Summaries-belladonna98

1.) Do Toms Shoes Really Help People?

It seems counterintuitive to tell people not to buy shoes from a company that donates to the underprivileged, but that is exactly what is happening. Toms claims that for every pair of shoes (and now glasses) purchased, a pair is donated to someone in need in the developing world. We don’t know where, exactly, and that is part if the problem.

There are many businesses that follow the same charitable model as Toms, that is, for each item bought, one is donated. Among these are WeWood and Smile Squared, which plant trees and donate toothbrushes, respectively. This business model is, at best, a risky one, because the companies rarely research how their “aid” is going to affect the economy of the area they are supposed to be helping. For example, after a tsunami in Indonesia in 2006, the country was overrun with rice donations, which destroyed the local market for rice. So it doesn’t seem like many people who make these donations really think about what they’re doing. But not all aid is harmful, it just has to be well thought out.

One would think that with all this controversy, Toms would be eager to show just how their “get-one, give-one” program works, but the opposite is true. The Toms website only vaguely describes their donations, focusing more on convincing their customers that they’re doing good rather than how they’re doing it. So my advice, with all the possibility for error in this business model, would be to refrain from buying Toms until we have all the facts. That way we know we’re not crippling shoe merchants when we buy our feel-good charity shoes.

2.) 4 Ways Everyone Can Benefit from Therapy

It seems counterintuitive to suggest that healthy people attend therapy. But what is mental health, really? Everyone has moments of neuroticism and no one is perfectly healthy. It’s absurd to believe that everyone couldn’t benefit from taking some time to talk out their issues with a professional. Everyone, yes everyone should be in therapy.

            There are four main benefits that therapy has on an individual’s life, even though the positives are endless. The first is help with dealing with emotions – any emotions, from the stress of everyday life to the loss of a loved one. Therapy (and also life coaching) also holds a person accountable for their goals. Once you tell someone something, it’s out in the universe and you are more likely to stick to what you said. Speaking of the universe and the big questions, therapy can help answer them. Professionals are literally trained to help you solve life’s biggest problems and find meaning in your life. This doesn’t mean you have to have an issue-filled, meaningless life before therapy, but everyone has moments when they feel like their life is just that. Why would anyone want to be without resources in those times of need?

There is also a social stigma that prevents people from going to therapy, especially in the professional world. Often we who go are seen as weak and in need of guidance. I personally have lost a job opportunity for mentioning therapy during an interview. But the only way to de-stigmatize therapy is to actually go to it and see what it’s all about. The road to understanding could actually help some people along the way.

In essence, therapy is basically like getting a master’s degree in being a person. If my own experience coupled with outside research has proven anything, it’s that everyone, even the rainbow-filled, happiest people on Earth, could benefit from it. Societal standards be damned, people who go to therapy are just regular people who talk through their issues on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. So even if a person thinks that they have the perfect life with the perfect brain, they should consider taking the plunge and see what they’re missing out on. It could end up changing their life.

3.) Men Defining Rape: A History

It seems counterintuitive that men have so long defined something that has affected mostly women throughout history. Since the first ever written laws in 1780 BC, there have been laws, made by men, defining what is and isn’t rape. Men have controlled women’s bodies through their political power for centuries, and wrongfully so, leading to the conclusion that the law is not always morally right.

            When men still owned women in the time before the birth of Christ, rape was considered property damage against a woman’s father. This evolved into having to pay a father to compensate for rape. Rape also referred to abduction of a woman, regardless of the abductors actions. There are also ridiculous amounts of other definitions that rely on whether the woman was a virgin, a woman of color, or if she was married. In any case, the woman was almost always at fault.

And then there are the laws about pregnancy. Since 1290, men have been saying that a woman cannot get pregnant if they did not enjoy a sexual encounter. In fact, this argument was made as recently as 2012, when Todd Akin declared that a woman cannot get pregnant if her attacker has committed a “legitimate rape”. But of course the definition of a legitimate rape is always changing, and said definition is always made by men.

These men who are making these laws have always been notorious for a lack of understanding of the actual situation. Non-scientists always seem to speak the loudest when discussing pregnancy and are almost always listened to. But these laws, by most people’s moral compasses, are not actually lawful. They are prejudiced opinions of men who want to be able to rape their wives whenever they want (which was legal until the 1990’s, by the way). The only way to combat this is to look at the only logical conclusion; lawmakers are not perfect, and because of this the law is inherently flawed.

