Respond to these discussions
Sociology Class
Response 1
I have to begin with the movie, “My Name is Bill W: True story of the founding of AA.” I have to admit that there was disconnect, as it was an “older” film that seemed almost a period piece done by a high school cast (in the sense of period over acting.) This sentiment became ignored, however, at around 24 minutes 35 seconds into the film when I heard a family member mentioned as period reference point; “I’ll meet you at ‘Joe’ Hirshhorn’s party. ” The scene that follows, with Frank disowning his business partner as he ransacks the wine cellar of the great grandfather I have only heard stories of, peaked my attention. This aside, one might look at Bill W and say, “well, look at the tragic conditions that led him to drink! …It was a different time, people didn’t know as much as they do now!” or other such platitudes, but the point remains that anyone can find themselves in a similar scenario. I thought it was interesting how the movie focused on AA not being part of a “religious doctrine,” as to not scare off people. Perhaps unfounded, but I thought one of the first tenants of AA was to “give yourself up to a higher power, admit that there are forces at work beyond your control.” Perhaps this was vague enough back in the 20’s, and only seems “veiled” by today’s standards…or perhaps I am merely ill-informed.
From personal experience, I can relate to the “never again” scenes, wherein you would think that it would be a wake-up call, with both myself and friends. It may last momentarily, but ultimately people fall back into old routines. Part of that, and perhaps the genius of AA, is due to the people you surround yourself with. Having a strong social network is important for living a happy life, but sometimes that network can be maladaptive. In the setting of AA, you are meant to create meaningful bonds in the setting of a support structure to fall back upon if needed. It is not the case of being judged or “spoken at,” but one of communal understanding, of shared experience to help overcome a problem.
So, for example, almost everyone I know seems to drink A LOT…and I drink far more than I should. In passing reflection, however, I compare to the group and those outside, and it seems to just be the norm. As in the movie, it is “for my job,” “part of the system,” “how you network,” or whatever else. Perhaps these platitudes would work if talking of moderate consumption, but in the case of excess, they merely become excuses as does any holiday for an undergraduate.
Response 2
I think the Drug log was an eye opener in the sense that it was easy to establish patterns that I wouldn’t have thought of being there otherwise and it was easy to connect some cause-effect dots through the log. It was interesting to also see that certain habits such as coffee a certain hour every day is more mental and ritualistic for me. Although the log was about ingested drugs I wondered if keeping a log of other compulsive behavior for a few weeks would have “self-help” effects. I know I tend to splurge and buy things I do not need when I have had a particularly rough day/week and then suffer from buyers remorse only for the cycle to repeat when the next rough patch comes around, or have an extra scoop of something I shouldn’t have. I don’t smoke or drink generally but to each their own vices. The reflection paper on the event made me more aware of peer pressure existence among young professionals and people who by all means are considered “grown ups” responsible enough to handle responsibilities at work and at home, but I had a rude awakening and this week’s video on AA was a good follow-up to that paper for me. Maybe it is my group of friends but I received a couple of “party-pooper” comments for not drinking granted we went out to celebrate my last week at work. My Name is Bill W and the NatGeo video about Oxy addiction were both very strong. I think the Oxy video was a bit harder to digest for based on the more destructive nature of the abuse. I had a similar experience with the Australian ad against Drunk Driving, but I think it does its purpose into scaring people straight that even “buzzed driving” is drunk driving. Since some of you guys mentioned watching documentaries, I oftentimes watch TLC’s Intervention on AE and hopelessly find myself rooting for everyone to go to rehab and have a happy ending at the end of the show.
Response 3
By completing our own assessments, and then studying the behavior of addicts, it gave me a good comparison of my own life compared with those suffering from addiction. In The Basketball Diaries and the video showing various addicts and their relationship with oxycontin, we saw how people’s lives can spiral out of control from substance use. I have recently realized that smoking cigarettes is a huge problem for me, and I am trying my best to quit. For a long time I didn’t see my cigarette smoking as a problem because it isn’t an extreme addiction like cocaine or heroin. However, it has led to recent health problems for me at a young age, and I am having a hard time giving them up despite the negative health consequences, so I guess I can say that I am an addict, even though I have a hard time admitting it. I think because I have a normal life and am not addicted to a “street drug” it took me a while to realize this.
