Preface
This year’s edition of SUPANOVA includes selections by students enrolled in Economics 203, Sociology 101, Public Affairs 101, and English and Textual Studies 142. It was a very difficult task narrowing down which entries to include. We would like to thank all the students who submitted work to us. We were impressed by the quality of the writing and wish we could have printed them all. We are publishing these essays with the assumption that readers are interested in student work as presented in college-level classes. The essays were chosen based on the quality of the writing and the degree to which they fulfilled the learning objectives of the courses. Please enjoy the 2011 SUPANOVA essays. We believe they represent the wide diversity and scope of the Syracuse University courses offered by Project Advance.
Syracuse University Project Advance Fall 2011
i Contents Preface ...... i The Financial Crisis: Causes, Responses, Effects ...... 1 The Economy of the United States: How we got into the current recession and why recovery doesn’t mean that the “Problem” is “Fixed” ...... 9 Sociology Final Exam ...... 16 Sociology 101 Inspired Artwork ...... 22 Emergency Medical Services Taxing District Assessment – The Town of Rotterdam ...... 23 Intellectual Power ...... 37 I’m Still Here: Studying the questions of subjectivity that arose from “The Lost Years” of Joaquin Phoenix ...... 41
ii SUPANOVA 1 1
Economics 203
ECN 203: Economic Ideas and Issues furnishes students with an introduction to Western economic thought. Students learn the scientific method and use it to examine the way individuals and societies make choices. Progressing from microeconomic to macroeconomic elements, students examine the benefits and the problems inherent in a market driven economy. Students learn about the role government plays in both creating and solving disruptions in global systems. The following two authors outline what they each believe to be the most influential causes of the current economic crisis.
The Financial Crisis: Causes, Responses, Effects
Rachel Winsberg Brighton High School, Rochester, NY Instructor- Mr. Noto
No one, not even an expert like Ben Bernanke, can definitively make the claim that he knows everything there is to know about the current economic crisis. The causes are too vast, the effects too all-encompassing, and the solutions to impenetrable. In writing this paper, I will endeavor to explain the main causes of current conditions, how governments and individuals have responded, what the current status is, and some possible actions for the future. When examining the origins of the current economic situation, one can find endless examples of finance gone wrong, overspending, or undersaving. I am going to focus on what I think are the main causes of today’s global recession: the mortgage crisis, credit freezing, financial innovations, the banking crisis, lack of regulation, credit rating agencies and a culture of spending. All of these causes are interconnected, just like the world’s economies. They had all been building up for years, but the one thing that made them all come to a head was the mortgage crisis that revealed itself in late 2006 (“Giant”n.pag.). It all started in the early 2000’s when investors all over the world were tired of buying low-interest, low risk bonds from the United States government, and were looking for a place to make their savings grow quickly (“Giant” n.pag.). These investors discovered that house loans, or mortgages, had a slightly higher risk but a much higher return. Wall St. realized the increased demand for these investments, and so mortgage-backed securities were born (“Giant” n.pag.). These were pools of thousands of mortgages from which investors could buy and reap the benefits. Word spread quickly of these new investment opportunities, and the global demand was so high, in fact, that the supply could not keep up with it. Mortgage brokers realized this, and so the deregulation of who could get a mortgage started. First there were Stated Income, Verified Assets loans; then State Income, State Assets; then No Income, Verified Asset; then No Income, No Asset; and finally No Income, No Job or Asset (NINJA) loans (“Giant”n.pag.). Of course, with people able to get mortgages so easily, the demand for housing shot up along with the demand for the MBS’s (“Giant”n.pag.). Housing prices mushroomed, but that did not deter people from buying a house, because it seemed as if the prices would never stop getting higher (“Giant”n.pag.). Buying a house started becoming an investment instead of a life decision (“Giant”n.pag.). By 2006, anyone who wanted to get a loan for a house could easily get one regardless of their income. These risky
SUPANOVA 2 2 mortgages did not really bother the issuing banks, because they would just sell them to Wall St., who would then sell the pooled mortgages to investors all over the world (“Giant”n.pag.). Nor were the investors worried, because data showed that the more risky loans were doing fairly well; a 3.5% default rate versus a 1.5% default rate made it worth the risk. These data, however, were irrelevant because history could not provide data on the types of loans that were being issued (“Giant”n.pag.). In late 2006, banks started noticing that people were defaulting extremely early on their mortgage payments, and many had never even paid at all (“Giant”n.pag.). When the houses foreclosed, this put more houses on the market, while at the same time demand was spiraling down because of the high prices; demand was saturated (“Giant”n.pag.). This combination of higher supply and lower demand caused a burst of the housing bubble; the MBS’s were quickly losing value (“Giant”n.pag.). Small banks that had borrowed huge amounts of money from larger banks in order to buy mortgages now could not pay them back because the MBS’s no longer had a viable market (“Giant”n.pag.). Now, there was a credit crisis because global investors were more interested in the safety rather than the profit of their investments (“Giant”n.pag.). It was therefore much harder to borrow because of the fear of default (“Giant”n.pag.). The mortgage crisis revealed itself in late 2006. Financers worldwide were not sure if it would spread into other sectors of the economy, but it was not long before they realized that the mortgage crisis was an indicator of a larger problem (“Another” n.pag.). The commercial paper market is one in which big companies can borrow from one another on a daily basis; it is an “industrial-sized IOU,” according to Adam Davidson of NPR news (“Another” n.pag.). However, that market froze as a result of the Money Market Mutual Fund (MMMF) breaking the buck, or losing its depositors’ money (“Another” n.pag.). And this happened as a result of Lehman Brothers’ collapse on September 15, 2008; MMMF had lent so much money to Lehman Brothers that it could not pay back the money it had borrowed from other places (“Another” n.pag.). There was a lack of trust in the commercial paper market that could not be restored (“Another” n.pag.). Financial institutions, as the main lenders and borrowers in the US economy, seemed to be at the core of this, and it’s true that banks are the main lenders and borrowers in the United States economy. In order for a bank to function, it must have its assets equal its liabilities plus its capital (“Bad” n.pag.). When a bank’s assets do not equal its liabilities plus its capital, the bank is insolvent and must either be shut down or bailed out by the government (“Bad” n.pag.). When people do not pay back their loans to the bank, the owners must change their capital amounts to balance out capital, assets, and liabilities (“Bad” n.pag.). During the housing crisis, when so many people were defaulting on their loans, the banks started taking over the houses that people could not pay for, but that did not help their balance sheets much because the houses’ values had gone down so dramatically (“Bad” n.pag.). Because there is no firewall between commercial and investment banks, the banks that had been partaking in the risky behavior with mortgages were the very same banks that held people’s savings that they had put there merely for safekeeping. Barack Obama has said that the complex, new financial instruments were developed in order to spread risk, but instead they concentrated it (“US Unveils” n.pag.). Wall St. came up with all sorts of strategies to make money fast that seemed like they would decrease the risk, but in fact they were increasing it because of the interconnected chains that were created. One example is Credit Default Swaps (CDS), which are sorts of insurance against