Moving Image- belladonna98

0:00-0:03

Nicely framed pictures are panned in what seems to be a family home. Two pictures of a smiling little boy are shown. In one, he is wearing something casual, making it seem like a candid that the family treasures. The other is more posed, he is wearing something formal in front of a blue background; the family most likely got it done professionally. A third picture is a wedding photo, most likely belonging to the parents of the little boy. The bride and groom are mid-dance, embracing and smiling. They seem to be a very happy family. Each picture is nicely framed and appear to be on a wooden stand, indicating comfortable financial standing.

 

0:04-0:07

The camera moves to the wall beside stairs in the home, and a shadow is seen. It moves as the camera does, indicating that the person who owns it may be pacing, possibly in anger. The shadow appears male, it is tall and lacks a female figure, so it is most likely the father. Is he talking to the mother? Is he angry at her?

 

0:08-0:11

A little boy, the one from the pictures, is seen sitting on the aforementioned steps. He is maybe four or five years old. He sits with his yellow toy truck, possibly as a security measure. Some kids have blankets, maybe he has a truck. He is wearing a white patterned onesie as pajamas, indicating his young age. He looks up from his truck, a bit startled, and is watching what is transpiring in the room below the stairs. He is not smiling; he seems concerned for what is happening.

 

0:12-0:13

The shadow is seen a second time. The boy’s brown head of hair is seen from behind, and the wall next to him shows the shadow of what is most likely his father. A hand is shown, it looks as if it is pointing in authority to its counterpart, or possibly threatening to strike. The head moves with the hand, indicating an emotion so strong it takes over the body.

 

0:14-0:23

The boy’s face is shown in close-up. He is trying to ignore what is happening, and begins to play with his toy truck, indicated by him looking down and his arms moving back and forth. Then he is startled out of his play, he jumps as he looks at the room below, frightened. His shoulders rise and fall with heavy breathing as his eyebrows rise in surprise. He looks forlornly at what has happened, he does not want it to be this way, but it is.

 

0:24-0:26

White, all capital text reads “Children have to sit by and watch. What’s your excuse?” What was he watching? It is an ad for domestic violence prevention, so the odds point to the fact that his father has hit his mother. Maybe for the first time, due to his surprise, or maybe it happens all the time and this is just the first time he has seen it.

 

0:27-0:30

A multitude of logos appear. A blue and black logo outlined by white has text inside it that reads “There’s NO excuse.” Text below it in italics reads “for Domestic Violence.” Under that, a phone number for victims and bystanders to call reads “1-800-END-ABUSE.” An Ad Council logo is seen in the bottom left corner, and text in the bottom right reads “Family Violence Prevention Fund.” These are probably the producers of the PSA. The logos fade, and one is left with a sense that they have to do something to help this little boy and those like him. The ad has hopefully done its job to inspire action.

Stone Money- belladonna98

Kit-Kats for Nerds

P1. Children do not understand the value of money. On Halloween, they’ll trade a Kit-Kat for a box of Nerds, but they won’t take a dollar for that same box. Humans, on our most basic level, value trade of goods and services for something comparable in return. This system of trade has become bastardized, however, from exchange of goods to exchange of gold, to paper, and so on, until we don’t even know if what we’re exchanging even exists. For the most part, it doesn’t. It is simply numbers on a screen that tell us that we have the power to buy something that we need. So, is there really any value for children, or anyone, to understand? Does money have value anymore?

P2. In the western Pacific Ocean, as a piece of the Caroline Islands, lies the island of Yap. Its inhabitants are fairly unremarkable, save for how they do business. Their particularly scintillating form of currency consists of sometimes giant limestone discs that litter the island. Their diameter can measure a foot or twelve feet, each with varying sizes of holes in the middle. The larger the stone, the more value it holds. If it seems utterly impractical, that is because it is. The stones hardly ever actually change hands, as carrying them would result in braking said hands. So instead, everyone just agrees that a stone has a certain owner. Something large is purchased, and everyone is notified that the stone’s owner has changed. One family is incredibly rich, but has never seen their riches, as they rest at the bottom of the ocean. This may seem primitive, but in reality it is not too different from the American economy. (Friedman)

P3. In 1933, France demanded gold of the United States. Concerned about the value of the dollars they held, they wanted something more tangible in their possession to assure them of their fiscal security. However, instead of physically sending gold to the French, the Federal Reserve set aside gold for France. The actual gold did not travel anywhere, but everyone now knew that it was France’s gold. Sound familiar? (Friedman)

