becomes more diverse, its population is taking advantage of the abundance of defined ethnicities. This can be harmless, such as in the celebration of St. Patrick's Day by many people who are not Irish, but may pass for an Irish person on appearance and behavior. Then are some people that use their ancestry for personal gain. People like my friend Jason, who, despite being an indisputable white person, was able to put 'Hispanic' on his college application because his mom was mostly Spanish. Would he have been admitted to the university he is currently attending had he put 'White' as his ethnicity? Possibly because of affirmative action, but nobody knows for sure (except the admissions people). Am I aggravated to hear Jason got into a college to which I was denied? Yes. Am I especially mad to hear it might have because of his ethnic manipulation? Who wouldn't be.

Optional ethnicities go back to the beginning of discrimination among humans, much of it being used against people rather than for. The most notable case is probably Plessy v. Ferguson, in which a man named Homer Plessy was denied access to a "whites only" train car because he was one-eighth African American. The case established the principle "separate but equal" which was the law for 58 years until Brown v. Board of Education overturned it in 1954. But Brown v. Board of Education has not stopped people from self-segregating in neighborhoods, at work, and at lunch tables. This is because it is natural for individuals to seek out people similar to themselves, whether it be skin color, language, or financial status. However, the diversification of individuals in the world population has made it easier for individuals to assimilate with people of multiple ethnicities. How long will it be until it becomes too difficult to keep track of what percentage a person is of this and that? The United States is an example of how more people have just dropped their usage of percentages to describe their colorful ancestry and adopted the ethnicity of American. I believe that the advantage that optional ethnicities present will disappear as ethnicities mix, diminishing the way people discriminate.

[nyheath-blog]

Ecofeminism

The origins of the masculinization of meat are clearly defined in anthropology. Before the advent of civilization, men were designated as hunters while women were cultivators. This assignment of responsibilities has lead to the associations that meat is for men and plant-based products are for women. Advertisers have capitalized on this by using slogans that encourage men to consume meat products and “eat like a man, man.” They have also attributed men’s desire for food with their desire for sex, by depicting attractive women serving meat in commercials. Ecofeminists are fighting to end the stereotypical depiction of meat as a symbol of power and dominance over women. But can ecofeminism even be considered feminism? 

The ultimate goal of feminism is to achieve equal rights among men and women. Men and women already have the right to eat whatever they want. Some people may joke that a man eating a salad is effeminate, but those people still recognize the health benefits that come from eating an omnivorous diet. Similarly, those that see a woman eating meat as tomboyish are anachronistic. No one is restricting the right to food to either sex. So what is there left for ecofeminists to fight for? Yes advertisers still capitalize on the masculine desire for meat, but that does not deny women’s right to consume the product. Companies are merely capitalizing on a primitive trait among males. Ecofeminists should spend less time arguing that there is an inequality in the representation of food and focus more on inequalities that actually exist.

[nyheath-blog]

Fat Is NOT a Feminist Issue

Susan Orbach seems to have misunderstood the meaning of feminism. Feminism is the public advocacy for the extension of rights to women equal to that of men. Yet Orbach thinks feminism is more the dissociation from things considered masculine. In her article, “Fat Is a Feminist Issue,” Orbach argues that women who are fat are put under unneeded stress by society’s expectation that women maintain a fit physique. She goes on to say that feminism argues, “that being fat represents an  attempt to break free of society’s sex stereotypes.” Although I agree that fat people, women especially, are ostracized by society, to think that women choose to become fat as an act of independence is fantastical. People, not just women, become fat from overeating and having a poor diet. We rebuff those that are fat because they are less productive and require special treatment to live normal lives despite having the capacity to change. To confuse being fat as a form of expression indicates Orbach has forgotten the health repercussions that come with being fat: heart attack, stroke, diabetes, and colon cancer. Being fat should not be embraced for the same reason anorexia should not be embraced; both lifestyles are harmful to one’s health.

Women are compelled by advertisements and the media to work toward a specific body type in order to attract men. This is unethical because it capitalizes on the biological desire to have children. Feminists rightly believe that women should not have to conform to whatever appearance men find attractive. They risk being labeled as deviant for their nonconforming, by not letting society dictate how they dress, what they do, and other forms of expression. As a society, we must tolerate these forms of expression unless they constitute a danger or disturbance toward someone. Being fat poses a threat to a person’s health and inconveniences those that then have to care for said person. Therefore being fat is not a feminist issue because it does nothing to expand upon the rights of women. My advice to Susan Orbach’s fat freedom fighters is to stop reducing your life expectancy and find more effective ways of securing equal rights for women.