In the lecture this week the instructor noted the cigarette smoking causes more health problems than any other addiction. Even though it is common knowledge that smoking is bad for your health, I did not realize this. A lot of the videos talked about how withdrawal symptoms are what keep addicts hooked on drugs, and I can say that I have had a few nicotine relapses in the past few weeks so I can definitely relate to this. I know that the withdrawal symptoms from nicotine aren’t as bad as a drug like heroin, but it can be very hard to give up a drug that you have relied on for so long.
Response 4
While I doing these assignments (drug log and reflection paper), I recognized the number of cigarettes I smoke one day, one week and a month. I already knew I am a pack a day smoker; however I did not know the exact number. That exact figure has awakened me to the seriousness of the situation. I watched “My Name is Bill W” and participated in Alcohol Anonymous meeting last week. After that, I feel bad habits lead to people being addicted to drugs. In my case, I habitually smoke every hour. I rationalize myself that it is because of the stress. But, it was just smoke craving and nothing else.
In the movie “My Name is Bill W” I realized that how hard to stop their old drug habit which is settled with a long period time. I believe a painstaking effort can be the only way of breaking bad habit. I found a fault in smoking habit and now I am willing to suffer to quit cigarettes. It will be very hard time for me however; I’m sure all my pains and efforts will pay off.
Response 5
According to our week three class notes, “Stimulants release the body’s own energy chemicals, norepinephrine and epinephrine. In low doses, stimulants do work, but as use continues, tolerance sets in, and the use of excess amounts of cocaine, amphetamines, and even caffeine causes some neurotransmitters to become depleted. Higher doses have harmful side effects” (pg. 5). With all three stimulants, as the neurotransmitters become depleted, more of the substance is required for the desired effect and dependence is developed. The discontinuation of all three substances can create withdrawal symptoms. With the depletion of neurotransmitters, the body’s normal chemical release is not enough to excite the neurotransmitters. Withdrawal symptoms continue until the brain’s chemistry properly regulates.
My caffeine consumption is limited to the trace amounts in decaffeinated coffee and an occasional piece of chocolate. However, I use to consume large amounts. I use to be a huge coffee fan and it affected my health. A few years back, I was having trouble with dizziness and chest pains. After consulting my physician and battery of tests, no problems were found and I was prescribed Dramamine for vertigo. I even had an overnight stay in the hospital. After discussing the preceding with a friend, he suggested cutting out caffeine. I did and have not had anymore related problems.
Response 5
Cocaine, amphetamine and caffeine are three stimulants which abuse and effects to the Central Nervous System can be similar when taken in significant amount and frequency. Yet caffeine has a lesser impact on the feeling of euphoria and vigorousness on someone who consume abusively cocaine or amphetamine. According to an article from the New York Magazine caffeine is a “cousin” to cocaine and amphetamine. This article points out that:
Caffeine also slightly raises levels of dopamine, the brain’s feel-good hormone. Cocaine and amphetamines essentially do the same thing, only they create not just a pleasant feeling but outright euphoria.
On a personal level, I do not consume caffeine at all. It also applies to soda and energy drink which I found defying the purpose they are advertised for. I have seen people particularly in the military abusing coffee a lot so to perform their duties which sometimes may requiring to stay up for 24 hours. The abuse of caffeine is a serious problem because people found a legal way to be high on the job while they may impair their ability to maintain a true social composure with the apparent boosted energy sensation from caffeine.
History Class
Question 1-How does rational choice theory and expressive choice theory help us to understand voter behavior?
Response 1
Rational Choice Theory and Expressive Choice Theories became popular in the 1970’s, and are part of a model which tries to determine the affect of external forces on individual voters (Bush 1). The individual theories need to be examined more closely.
The Rational Theory tells us that a rational individual will take a free ride on others doing the work first to weed out the bad candidates and issues. This theory also applies the fact that people who are working, traveling, and being paid high salaries are smart, and can figure out things more quickly. They feel that their participation cost too much for them to be distracted from their more important work. According to Professor Bush of Northeastern University, in his lecture notes, this theory does not support the facts. He states that the evidence shows that people who are in a high socio-economic class are more likely to be involved (Bush 1-2). Professor Bush points out that Rational Choice Theory has not done a good job of predicting voter participation (Bush 2). I have experienced this behavior many times over the years with family and friends, and have even been guilty of it myself. I have received the small booklets explaining the issues, not really reading it until a day before the election.