SUPANOVA 3 3 bonds failing (“Another” n.pag.). They were used as a way for those who owned a bond to make sure they did not lose money if a company defaulted. However, CDS’s became a way for people to bet on the failure of a company by buying a CDS without even owning a bond from that company (“Another” n.pag.). This market became a huge global craze, worth over $60 trillion, all of which was unregulated (“Another” n.pag.). CDS’s popularity led to over- leveraging, which is when a person insures a bond worth more than he owns and just relies on the fact that it will not default so that he can continue to collect premiums (“Another” n.pag.). Yet another new, dangerous financial instrument was “netting.” This is when a person backs up the CDS he has sold for a company by buying a CDS on that very same company. Therefore if the company does default, he will have to pay, but he will also be collecting (“Another” n.pag.). Netting led to this extremely large market being interconnected so strongly that no one was actually sure who he or she was relying on to make money. If one link in the chain breaks, then everyone’s investments fail and they all default (“Another” n.pag.). Therefore Obama was right in saying that these financial innovations made it more dangerous to be part of the global capital market. Regulation became sparse, at best. Although the global company AIG had over 400 regulators in 150 different countries, there was “no oversight of the financial products division that was buying and selling derivatives,” says chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke (“Watchmen” n.pag.). Scott Polikov, the interim director of the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), did admit that it was his office that should have filled in the gaps in AIG regulation (“Watchmen” n.pag.). OTS was the smallest, youngest, and weakest government regulator agency, yet it regulated such big names as Washington Mutual, Netbank, Countrywide, Bank United, and AIG (“Watchmen” n.pag.). How did this happen? It was because regulators are paid by the very banks they regulate, so in order to attract “customers,” it would be beneficial to advertise the regulator’s readiness to cut corners and allow some fishy practices (“Watchmen” n.pag.). Talk about a conflict of interests! However, was it really the fault of the banks? Credit rating agencies gave AAA ratings to the MBS’s that were backed by mortgages held by people with practically no income (“Watchmen” n.pag.). Standard and Poor’s credit rating agency hired a math company to make equations to rate the MBS’s, but since the different types of loans were so new, made- up numbers had to be put into the equations (“Watchmen” n.pag.). And, yet again we can see a conflict of interests: credit rating agencies are paid for by those that they are rating (“Watchmen” n.pag.). If that were not the case, they could have merely stated that they did not have enough data to give a rating to the MBS’s, but if they had done that, they would have lost their market share (“Watchmen” n.pag.). Since the data was so subjective, rating agencies could manipulate the data in order to get more AAA ratings (“Watchmen” n.pag.). After the fact, government officials, investors, and rating agencies themselves all agree that the ratings given to the different types of assets were given too much importance in the market, and that this needs to change (“Watchmen” n.pag.). Finally, the United States’ financial culture has evolved a lot in the past couple decades, especially since the Great Depression generation has lost any control of the financial sector. It is a “culture of irresponsibility”, according to Obama. The problem is the United States population; we overborrowed because of the high standard of living, leading to fake prosperity (“Bad” n.pag.). Much like the glamorous people of the 1920’s, in fact. Even before the recession, many families did not have enough assets to make it through a short spell of unemployment or other financial emergency (Ratcliffe, n.pag.). Also, corporate culture changed to accommodate the amoral market instead of the human beings in it. Says
SUPANOVA 4 4
Jim Finkle, “Wall St. is not a client-driven business” (“Return” n.pag.). Another way of thinking that was accepted into the financial culture was the housing bubble. Banks thought that houses would never get less expensive, so if people defaulted on their mortgages, the bank would then own a valuable house (“Giant” n.pag.). Firms and credit-rating agencies also ignored the evidence that the real estate market was a bubble, because everyone was too high on the money and success (Seigel, n.pag.). The combination of all these things caused us to be in the situation we are now. And what is that situation? The macroeconomic factors are one thing, but what about the people that those numbers represent? Macroeconomically, it is obvious that United States is not in good condition. The current national debt is $12.32 trillion, while the current Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is $14.19 trillion (“US Debt” n.pag.). That makes the debt nearly 87% of the GDP. As trade deficits usually go along with government deficits, it makes sense that the trade deficit has now reached $31.52 billion (“US Debt” n.pag.). In 2010 alone, there have been 58,300 foreclosures and 96,405 bankruptcies (“US Debt” n.pag.). The unemployment rate has reached a 70-year high of 10% only surpassed by the Great Depression’s rate. That is a total of 26,497,790 people out of a job right now (“US Debt” n.pag.). “If hundreds of millions of people lose their livelihood and their hopes for the future are dashed because of a crisis they have absolutely no responsibility for, the human crisis will not just remain economic” (“G20 Urged” n.pag.). In saying this, UN General Secretary Ban Ki-Moon was saying that all of those numbers are important, but they do not mean the same thing for every person in the world, or even the United States. Different groups have been affected in different ways by the current recession. According to one's socioeconomic status, race, gender, or age, this recession could be detrimental, or it could just be a small hurdle that is easily built into the normal routine. Says Roland Sanchez-Medina, the president of the Cuban Bar Association, "One of the most unfavorable aspects of this recession is some of the gains we made in the diversity efforts are going to be impacted in a negative way either by way of layoffs or terminations" ("Elevation" n.pag.). Unemployment is 5 points higher for Hispanics than non-minorities, and they have higher foreclosure rates and drops in income as well ("Report" n.pag.). Also, this recession has been coined the "mancession," because 80% of the jobs lost in the past year were held by men ("Women" n.pag.). This is most likely because blue-collar jobs, like manufacturing and construction, are most often held by men, and it is those jobs that are becoming redundant. White-collar service jobs, like education and health, are increasingly female, and are also becoming more marketable in today's economy ("Women" n.pag.). The cultural shift is hard to accept for many men; they may be out of employment, but they do not want to take over "women's" jobs in the household ("Women" n.pag.). Young people's employment has been affected greater than middle aged ("Employment" n.pag.), yet the elderly are not doing well either. Older households tend to hold less in stocks, so they are less exposed to market fluctuations (Soto, n.pag.), but those farthest from retirement are in the best shape because even if their retirement savings are depleted as a result of this recession, there is still time for them to build them back up (Soto, n.pag.). Evidence from previous recessions suggests that those at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder tend to lose the most and take the longest to recover from economic strife (Golden, n.pag.). Says John Merril, chief investment officer at Tanglewood Wealth Management Services, "the strong get stronger and the weak get blown away" (Steverman, n.pag.) during times of economic strife. It is clear that different people will be impacted by this recession in different ways.