P4. This action of setting aside gold sent the country tumbling off of its fiscal cliff and into the Banking Crisis of 1933. (Friedman) The fiscal cliff is a relatively modern term, but can be applied in the situation of 1933. In recent history, the fiscal cliff referrs to the possible rise in taxes and cuts in spending that would take effect in 2013 due to a federal deficit reduction plan. (Calmes) If this one decision can send the economy into such chaos, then it must not be very stable. Any set of circumstances could manipulate the value of the dollar and its spending power, which begs the question, is the dollar really a stable form of currency? Is anything?

P5. In Brazil, they don’t have dollars. But that doesn’t mean that their currency is not easily manipulated and their economy not fragile. In 1990, inflation was so horrifically high that prices were increasing by 80% each month. (Joffe) Prices were changing constantly, and no federal intervention was able to fix the problem. That is, however, until 1992. That year, four economists put the Unit of Real Value into play, which was essentially currency with nothing to back it up. Prices stayed stable at a certain amount of URVs, wages were always in the same amount of URVs, everything was in URVs and inflation practically disappeared. Fake money solved real financial issues. But it wasn’t the money, it was the peoples’ faith in it. People saw that inflation had ceased and believed that the economy was fixed, and it was. (Glass)

P6. This goes to show how much sway public faith in currency has on the economy. Even if fake money is being used, people will see stable prices and believe in a stable economy. But who is to say what is fake and what is not? The legitimacy of money lies in what valuable commodity it represents. In the United States, that used to be gold, but in recent years the federal government has denied that gold has any bearing on the modern dollar. So the dollar is worth whatever it can buy. In one store, this may be a pack of gum. In another, it may be a child’s toy. People simply agree that something is worth one dollar, and everyone seems to accept it. But in modern times, physical money doesn’t even have to change hands in order for payment to be made.

P7. We live in a digital age, and that ushers in digital money. One very prominent form of digital money is Bitcoin, a completely digital “mine-able” currency that some businesses accept as payment. (Reeves) From the beginning, its creators have admitted to its lack of true worth, but customers mine away, spending dollars on bitcoins. At any given time, a bitcoin is worth a certain number of dollars, which is worth… what? At this point, in this age of the bastardization of payment, dollars may have much less value than we have been lead to believe.

P8. If anyone can make currency out of nothing, such is the case in Brazil and with Bitcoin, then what value does traditional currency have? That is, if currency is even used, and it is not just numbers on a computer screen that tell a person that they have currency. People are told to work for this number, people die because they don’t have this number, people base their entire lives around numbers on a screen, simply because everyone agrees that that number is the be-all-end-all of economics.

P9. In the end, the United States is not that different from the island of Yap, of 1990’s Brazil, or any economy that uses money with “no value”. Items have value, such as the Kit-Kat that is traded on Halloween, or the food exchanged for labor in the dawn of economics. Money used to be backed by valuable metals, but that is no longer the case. Virtual money is coming into power and even physical currency has no concrete backing. The only logical conclusion is that money as we know it today has no intrinsic value. We have all been tricked into believing in the URV, we all have giant stones that we agree someone owns. The economy that fuels millions of lives could disappear tomorrow and no one would have any less. In fact, a lack of a modern economy, at this point, sounds like a better idea. The world may be better off going back to trading corn for labor. At least you can eat corn. How am I going to make dinner out of Bitcoins?

Works Cited

Calmes, Jackie. “Demystifying the Fiscal Impasse That Is Vexing Washington.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 15 Nov. 2012. Web. 10 Sept. 2016.

Friedman, Milton. “The Island of Stone Money.” The Island of Stone Money(1991): 3-7. Web. 10 Sept. 2016.

Glass, Ira, Chana Joffe-Walt, Alex Blumberg, and Dave Kestenbaum. “423: The Invention of Money.” This American Life. Prod. Planet Money. 7 Jan. 2011. This American Life. Web. 11 Sept. 2016.

Joffe-Walt, Chana. “How Fake Money Saved Brazil.” NPR. NPR, 4 Oct. 2010. Web. 13 Sept. 2016.

Reeves, Jeff. “Bitcoin Has No Place in Your – or Any – Portfolio.” MarketWatch. MarketWatch, 31 Jan. 2015. Web. 10 Sept. 2016.