The Expressive Choice Theory suggests that the participation itself is more important to an individual voter. In other words, if a voter participates, he/she would be more engaged, and more likely to vote. Professor Bush quotes in his lecture notes, Schuessler in A Logic of Expressive Choice (2000), where he explains that individuals attach themselves to a group or issues with outcomes formulated, rather than producing the outcomes themselves (Bush 2). This theory sees participation as a benefit to the individual voter (Bush 3). I’ve used this theory myself many times, and find the rewards of participating much more worthwhile as an individual voter.
Response 2
Personally I think that the rational choice theory as proposed in professor Bush’s writing is not as accurate as it is proposed to be upon the more well educated populace as suggested, and that the expressive choice theory is much more accurate in helping us understand voter behavior. The part that jumps out the most at me and helps me to relate and comprehend the context of the writing is the part under expressive choice where it relates consumerism to expression.(Bush, 3). What stands out the most is that people aren’t necessarily active in order to influence a particular outcome as they are to attaching themselves to the outcome to identify an achievement that they’ve reached or help influence, and that the expressive choice model is far more accurate because as humans we are extremely expressive through hundreds of different channels, and politics is one that a lot of people tend to be more outspoken towards.
Response 3
In the 1970s rational Choice Theory and the Rational Voter Model became popular. The rational Voter Model looks like this: (P=B>C, in other words participation (voter choice) (P)= perceived benefits of participation or choice (B) perceived costs of participation or choice (C)) (Bush wk 3) Rational choice theorists state that voters decide whether to vote, which candidate to vote for in terms of which choice gives them more benefits. Using this theory and model we can predict what effects changes in the external condition will have on the vote. The model was original created to bring attention to the role of issues in voter choice.
The inconsistency in voting participation questions this theory. The main issue here is that the rational person wouldn’t waste resources in order to participate in a voting process. Hence, they rely on choice of other voters. This phenomenon is known as free rider problem. The problem gets worse when voters think their votes do not decide election outcome.
Some rational choice theorists argue that high socio-economic class is less active because they understand the free rider problem and have the means to participate in a voting process. This hypothesis is in fact false. Strong empirical evidence supports that people in a high socio-economic class are most likely to vote. Meanwhile, others argue that a lower transaction cost for well-educated means that it’s easier for them to vote. Rational choice theory doesn’t do a god job at predicting political participation. In fact, this theory fails to predict who will take a part in political activity.
Question 2
What are some of the causes of low voter turnout in the United States? Which do you believe are the most likely culprits for this problem? Is it fair to blame political parties for the problem?
Response 1
According to Professor Bush, of Northeastern University, some of the causes claimed to have an effect on voter turnout seem valid, such as employment, association members, leaders of organizations and businesses, participants in local government, the wealthy and educated, timing, distractions, important issues, when the election is close in issues or candidates, and when voters feel their vote will make a difference (Bush 4). I contend that any one of these factors can justify a low voter participation. If a person is unemployed, or there are several members of a family unemployed, they are extremely distracted by trying to find out how to get another job. Hopefully, they are spending much more than 40 hours per week trying to find another way to support their families. Some need to work at jobs to feed their families, and pay the mortgage while they are looking for work. It becomes a matter of timing and priorities. If it happens at the time of elections, I know where I would place my focus.
Is it fair to blame the political parties? I contend the answer to this question is yes and no. It is true that if we do not participate, the elected officials will not represent us or our interests. It is important for us to remain engaged in the process, no matter what happens in our personal life. The current lower voter turnout is a direct result of the political parties focusing on those voters who will benefit them in keeping their high paying jobs in government. They tend to focus on the list provided by Professor in the lecture note (4). The political parties have their own interest and well being in mind, as opposed to the issues of the average person. Year after year, we hear of promises by the political parties, and our cities are falling apart, our public transportation systems are bad compared to other countries, our economy is fragile, our children are not provided for, and our security is compromised each day.
Response 2
I think that there are two things in particular, the way our society has shifted into the technological and information age where we have so much information to sort through that it has made us less interested in politics and more interested in the latest celebrity activities and what our favorite character is going to be doing in our favorite television show. Rather than having the basic cable that I more or less grew up with as a child, we now have thousands of channels that specialize in different things, and gives us more options to choose from when we watch television, and news stations are not number one anymore. The youth also have more knowledge at their fingertips than before and the engagement is more focused around getting involved in the community as opposed to other things, such as voting because a lot of people don’t feel like they can make a difference.