SUPANOVA 5 5
There have been many responses by the US government, international trade groups, and individuals to the unfortunate economic conditions. The most important responses to the recession were the 2008 bank bailouts, Obama's $787 billion stimulus package and interest rate reduction, improved regulation, IMF/G20 international trade agreements, and individual life changes. All of these approaches have had some sort of effect on how trade, capital markets, and personal lives are progressing. The first responses to the crises in the financial sector were the multiple bank bailouts in September and October of2008. $700 billion was put aside for the government to buy up the toxic assets that major banks like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AlG were dealing with ("Another" n.pag.). The problem with this was there was no viable market value for the toxic assets, because if the government paid the extremely low market-determined price for them, the banks would remain insolvent ("Another" n.pag.). Another problem was that if the government gave enough money to cover the liability and original capital of the bank, it and the taxpayers would in fact own the bank. This was too political to be allowed to happen in the United States ("Bad" n.pag.). As a solution, the US government gave $245 billion to banks with special rules to make sure that none of them would be owned by the government ("Bad" n.pag.). Although many say that the government should not have saved the banks from their own irresponsible mistakes, Ben Bernanke's response to this claim was that “if we let the banking system fail, no one will talk about the Great Depression anymore. This will be worse" ("Bad" n.pag.). After Obama took office in January of 2009, his first move was to push for a $787 billion stimulus package. It was signed on February 12, 2009 ("Timeline" n.pag.). The bailout allotted $4 billion to be cut in taxes, and $720 million to be put into small business lending programs ("Report" n.pag.). The stimulus package was meant to encourage the economy to get moving, and for demand to be created by giving money to make public works projects. One controversial ruling said that any public works or building project funded by the stimulus package could use only US-made goods ("Obama" n.pag.). Another preventative measure taken by the US government was the lowering of the Federal Funds Rate, in order to create liquidity and help banks get back on their feet. On September 18, 2007, the Fed lowered the rate down to 4.75% ("Timeline" n.pag.), This may have seemed low at the time, however by December 16, 2008, the Federal Funds Rate reached the lowest rate ever recorded: 0.25% ("Timeline" n.pag.). The Fed also supplied reserves to the banking system in order to prevent runs, especially following the Lehman Brothers crash in September of2008 (Siegel, n.pag.). After bailing out the banks and stimulating the economy, the US government started making moves to prevent future crises. Banking regulation was reformed to require big banks to have larger reserves ("US Unveils" n.pag.). Consumers and investors will now get a special agency that will protect their interests and regulate mortgages and credit cards. This agency will also have the power to take over failing banks ("US Unveils" n.pag.). Also, the Financial Services Oversight Council (FSOC) is to be created in order to coordinate supervision of the banking system and replace the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) ("US Unveils" n.pag.). There is some skepticism being voiced about the FSOC, because the OTS was a result of the savings and loans crisis of the 1980's when the regulatory government office was then too lax as well ("Watchmen" n.pag.). Is it possible that these offices will continue to replace each other, with no real change? It remains to be seen. The global response to the recession is important, too, as any fluctuations in the US economy tend to reverberate all over the world. After the G20 London Summit in April 2009, the resources available to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) were tripled to $750 billion
SUPANOVA 6 6
("G20 Leaders" n.pag.). These financial and global leaders made a deal subjecting bankers' pay to stricter control, setting up a Financial Stability Board to work with the IMF to ensure international cooperation, developing a common international approach to cleaning up tanks' toxic assets, and agreeing to give the world's poorest countries an extra $100 billion in aid ("G20 Leaders" n.pag.). Costa Rica, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Uruguay have not committed to respecting these new international standards, so the G20 leaders have imposed sanctions on those countries until they agree to cooperate ("G20 Leaders" n.pag.). Finally, a recession of the size and depth of this one requires the people experiencing it to make some substantial changes to their day-to-day lives. According to Taylor Cowen, extended recessions have always been characterized as social and cultural eras, in addition to economic ones (Cowen, n.pag.). As a result of economic downturns, people tend to turn to less expensive activities and popular culture caters less to the wealthy (Cowen, n.pag.). Economist Christopher Ruhn, of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, published an interesting study in which he shows that as unemployment goes up by 1 %, the overall death rate tends to go down by .5% (Cowen, n.pag.). This must be because there are fewer car trips, so a lower risk of accidents, less money spent on alcohol and tobacco, more time for exercise and sleep, and less money for unhealthy food (Cowen, n.pag.). Also a common result of economic strife is the development of a "recession generation." Says Cowen, "today's teenagers stand less chance of making foolish decisions in the stock market down the road. They are likely to forgo good business opportunities, but also to make fewer mistakes." Overall, for better or worse, people become more self-reliant during an economic downturn (Cowen, n.pag.). A good joke I saw online the other days read: Q: How has French revolution affected world economic growth? A: Too early to say ("Economist" n.pag.). My point is that forecasting the economic future is a game that is endlessly played, and which always finds answers that are incorrect. In reading, I found myself leaning toward an interventionist approach to economics and the Fed, merely because my moral side could not bare it any other way. So, I would like to think that the future of the United States economy includes higher regulation on those that caused this crisis in the first place. One approach that appeals to me is the "free market solution": let "vulture funds" buy mortgages at high discounts, and they will then let the homeowners have much lower payments, rent the house, or be given cash stipend to give up the house, while still making a return ("Bad" n.pag.). I think that that is the ultimate win-win situation, yet it takes a lot of digging, because at this point, it is hard to know who owns which mortgage. One thing is certain. Milton Friedman and Ben Bernanke alike agree that it was a lack of swift Fed action that led to the Great Depression (Siegel, n.pag.). The Fed is the most valuable economic tool available to the US government, and with its help in the next 10 years, the United States and global economies will get back on track. It appears that the many responses to this economic debacle may be working, or at least pushing us in the right direction. However, only time will tell what the right strategies will entail. The global economy is too complex for anyone to make weak assumptions about, but by studying the major causes and effects in the financial sector, we can better understand the world around us.
SUPANOVA 7 7
Works Cited
"Another Frightening Show About the Economy." This American Life. Narr. Adam Davidson, Alex Bloomberg, and Ira Glass. NPR. WXXI, Rochester, NY. October 3, 2008. "Bad Bank." This American Life. Narr. Adam Davidson, Alex Bloomberg, and Ira Glass. NPR. WXXI, Rochester, NY. February 27, 2009. Baxter, Sarah. "Women are victors in 'mancession;' Economics gender roles are being rewritten in America as men bear the brunt of job losses, writes Sarah Baxter in Washington." Sunday Times [London, England]. June 7, 2009. Custom Newspapers.
SUPANOVA 8 8
“Timeline: Credit crunch to downturn." BBC News on the Web. August 7, 2009.
