This post took me a little longer to think about, which is probably a sign that I am not very aware of my automatic attitudinal responses. I tried to think what makes me a little tick and memories of my hometown actually popped up. Now a little disclaimer, I love my hometown and glad I grew up there because I think it helped make me who I am, as did the places or places you grew up, but as always there is a but.
But I had two pet peeves when I worked as a cashier at our one and only grocery store. One, scanning all the junk food that went through the check line before they swipped their food stamps and two, helping them out to their Cadillac Escalade.
Of course I defaulted to finding a source that defaulted with what is wrong with food stamps.
This article agreed with some of the points I felt was wrong with food stamps, such as creating dependency, and it is prone to fraud and being an abused system. It also brought awareness to maybe some other issues, such as the programs goal aiming for enrollment versus need.
This short documentary explains some of these same points also, although I am a little skeptical about where the source of the this documentary, very one sided perspective.
I tried to learn a little more about how food stamps work. This video makes it seem like it isn't easy to abuse the system but then how many more people are getting boob jobs while on food stamps? Or is this a marginalized example?
I am sympathetic to the families who truly do need it like Mercedes. She is very respectful and has an incredible amount of integrity, but is she also a marginal example?
Thinking back to that job now I wish I would have paid a little more attention to who was really using food stamps, to who was buying the junk food versus nutrition, etc. Is it marginalized in my own mind based off my own experiences? Is the media only showing us marginalized examples?
I don't notice food stamps really anymore since I haven't been a cashier and don't see it on a daily basis, but I am still skeptical of the system. I definitely there is room for improvement, less abuse, quality over quantity and so families like Mercedes can have afford nutrition while they are trying to get back on their feet and even buy a few sweet treats to enjoy for her and her family.
This On The Media might be a little ways back, but I was curious to learn about Zika and the effect the media has when reporting viral diseases, titled as The Zika Effect. Zika reminded me a bit of Ebola and they do, do a bit of comparison between the two and the reporting there of.
This OTM also reminded me of this clip from Russel Howard's show when Ebola was the epidemic we were fearing in 2014.
When I first heard about Zika, I figured this is what we would see on the media coverage of it and we did, but I felt like the duration was much shorter. If you weren't listening to the news about the first week we came back for the second semester you might have missed hearing about Zika. Or least that is how it seemed to me, granted I haven't been listening to the news lately, because my roommate has taken over the living, basically all semester.
Anyways, Zika is the fourth global health emergency claimed by the World Health Organization and it is because Zika is suspected to cause microcephaly, which is when a baby is born with a smaller head due to an underdeveloped brain, and guillain-barre syndrome, which is a sudden paralyses, but has not yet been directly linked to do so, yet. The key world is 'suspected', but there is no certainty.
OK, so two questions I came away with. One, isn't the first step to remain calm ? Two, don't we preach preventive care in America?
My first question is criticism for the media that seems to dramatize everything for the sake of entertainment, but isn't their job to inform us, not entertain us? The media seems to play into our human emotion of fearing what we don't know and can't control by dramatizing the information. But maybe the problem isn't their fault, but rather ours, because we pay attention to the drama.
The second thing that struck me was that, things like this don't get funded until it is blown up in the media. But we try to be a preventive culture in America right? That's why we brush our teeth everyday and follow up with a yearly to semiyearly dentist visit, that why they preach getting check ups, etc. Granted Zika might not be as serious as the media is painting it and we can't fund every suspicion we have in the medical field, but still kind of raises a bit of concern doesn't it?
I think this is another example of one of the down falls we have in our instant googling world and that is we want answers and we want them now. Maybe we have truly lost the philosophy that patience is a virtue in today's media society.
In an election year there seems to be two ways to waste your vote, voting for and less popular candidate in the pre-election and voting in a non-swing state in the general election.
It seems the only way your vote truly has any weight is when you are voting in a swing state, where the outcome is not predictable. You really do have a fifty-fifty chance of your nominee winning and not being overruled by the dominant republican or democratic voting of that state's history.
Prediction of 2016 swing states compared to swing states in 2012.
Earlier today I had asked a friend who he was pulling for in the elections. He said most of the candidates were pretty extreme and there was really no one moderate enough to match his views, but he is pulling for Sanders. He is originally from Washington and I asked him if he was registered to vote and he said yes he is registered in Utah.
After first I was a little puzzled by this, because I thought you had to register in the state you were a resident of, but it seems college students get the option and even kind of an advantage. But there goes his vote in the republic partied state of Utah when Washington has a of being a bit of a swing state historically but has voted democratic the last seven years.
Then I thought if college students can pick where to register to vote, I wonder if other people get the option too? And if that was the case, why don't we all vote in swing states to make our vote matter ? Unless you obviously are already voting republican or democratic and your states tends to do so. Obviously, it isn't that easy to just jump from state to state with registration, there is some effort, but it is a possibility.
So I'll stick to registering to vote in Nevada, where I am from, but I thought as least your vote counts in the primaries. Well that is actually not as straight forward as I thought and more flawed then I thought too. there is actually more to that than I thought too and that doesn't guarantee your vote will count either depending on the state and how they regulate the delegates to vote in the National convention.
There is actually more to that than I thought too with caucuses promoting more discussion and providing a more educated vote but limiting the number of people who vote do too have to be present at a certain time. And there three types of primaries, but at least those are all-day, but there is no discussion and you better cross your fingers your state isn't a closed primary and your an independent voter. But your vote still isn't guaranteed to count thanks to state laws and how they regulate its delegates to vote in the National convention, which is where the really voting happens.
Then to the general election, where hopefully your are as lucky as me and get to vote in a swing state, where your vote actually has some weight to it.
I get it now, why people don't vote, because in some cases or rather the majority of cases your vote doesn't count if you aren't with the majority. I get it now why people are as engaged and this attitude of "I don't care" has been trickled down through the generations. I get why I, like most of my generation, I was so confused when we were taught democracy is so great, but really it depends. And the reason our people sought so hard for the right to vote was because that was also your power of freedom of speech right? But now only the majority is being heard in numerous states and candidates only focus on the minority of states to getting them swinging their way.
Then I started to wonder if the electoral college is so bad and so few voices are heard, somebody for sure has had to have thought about a different way of doing things.
I kind of like this one anyways, because the smaller parties vote can still be worth value, but it isn't lost and you still get a choice even if your first one is vetoed. Which I also think will hold bigger parties, and even all parties, more accountable in what they say and what they do.
By the way, there is is cool website, www.270towin.com, where you can find each states voting history and can even make you own prediction on how states will vote in the interactive map. Maybe even share it on social media to get a conversation going who you think will win and why? Does that match who you want to win?