Link to Fat Is a Feminist Issue by Susan Orbach:

http://erinbell1020.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/39644779/orbach.pdf

[nyheath-blog]

Will North Korea Ever Join The Modern World?

North Korea's ailing economy and corrupt political system are what is left from the utopian experiment initiated by Kim Il Sung. Although the international community aims to invite (and sometimes impel) North Korea to join the modern world, it appears that the people of North Korea are unwilling. This unwillingness stems from the systems that were put in place during Kim Il Sung's regime to control the people.

One of the ways the state used to maintain surveillance and indoctrination was by grouping individuals into inminbans. Inminbans included 20 to 40 families, usually living in the same neighborhood or apartment building. Each inminban was commanded by a female official, who was required to know the income, possessions, and spending habits of everyone in their jurisdiction. Inminban officials also had to check the ID and travel permit of every visitor who wanted to spend the night at the household. Each inminban official was supervised by a resident police officer, who would investigate any suspicious activities. Random checks by police patrols were conducted to make sure all the inhabitants of a household were registered to sleep there. These patrols would also check the seals on radio sets to ensure they cannot be tuned to foreign broadcasts.

Another way Kim Il Sung’s society was controlled was through organizational life. At age 14, all North Koreans are obligated to join the Party Youth organization. Those who were ambitious enough (or could bribe their way in) joined the Korean Worker’s Party. A coveted group for the possibility of social advancement, the Korean Worker’s Party subjected its members to an even stricter lifestyle than was expected of the general population. All other North Koreans eventually joined the Trade Union or the Agricultural Union. The significance of organizational life came through meetings, three per week. Members were indoctrinated in the greatness of the country’s leadership, the scheming nature of the United States, and the oppression of the South Korean people. Members also attended “Weekly Life Review Session” in which a participant describes an act of inefficiency or misdeed he or she committed. These self-criticism sessions are effective at enforcing laws even though most North Koreans are smart enough not to admit any punishable offenses. Since the 1990s, the inminban system and organizational life have declined in their surveillance efforts, but that does not mean other systems of control have done the same.  

Nevertheless, the people of North Korea have been indoctrinated to, what I would argue, an irrevocable extent. This is best illustrated in the value they place on iconography. Since the 1970s, every home must have a portrait of Kim Il Sung hung on a wall devoid of any other accessories. Other icons, such as statues of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il, badges of Kim Il Sung, and more recently portraits of Kim Jong Un, have had their sanctity affirmed. One story, heavily publicized by the state media, praised the actions of factory worker Kang Hyong-kwon. Kang was in his house when a dangerous flood hit. He got his five-year-old daughter and his portraits of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il, and waded toward safety. When the current suddenly overwhelmed him, he lost grip of his daughter, but still held onto his portraits. Kang’s glorification as a hero emphasizes how much the people of North Korea will place the state before the individual. The state has utilized this indoctrination to abuse the working population while ensuring their loyalty. Yet whenever the international community condemns the North Korean government for crimes against humanity, they always deny the allegations

The North Korean leaders have been indirectly taught in the past not to admit their guilt. One instance of this was North Korea’s abduction operations of Japanese citizens. Beginning in the late 1950s, North Korean spies were ordered to abduct foreign citizens, predominantly Japanese and South Korean. These abductees were not defectors or political targets, but average men and women that would teach North Korean agents their countries’ language and lifestyle. North Korean officials and journalists denied the existence of these abductions for decades until 2002 when Kim Jong Il, in an attempt to improve relations with Japan, admitted North Korea’s involvement. Japan was outraged and demanded North Korea return all abductees. Although the North Korean leadership stated the abductees had all either been returned or died, the Japanese had no reason to believe this wasn’t another lie, so all trade from Japan was cut off. Thus, North Korea’s leaders will probably think twice about admitting any more of their criminal history after being shown the negative consequences of answering accusations truthfully.

In conclusion, if the international community wants to prompt North Korea to reform its economic and social policies and join the modern world, it must proceed with caution. The leaders are not crazy, irrational dictators, they are manipulative tacticians with self-preservation as the number one priority. Therefore, if there was a way for North Korea to join the modern world that would comply with the government's desire for more power, actual progress could be made. The path toward change is not through instigating a civilian revolution, it is by cooperating with the North Korean government that just seeking stability in the a country that is so unstable.