SUPANOVA 9 9
The Economy of the United States: How we got into the current recession and why recovery doesn’t mean that the “Problem” is “Fixed”
Sanford Schor Brighton High School, Rochester, NY Instructor- Mr. Noto
The past three years has seen the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930s. Like that historic failure, the United States has been the focal point of both the causes and major initiatives to curb our current economic situation, though the globally integrated economy that we now possess has insured that few countries were left unscathed. Even now, after some leading economists have proclaimed the “end” of what seems to be a worldwide recession, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly what landed the United States in its current economic situation. What is clear is that no single cause is at fault, but this is rather the result of what some have labeled a “perfect storm” of economic mistakes and happenstance leading to a US meltdown. Due to this, it is impossible to list every occurrence that pointed to the coming of a global recession, but I will attempt to point out the two that seem to be of the greatest import: the fall of the housing market and subsequent credit crunch, and the effect of the national debt on prolonging the recession. The actual trigger, and most publicized cause, seems to be a speculation-filled housing market. According to Niall Ferguson, property has always been viewed as a sure sign of impeccable credit, thereby leading many banks to finance mortgages without a particularly extensive background check on the individual to ascertain whether he or she will be capable of repaying his or her loan (Ferguson 232). Interestingly enough, this correlation between property and profit came about after the creation of the popular board game Monopoly which, due to the utopian set of beliefs embodied by its creator, was ironically meant to illustrate the oppression caused by landlords simply collecting rent on workers’ properties (Ferguson 232). Yet, by not insuring that debtors could in fact pay off their loans, bankers unwittingly entered into a game of short-term gain (getting more loans than they would have by analyzing credit) followed by long-term loss when the debtors later defaulted. On the investment side, house prices had been rising steadily from the 1990s up until 2005, making the housing market seem to not only be a safe venue for investment, but also a profitable one (Tanneeru n.pag.). As described by Ferguson, this constant rise in house prices was generated by a cycle of speculation and confidence, leading to the so-called “bubble” that raised housing prices above their true value (Ferguson 8). The bubble’s creation and eventual bursting was made possible by a form of consumer debt known as a subprime mortgage (Ferguson 8). Indeed, "prime mortgages" or mortgages granted to loaners who had decidedly good credit, made up only 52% of loans in 2006, meaning that a large portion of the banking industry was counting on an unsure supply of money (Tanneeru n.pag.). These loans had absurdly low interest rates for a short "teaser period" after which interest skyrocketed, causing many of the unqualified owners of these mortgages to default (Ferguson 8). Unbeknownst to buyers, banks in the UK and the United States packaged these loans together and sold them to Western European banks as collateralized debt obligations (CD as) (Ferguson 8). This gave the appearance, at least to the bankers, of an incredibly reliable source of income, as so many different groups had been integrated into the system. They failed to recognize just how shaky the original loans were until thousands
SUPANOVA 10 1 0 of defaults pushed down US real estate prices. Most banks had over extended themselves and now were forced to take on the mortgage-backed securities that they had created, and mortgages continued to spiral down in value as banks attempted to purge their bad loans (Tanneeru n.pag.). News of this was not comforting to shareholders who had invested in firms involved with sub-prime loans and they pulled their money out, dropping prices and profits even further (Tanneeru n.pag). The culmination of this led to a predicament similar to the one credited with initiating the Great Depression: banks suddenly found that their capital-to-assets ratio had plummeted as they were forced to take on the loans that had defaulted, and those that survived refused to loan out more money (Ferguson 9). It seems surprising that such rash acts could be taken without the intervention of any sort of United States regulatory agency. Regulation under current banking law, though, is only applied to commercial banks, meaning that other sorts of institutions (such as investment firms) are able to provide "better" deals on investment, but at a much higher risk to the investor (Krugman 159). These "non-depository" institutions are not a part of the Federal Reserve System and thus not bound by its regulations or able to draw upon its protections (Krugman 163). Additionally, with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act (which separated the duties of commercial and investment banks) in 1999, commercial banks were permitted to take on greater risks without any greater supervision, leaving these institutions equally vulnerable to the money-making opportunity of giving out loans without a strict qualification of the ability to the debtor to repay (Krugman 163). In an attempt to increase liquidity, central banks in both Europe and the United States provided funds at low interest rates to entice more banks to begin to lend again. Still, the interest rates that banks charged when loaning to one another (via bonds or commercial paper) remained high (Ferguson 9). This left the United States and, indeed, the world at an economic standstill. With no money flowing in the system and lower interest rates by the Federal Reserves, foreign and domestic investment has plummeted. Along with this, the failure of numerous banks has fueled fear of further downturns, inducing many to keep a tighter hold on their money. Thus, general consumption has fallen as well. All of this is coupled with the fact that national governments have begun to keep a tighter hold on their money contributed to a loss in global trade and, more profoundly, a GDP crunch as consumption and investment fell (Ferguson 9-10). The second factor contributing to this perfect economic storm is illustrated by what some dub the United State's greatest export: its debt. Though surpluses in the 1990s gave hope that the debt would soon be paid off, the inauguration of President George Bush in 2000 made it clear that this would not happen. True to the promise made and then broken by his father, Bush refused to institute any new taxes and, in fact, lowered taxes during his presidency with the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (Committee on Ways and Means n.pag.) (Office of Public Affairs n.pag.). Indeed, this was the first instance in which taxes had not been raised during a time of war (in this case, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq). At the expense of trying to appeal to the common American, the United States was buried under a mountain of its own spending. This issue only worsened as the fraction of government spending viewed as politically "untouchable" grew and continues to grow in magnitude. The largest expenditure of the federal government is through entitlements such as Social Security (including Medicare) and Medicaid, with those two programs alone accounting for 18 percent of US GDP (Tanner n.pag.). So-called baby boomers, the largest segment of our population in terms of a single age bracket, will soon reach the age at which they may
SUPANOVA 11 1 1 receive Social Security, putting a greater strain on an already expensive system. Though the program technically generates yearly surpluses that it can rely on in the event of a deficit, these surpluses have been replaced by US Treasury Bonds as the government "borrows" the money the program generates in order to pay off the national debt (Scott n. pag.). Additionally, rising healthcare costs and a Medicaid program that is already drawing off of its surplus stores has made providing this entitlement increasingly expensive (Wilson 486). One must also remember that during the time of the so-called "credit crunch," as sub-prime mortgages defaulted, the United States was involved in two foreign wars. Defense expenditures only added to an effectively untouchable debt. This debt is dealt with by granting US treasury bonds and dollars (effectively "selling debt") to foreigners, who provide the capital needed to float the US economy, provided the US promises to repay with interest. There are few who have made the connection between our current financial crisis and the rising debt of the United States, but it seems reasonable to extrapolate some of the effects that the debt has had in terms of deterring any reasonable recovery. As debt increases the international demand for the dollar, it shifts the demand line right, raising interest rates. This puts upward pressure on the value of the dollar, making it all the more difficult to keep interest at a minimum (which is what the Fed is currently trying to do). Additionally, this appreciation of the dollar value in general has likely adversely affected the trade deficit. As Mankiw noted, the value of net foreign exports is equivalent to net foreign investment (Mankiw 646). Additionally, recognizing the idea that the sum of domestic and foreign investment is equivalent in value to national savings, one can realize that, as the trade deficit increases (net exports becomes more negative), national savings decrease as well. It is not too far a leap to recognize that our lack of savings (due to an increase in national debt) has only worsened the economic conditions