I also think that there are certain things that political parties in power pass in terms of bills and laws in each states (like ID requirements) to bar certain demographics from voting in these elections, which I feel plays a huge part.
Question 3- Are today’s youth less politically active than previous generations? Does the type of political activity that today’s youth participate in matter?
Response 1
The statistics throughout our text book, and information provided by Professor Bush, indicate that today’s youth is less politically active than previous generations due to many reasons, one being life cycles effects (Bush 5). Who can blame the young people? Their disengagement, due to trust, is founded (Bush 6). It is true, if the young voters are poor, or uneducated, they are uninformed. However, the young people who are working while trying to get an education are also uninformed, due to time constraints. It is difficult to survive in today’s economic environment under any conditions. If political parties focus on the employed, association members, leaders of organizations, businesses, local government, the wealthy, educated voters, this leaves the elderly, the uneducated, the poor, the minorities, without representation. These people have a large stake in the outcomes of our elections as well. If the young people continue to support protests organized by troublemakers or outside interests groups, they will not gain power or influence, so yes, the type of political activity does matter. However, if the younger voters influence the technology to ensure that all people get to vote, it will make a great deal of difference in years to come.
Response 2
I don’t think today’s youth are any less political active than previous generations. They just are active in a different way. A lot of youth today are engaged in boycotting or protesting; which in some areas has been more beneficial than traditional activities. Lastly, the idea of compulsory voting is never going to happen, it is contrary to the freedoms our country has been founded on. However, the secure Internet voting platform is a terrific idea. And, should be seriously considered if we really, truly want younger voter participation.
Response 3
It has been offered that it is not necessarily true that today’s youth are less politically active than previous generations, but rather that they prefer to participate in other ways than voting, some of which may be considered somewhat non-traditional, or even a-political. Before I list these, I want to state that I am not in agreement with this suggestion; while I commend engagement at any level, and certainly do not begrudge individuals their own preferred forms of political expression, there is no substitute for voting. It cannot be supplemented, nor substituted. When all of the protesting, debating, signature gathering, etc., is over, there usually stands a choice to be made, determined only by a majority of voters and, no matter what activities one has engaged in previously towards one political end or the other, all is for naught if a preference goes unrecorded at the ballot box, and tangible results are thwarted by a deficiency of votes cast.
According to the author of Is Voting for Young People, it is most common amongst younger Americans to note volunteer work, or community service, as an example of the civic and social participation in which they have engaged. While voluntarism is certainly a positive contribution, and is to be applauded, it is also suggested that the motivation for this high degree of public service participation amongst the youth is not exactly a selfless endeavor, as many young citizens engage in such activities in the hopes of enhancing their college applications (Wattenberg 151 -153). If this is true, it does not diminish the positive results of social engagement, but it certainly does not bolster an argument that the youth are truly interested in public affairs or are politically engaged through such service. Other political activities that are supposedly undertaken by today’s youth are protesting, petitioning, and boycotting (Wattenberg 162). There is certainly evidence of this, especially in regard to petitioning, which the Internet has made an infinitely easier process than it might once have been. It would appear that there is an online petition for almost anything, with opportunities for folks to electronically “sign” their name in expressing support for a particular initiative, statement, etc. The White House website even has a page dedicated to the submission of such petitions, pledging that the current administration will review any that receive 100,000 signatures or more. While this is certainly a positive form of political participation, it is awfully easy to sit behind one’s computer and pledge support by signing a petition, and hardly gives any credible indication of true political engagement on the part of young, voting-age, citizens. However, its relative success might provide a persuading argument for instituting voting systems at the local, state, and national levels that are accessible by web, via home computer…
In summation, I do think that today’s youth is less politically active then previous generations. It seems that the political activities in which they do participate are either motivated by personal ends, rather than selfless concern for country or community, or are so limited in the level of commitment they require, that they can hardly be considered an adequate measure of youth interest or engagement. While voluntarism, protests, petitions, boycotts, etc., all do matter, they do not matter as much as casting a vote does, for that is the true measure of support for candidates and agenda items in a democracy, which cannot be replaced by other, immeasurable, political activities. When all of the aforementioned political activities in which younger Americans appear to favor come to include voting, then, and only then, might it be said that the younger generations rival their forbears in political participation.