we are dealing with by lessening the amount of money available in the system for loans and such. Thus far, the US has not had to default on any of its own loans, but with the contraction of its GDP, a strong pressure was placed on the international community to keep the United States afloat. Thus, our debt has only worsened the housing market collapse, leaving the United States in a position not favorable to reviving this market, let alone its entire economy. In the case of any financial crisis, the United States looks to the Federal Reserve System for relief. As more economists and the mainstream began accepting the reality of our economic downturn, Ben Bernanke took his place as the chairman of the Fed and assessed the situation. Judging from events of the past, Bernanke mandated a change in the Federal Funds Rate (the interest rate banks pay on loans to one another) from 5.25 percent to 0.12 percent late in 2009; subsequently the amount of money that banks were borrowing from the Fed rose from almost nothing to over $400 billion (Krugman 173). This drop in the Federal Funds Rate occurred incrementally from 2007 to the present, as Bernanke slowly eased it downward (Krugman 173). Under normal circumstances this would have loosened up credit but, ironically, it was still difficult to convince lenders that the risk was worth the possible reward of restoring the US economy, and upward pressure on the dollar made it difficult to keep interest rates low. As more mortgages began to default, the two largest US mortgage finance institutions, Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac (which "provided funding for home loans by buying up mortgages and packaging them as investments") began to show strains in the stock market as worry that they would be unable to payout their mortgage-backing agreements spread ("US Moves to Bolster Lending Firms" n.pag.). As these two institutions hold or back nearly half of all US home loans, the United States government responded by expanding the companies' access to credit lines and authorized
SUPANOVA 12 1 2 the Treasury to buy shares of the two if the need arose in July of 2008 ("US Moves to Bolster Lending Firms" n.pag.). This seemed to calm fears and share prices slowly returned to their previous level, but soon resumed their fall, albeit at a slower rate ("US Moves to Bolster Lending Firms" n.pag.). Just two months later, the United States Congress approved a federal takeover (the largest "bailout" in US history) of the two mortgage lenders ("US Takes Over Key Mortgage Firms" n.pag.). As Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson noted, the period of the takeover (lasting until the end of 2009) would be used to approve the reformation of the two large companies and the Treasury guaranteed that it would buy Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's high-risk mortgage-backed securities on the condition that neither send out payments to shareholders ("US Takes Over Key Mortgage Firms" n.pag.). A few days later, another series of blows was dealt: the bank Lehman Brothers filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and Merrill Lynch, unable to survive on its own, agreed to a $50 billion takeover by Bank of America ("Timeline: Credit Crunch to Downturn" n.pag.). The government let the investment firm Lehman Brothers collapse, but when AIG showed signs of stress, the Fed approved an $85 billion rescue package to save it ("US Government Rescues Insurer AIG" n.pag.). Attached to this was a condition that the government be granted public stake in 80% of the company, for the purpose of reformation (particularly in regards to high-level management) similar to that done in Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac ("US Government Rescues Insurer AIG" n.pag.). The following month, in October, after initially rejecting a national bail-out plan by the Senate, a $700 billion initiative was voted forward by the House of Representatives ("House Backs $700bn Bail-Out Plan" n.pag.). The plan, which also raised the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's savings guarantee to $250,000, aimed to buy up "bad debt" on Wall Street ("House Backs $700bn Bail-Out Plan" n.pag.). In a meeting later that month held by Treasury Secretary Paulson, it was announced that part of this bail-out would be used to buy equity stakes (a fixed-interest investment that does not include the possibility voting rights in the company) among the more stable and "trusted" banks, again on the similar condition of management reform and a limit on executive pay ("US Unveils $250bn Banking Rescue" n.pag.). The Fed then used a second portion of the bail-out funds to provide for a $20 billion bailout for Citigroup investment, one of the few institutions deemed "too big to fail," in order to restore confidence in the market as a whole ("Citigroup Shares Jump on Bail-Out" n.pag.). In essence, the aforementioned efforts focused on stabilization of financial institutions by an influx in protection and funding by the Fed, in the hopes that a boost in confidence would follow. Thus, a second, larger, bailout ($800 billion) was announced by Paulson shortly before 2009 in order to increase liquidity available to banks and consumers ("US Fed Announces $800bn Stimulus" n.pag.). As President Obama entered office, he signed into existence a $787 billion stimulus plan that purportedly would create 3.5 million jobs and improve the infrastructure while boosting consumer spending ("Obama Signs $787bn Stimulus Plan" n.pag.). While previous initiatives focused on halting the downward fall of economies worldwide, this one attempted to recover some of the ground that had been lost. By relying on increases in government and consumer spending, it was hoped that a rise on GDP would follow (as aggregate demand would be shifted forward by these changes). Noted earlier, a lack of banking regulation has been viewed as a major factor contributing to the mortgage crisis that precipitated our current financial situation. In response, a plan was instituted to reform banking regulations by giving the Fed authority to oversee major financial institutes, raising the reserve
SUPANOVA 13 1 3 requirements, and creating a Financial Services Oversight Council in order to better monitor loans and investments of all kinds ("US Unveils Banking Reform Plans" n.pag.). Since this last round of initiatives, the United States has devoted an increasingly smaller fraction of attention to the economy. Currently we still stand at a precarious position: our present actions will decide whether we will enter into another, similar recession in the coming years. During the third quarter of2009, the US experienced a 2.2% increase in GDP relative to 2005 dollars, after suffering substantial losses during the previous two quarters of 2009 and the last quarter of 2008 (Bureau of Economic Analysis n.pag.). This and other national indications have pushed some to declare an end to the recession, the definition of which is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. Even so, by no means is the United States government out of the woods. According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate has risen since July of2009 from 9.4% and stagnated at 10.0% during the months of November and December (Bureau of Labor Statistics n.pag.). There are still millions of homes in foreclosure and, as Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz noted, "2010 may be a year of positive growth, though far weaker than would be necessary to get unemployment down significantly" (Gustin n.pag.). Thus, though the technical term of a recession may have been interrupted by positive growth in the third quarter of 2009, the US economy is only now recovering from its downturn. At least in the short term, the recession has had a powerful effect on consumer spending. Due to the frugality necessitated by a rise in unemployment, consumer spending has fallen and is not predicted to recover until consumers are confident that they will be able to justify their spending in terms of guaranteed future income. As this is not yet the case, a marginally slow rise in consumer spending and stagnation of current employment conditions have stayed the norm. Judging by the violent shifts the economy of the United States and, indeed, the world, is liable to take, it is difficult to predict exactly where our current path will lead us. It is easy to point towards the demands for greater banking regulation, the new attitude of thriftiness that has infected Americans, and the claims of many economists that "the recession has ended" as signs of forthcoming prosperity and non-turbulence in the American economy. Yet, no matter how wistful we may be, there are key signs that point to the contrary. Firstly, I would like to address the permanence of current banking reform initiatives and newfound American thriftiness. Many have compared our current economic situation to the Great Depression, which revealed a similar lack of regulation and security in the banking and investment systems. In the midst of crisis, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office and was able to pass sweeping reforms that essentially changed the way that the United States economy was shaped in terms of banking. At that point, the American people were ready and willing to make any sort of change that promised an improvement relative to contemporary economic conditions. Unfortunately, the same has not applied to the current recession. Unemployment did not reach nearly the same level in the current economic meltdown as it did in the 1930s and, sans the media depicting vast breadlines, the middle class has generally been able to view unemployment as an issue, but one that will be dealt with by the government. Indeed, with the passage of various stimulus plans, it was assumed that the worst was over; the government had taken control and, as shown in the past, the government had the will and the ways to cure economic crisis. Unlike during the Great Depression, there is no popular drive for change. While it is possible that some superficial change in the banking and investment system will be enacted, due to the rapidly decreasing political attention that this matter is receiving, it is not likely that any sort of true reform will
SUPANOVA 14 1 4 be agreed upon by our current, highly partisan Congress. Even if it were, Americans have illustrated before that they are willing to sacrifice regulations and safety for the promise of greater earnings (eg. the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act). In the meantime, American consumers, still wary of how long the recovery might take, tightened their financial belts in order to fulfill the ironically selfish motive of hoarding money for a later date (rather than spend it and thereby improve the economic position of the United States). There are many parallels between this newfound sense of saving and that seen directly after the Great Depression. Even today, survivors of the Depression exercise a certain amount of frugality in their purchases, but, as noted before, our current situation has a much tamer and calmer feel to it than had that latter event. Without any real sense of loss, Americans have preemptively cut spending but are slowly loosening up as concerns about the economy recede. I would imagine that, as the media slowly winds down the frequency with which it reports upon the economy (seemingly indicating that stability has been attained), previous levels of consumer spending will be seen. Without an active source indicating that spending should be curbed, old ways of living will creep back into place as the economic crisis of the 2000s is forgotten. In short, all of that saving and worry will give way to traditional American consumerism. Eventually, this rise in consumption, coupled with greater bank liquidity and investment, will bring back natural levels of employment. Still, in the shorter-run picture, we will likely not see a return to previous levels of employment for a number of years. The process will be lengthy, but I believe that under the right circumstances the United States may be able to institute positive change as well as expedite a recovery. The first condition is that Congress stay mum concerning the economy: a quiet Congress is one that exudes confidence in that which it does not speak about. Simply direct attention away from the economy, allow economists to continue their spiels about “the end of the recession,” and eventually consumer spending and bank liquidity will return. In the meantime, Congress must quietly agree upon and pass acts of banking reformation that do not affect the consumer side of the system (which would risk exciting more concern) but focus on ensuring that banks keep a more careful eye on their investments and that there is a watchdog keeping a careful eye on the banks. Sadly, with the current hyper-partisan state of our Congress, as well as the fact that it lost interest in the economy just as the general public did, these changes are not likely to be forthcoming. Thus, while our situation is not as dire as it seemed but a year ago, the hardships are by no means over. Just as it seemed impossible for economists a few years ago to come to a consensus about whether or not we were entering a recession (and then convince people that we were), it is impossible to predict exactly where we will head in the next few years. If the past is any indication, our course is nowhere new: now at a low, our confidence in the system will rise until we blind ourselves to another quirk in system and face economic failure. Maybe, though, in time we will come to learn from our mistakes and take at least small positive steps in the direction of bettering our economic safety and well-being for good.
SUPANOVA 15 1 5 Works Cited
BBC News. "Citigroup Shares Jump on Bail-Out."
SUPANOVA 16 1 6 Sociology 101
SOC 101: Introduction to Sociology helps students examine human interaction in a wide range of situations, from the intimate family to the hostile mob; from organized crime to religious cults; and from the divisions of race, gender, and social class to the shared beliefs of a common culture. Students learn how to take a disciplined view of social inequality, discover the forces behind social change and resistance, and examine how social systems work. The two works that follow consider these factors as they relate to the coming out process for LGBT teens, Anti-Semitism in high schools, and the psychiatric community.
Sociology Final Exam
Lori Interlicchio T.R. Proctor Senior High School, Utica, NY Instructor- Mrs. Mullen
Sociology - Part I
C. Wright Mills believed that “Neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society can be understood without understanding both.” People need to look at society as a whole in order to solve their own problems. In his work, The Sociological Imagination, he discusses the difference between personal “troubles” and structural “issues.” Troubles are what an individual faces in his or her daily life. Issues are public matters that often involve crises in institutional arrangement. The coming out process for LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) teens, and the struggles they face with self-esteem, self-acceptance, and acceptance amongst peers is commonly seen as an individual trouble. In fact, this is a societal issue and should be seen as such. The number of LGBTs who share this trouble is large, making it a structural issue. I would like to explore the struggles commonly faced by LGBT teens in the coming out process. The process of coming out for LGBT teens is of particular interest to me because I have many friends who are going through or have gone through this process. I have seen friends and family members face discrimination and bias resulting in a loss of self-esteem. Many of my friends have met resistance in the process of coming out, and attributed it to either a problem with themselves, or the families and peers who don’t support them. I am the president of the Gay Straight Alliance and I believe that the way society treats LGBT teens affects their personal lives and the way they see themselves. I believe that the lack of LGBT rights and acceptance are huge societal issues that must be addressed and I hope that this type of research will give me a better understanding of this issue. I hope to contribute to ending this issue and consequently ending the personal troubles LGBT teens face as a result of it. I will research the American culture as a whole, specifically the last fifty years and the Civil Rights movement. I want to understand the process our society goes through before accepting a minority. I believe parallels can be made in black history. After looking at these characteristics of our society and our history, I will research more specifically the attitude towards LGBTs in America during this current time period.
SUPANOVA 17 1 7 I will interview as many LGBT teens who are either coming out or already out as I can. I plan to get a better understanding of how they view themselves and their personal situation. I have noticed that many of my friends who are LGBTs have gone through a stage of denial, and I would like to research that further. I believe it is caused by their fear of the process and how they will be treated. I am curious whether many of them consider the lack of acceptance they face to be a problem with society or a problem with their own personal lives. I want my interviews to help explain these personal troubles and the societal issue that may be causing them. I hope to gain a sociological imagination and relate my topic to “human nature.” While racism still exists today, I don’t believe it is as much of a structural issue as it was before the Civil Rights movement. I think this is the goal of the LGBT rights movement, and that if it is achieved, LGBT teens will no longer experience the personal troubles that black children used to face.
Sociology Part II – Literature Review
Over the past few decades, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) people have made great strides in society. However, today they are still one of the most frequently discriminated against groups of people in America. As the number of students “coming out” in high schools has increased, so has the amount of bullying and discrimination due to sexuality in schools. This often results in hopelessness, fear, and suicidal tendencies in LGBT youth.
“The Closet”
The society we live in is a straight society. Tony E. Adams refers to it as a “heteronormative” society. People have no need to come out as straight because the assumption is that one is “straight until proven gay.” This will force all gay people into their metaphorical “closets” over and over again in each new situation in which they encounter a new person who does not know that they are gay. Society pressures gays to “come out of the closet,” as it is seen as a huge accomplishment. Adams mentions being described as a “dishonest,” “self-hating,” “manipulative” “liar” in situations where he chose not to disclose his sexual identity (Adams, 236). To many, it’s considered the lie of omission. Walls et. al discusses ways for counselors to help keep LGBT youths safe from discrimination and abuse. It is stated that, “This is not to imply that social workers should discourage youths from coming out to their families, but rather that social workers have a role to play in helping the youths think through their particular life context as part of the discernment process in deciding to whom and at what point in time they disclose their sexual orientation.” (Walls, 28) In today’s society, coming out is seen as a right of passage for LGBT people of all ages.
Fear of Coming Out
Once a person “comes out,” they are seen differently. In a heteronormative society, homosexuality is considered a deviant behavior. LGBT people are often stigmatized. “A growing body of research supports the theory that negative experiences resulting from LGBT stigma can lead to chronic stress…” (Almeida, 1002). This creates fear for many in the process of coming out. Adams, who writes about “gay identity and sexuality,” told another
SUPANOVA 18 1 8 tenant in his building that he wrote about, “ways people talk about nature.” In future meetings, he feared coming out to her because, “the tenant may then hold [him] accountable not only for writing about topics that are potentially stigmatizing but also for telling a lie in [their] initial encounter” (Adams, 245). Walls writes that, “Social stigma associated with homosexuality and toward deviation from socially prescribed gender roles remains pervasive, particularly young people.” Many are afraid that they will not be accepted amongst their friends and family if they reveal who they truly are. Many LGBT teens are worried that coming out to their families may result in being kicked out of their homes and having to live on the street. Some people would actually put their child out on the street because they came out as LGBT. (Walls, 28)
Bullying and Danger
Statistics show the extreme relationship between LGBT identities and bullying in schools. Many LGBT student face, “victimization based on sexual identity, rejection by peers of family because of sexual orientation, internalized homophobia, fear of rejection and ridicule, and actual violence” (Walls, 22). Adams was afraid to come out to a particular “type” of man because, “they were the bullies in high school. They are the people [he] see[s] bash gays. They are the people that [he] find[s] most uncomfortable with same-sex desire.” He noted being scared of this man and feeling incredibly uncomfortable when the man had a razor on his neck to merely cut his hair. Adams was constantly afraid of how people would react if he told them he was gay (Adams, 242). LGBT teens are harassed more in school than straight kids, and even have a notably higher rate of truancy because they do not feel safe in school. Their property is often stolen from them, and “these studies strongly suggest that the social context in which LGBT youth are embedded is a hostile one” (Almeida, 1002).
Suicidality
Perhaps the most alarming statistics were those regarding suicide. Of 142 high school students asked, 57% of them strongly considered suicide at one point or another. Over 40% of the students interviewed had attempted suicide at least once in the past. 58% of the people interviewed admitted to feeling hopeless, 45% said they were victimized by their family, and 45% have been harassed at school at least once. Use of drugs and alcohol were also heavily reported amongst these teens (Walls, 24). Almeida believes that, “perceived discrimination could explain the association between LGBT status and emotional distress” (Almeida, 1004). What most of the studies showed was that in schools with Gay Straight Alliances (GSA) “were significantly less likely both to experience suicidality and to report suicide attempts (Walls, 24). Through evaluating both quantitative and qualitative research, patterns can be made between the discrimination that LGBT teens face, the emotional distress they experience as a result, and the fear many have of coming out of the closet. The common goal of these findings is to create a safer world for all LGBT people.
SUPANOVA 19 1 9 Sociology Part III – Data Analysis
Being a teenager is not easy. Teenagers worry about everything. They worry about school, the future, sports, home life, friends, relationships, bullying, sex, body image, drugs, and acne. Every teenager is stressed out by something, but some teenagers have a giant curveball thrown into the mix: sexuality. On top of every other normal teenage stress, some people have to worry about being LGBT. LGBT stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender. At first, most of these teens will keep this to themselves. They don’t want to be different and they fear the way people might react, so they don’t tell anyone. However, there comes a point where almost every one of them makes the decision to tell someone, or tell everyone. This may take a burden off of one’s shoulder, but then they are exposed to a whole new array of bullies who are “homophobic.” Homophobic people try to justify bullying people for their sexuality by saying that being LGBT is wrong, bad, and deviant. Most LGBT teens do not have an easy time in the closet, and definitely not while coming out of the closet. This is a study of LGBT teens in West Islip, and the “coming out” process. The point is to learn about the stress that being an LGBT teen and coming out puts on a person.
Methodology
I am the president of the Gay/Straight Alliance in my school; therefore, I know most of my school’s openly LGBT community. Some are not completely out of the closet yet, so I didn’t want to do a focus group because I feared it would be impersonal and not private. I did interviews because it gave people the opportunity to be honest, without feeling embarrassed in front of other people. I conducted these interviews privately and asked all of the participants the same eight questions. This was a qualitative approach because although I did not interview a massive amount of people, I got really accurate answers from the ones I did interview. I interviewed eight LGBT teens. Of those eight people, one graduated from high school, and one moved, but they all attended West Islip High School at some point. Five were biologically female, and three were biologically male. Of the people I interviewed, three were lesbians, two were bisexual, one was gay, one was FTM transgender, and one is pansexual. I interviewed some of them privately at GSA, but some I interviewed over the phone. The same eight questions that I asked all of the participants were: “What do you consider to be your sexuality?” “When did you realize that this was your sexuality?” “Are you ‘out’?” “Have you ever felt ashamed of your sexuality?” “Who was the first person you came out to and how old were you?” “How did coming out make you feel?” “Are you worried about how your sexuality might affect your future (college, marriage, job, etc.)?” “Have you ever felt depressed because of your sexuality?” and “How has it affected your mental health?” The answers to these questions gave me a lot of insight into what it would be like to be an LGBT teen growing up in West Islip. All of the data I found, I wrote down on separate sheets of paper, and I just reread them to make connections. I found that the method of interviewing was very effective, and that I found all of the data that I was looking for.
SUPANOVA 20 2 0 Data
I found some interesting patterns in this study. Out of the eight people that I studied, three of them said that the first person they came out to was a close friend. Two said a love interest, and two said a trusted family member. Many of them said they were not completely out. When I asked if they were “out,” only one person answered, “Yes.” There were several answers like, “to a select few people that I trust and my mom,” or “Yes, but not to my grandparents,” or “Not to the extreme public like on Facebook or anything.” Only one person didn’t have some exceptions. The FTM transgender student said that very few people know he’s transgender, but everyone sees him hit on girls and just assumes he’s a lesbian. Most people who weren’t “completely out,” were okay with that because the only people who didn’t know were people who saw them grow up and it would be awkward, or if everyone knew they feared for their safety. This was extremely apparent for the transgender person, who said he was, “fearful of what might happen to me in terms of like bullying if people did find out.” Five of the eight people realized their true sexuality between the ages of twelve and fifteen. Two realized much earlier. One said that in fifth grade she knew and she was positive by ninth. One said she knew since she was born. These two people also happen to be two of the most secure people I know when it comes to their sexuality. I find that people who don’t realize until adolescence seem to have a more difficult time dealing with it. When I asked if they had ever felt ashamed of their sexuality, the answers varied. Four said yes and four said no. Some of the people who said yes said that they felt that the feelings they had about the same sex felt wrong. One girl said, “Yes I think even the most reasonable and proud person feels ashamed sometimes. It’s hard not to feel the pressure to be ‘normal’ especially when your religion isn’t on board with you.” The people who said no all told me the same thing. They all felt the need to say what they did feel rather than ashamed was afraid of how society would react. One young man said, “[No,] not ashamed, more held back because of stigmas within our community.” Another said, “I never feel ashamed. I feel like it’s a real bitch to live with sometimes because of the hate I get sometimes, but I try to let it roll off my shoulder.” They all seemed to understand a correlation that I didn’t at first. There were a lot of answers about fear when I asked a question about shame. What I learned from this is that the shame that the people who did feel ashamed felt was probably not because they thought being LGBT was wrong on a moral level, but because society did. Society made these people believe that what they were doing was bad, and the people who didn’t feel ashamed were just better at resisting this pressure by society. Four of the people claimed that it felt great to come out. They used words like, “liberating,” “revitalizing,” “relieving,” “amazing,” and “naturally high.” The transgendered person said, “It was a relief, but also a little frustrating,” because it’s not something that people understand at first and she has to explain it a lot. The three others were conflicted. They were relieved and scared at the same time. The future is scary for everyone, but being LGBT makes it more complicated. I plan to go away to college, join the military, get married, and have a great career. For the entire LGBT community, it’s not that simple. I asked the participants if they were afraid of how their sexuality would affect their future (college, job, marriage), and three of them did. Five said that they wouldn’t let it, but none of them really had it all figured out. One girl who is already in college said, “Not at all, I live in the present. Marriage might be the only tough thing to face. […] I wonder how I’ll have kids, but I’m not worried about it.” A young male also felt
SUPANOVA 21 2 1 optimistic. He wants to use it to his advantage to help him get into a college that’s looking for diversity. One said, “I don’t think it will have the slightest effect. I’m [his name] first, gay second. It’s not everything that I am and it doesn’t define me as a person.” On the contrary, the three that worry about their futures get really stressed about it. One girl who plans to join the Army says, “I know it’s now accepted, but the fact is […] I’d rather ride it [stay in the closet] than deal with all the negative talk.” The transgender boy fears that living in a girls’ dorm in college will be difficult because he won’t be able to come out to his roommate. He wouldn’t want to make his roommate feel uncomfortable. All teenagers get stressed, but for some LGBT teens it’s so bad that they get depressed over it. Six of the eight people interviewed said that their sexuality made them feel depressed or it affected their mental health. One talked about problems with anxiety and self-mutilation, and two talked about counseling/therapy. One boy said it felt, “isolating” at times to be gay, and several said that they felt more comfortable over time. The fact that 75% of the people interviewed said yes is alarming and must be addressed.
Discussion
I think these results were alarming, but important, and I think this study should be extended. I found that a lot of the data I collected fit right in with my literature review. The fear that the participants all had of coming out is related to “Emotional Distress Among LGBT Youth: The Influence of Perceived Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation,” (Almeida) and “Paradoxes of Sexuality, Gay Identity, and the Closet” (Adams). The depression and mental health problems that many of them face as a result of their sexuality and coming out, is demonstrated in, “Suicidal Ideation and Attempts among Sexual Minority Youths Receiving Social Services” (Walls). I knew what to expect from this study because of these articles and they were very accurate. The answers I received were very personal and I believe they all answered the questions well. If I were to conduct the study again, I would do interviews again because I don’t think I would’ve gotten as personal answers if it weren’t private. However, I would probably add some questions such as, “Did you seek guidance from the LGBT community or a Gay/Straight Alliance during your coming out process?” and “Do you plan to eventually come out to the people who don’t currently know about your sexuality?” Overall, I’ve found this study to be incredibly successful and to have helped me achieve my purpose of learning more about the stresses related to being an LGBT teen and coming out in West Islip High School.
Works Cited
Adams, Tony. “Paradoxes of Sexuality, Gay Identity, and the Closet.” Symbolic Interaction. 33.2 (2010): 234-256. Print. Almeida, Joanna, Renee Johnson, Heather Corliss, Beth Molnar, and Deboral Azrael. “Emotional Distress Among LGBT Youth: The Influence of Perceived Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation.” Youth Adolescence (2009): 1001-1014. Web. 18 Dec 2010. Walls, Eugene, Stacey Freedenthal, and Hope Wisneski. “Suicidal Ideation and Attempts among Sexual Minority Youths Receiving Social Services.” Social Work. 53.1 (2008): 21-29. Print.
SUPANOVA 22 2 2 Sociology 101 Inspired Artwork
Zehida Velic T.R. Proctor Senior High School, Utica, NY Instructor- Mrs. Mullen
SUPANOVA 23 2 3 Public Affairs 101
PAF 101: Introduction to the Analysis of Public Policy is designed to help students gain an understanding of public policy and develop the social science skills necessary to define and identify its components. Students use graphs, tables, and statistics to analyze and communicate their ideas. Ultimately, students identify a social problem and propose a policy to deal with it by defending the costs and outlining the expected benefits. The following work exemplifies how a student did just that when helping one town consider the efficacies of keeping their own Emergency Management Services and increasing taxes or to replace it with a private emergency medical service
Emergency Medical Services Taxing District Assessment – The Town of Rotterdam
Class Project Schalmont High School, Schenectady, NY Instructor- Mrs. Ryder
Executive Summary
Introduction
This study reports information gathered through a survey conducted for the Town of Rotterdam. The study will assist the Town of Rotterdam to better understand the community’s view about the establishment of a new taxing district for emergency medical services for the town. The Town of Rotterdam will use this information to determine the possible outcome of the public referendum regarding emergency medical services on December 14, 2010.
Methods
The target population consists of all residents in the Town of Rotterdam who are 18 years or older. The sampling size included 350 people. The respondents were asked face-to- face if they would like to fill out the survey. A total of 445 responses were collected out of the possible 21,774 residents, which represents 2% of the entire population.
Findings
Of the 445 residents that completed this survey:
1. 58% were not in favor of the creation of a new taxing district. 2. 74% did not want a tax increase. 3. 55% were unaware of the referendum. 4. 64% made zero ambulance calls in the past five years. 5. 91% had health insurance. 6. 9 % of the people polled own a business in Rotterdam.
SUPANOVA 24 2 4 Introduction
This study reports information gathered through a survey conducted for the Town of Rotterdam. The study will assist the Town of Rotterdam to better understand the community’s view about the establishment of a new taxing district for emergency medical services for the town. The Town of Rotterdam currently uses Rotterdam Emergency Medical Services (REMS). The problem that the Town is facing is whether to keep REMS and increase taxes or to replace REMS with Mohawk Ambulance Service, a private emergency medical service. The Town of Rotterdam will use this report to determine how many people in the community are aware of the issue that the Town is facing. The Town also will use this report to ascertain property owners’ attitudes about the establishment of a taxing district, so that they can determine how it will impact their vote at the public referendum on December 14, 2010.
Methods - How Data Was Collected
Instrument Design
The survey was designed by students from Syracuse University Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. The factual questions were based off of information from the 2000 U.S. Census data and the attitudinal questions were based off of the information given by the Town of Rotterdam. No pilot testing was performed.
Target Population and Sample
The target population consists of all residents in the Town of Rotterdam who are 18 years or older, approximately 21,774 people. The sampling size included 350 people. The respondents were selected by the students who were at several local polling places in the Town of Rotterdam on Election Day, November 2nd, 2010, and the respondents were asked face-to-face if they would like to fill out the survey. A total of 445 responses were collected out of the possible 21,774 residents, which represents 2% of the entire population.
Method of Contact
The respondents were chosen by a non-random cluster sampling. These surveys were distributed outside of local polling places in Rotterdam, New York. The places include Mohonasen High School, Our Lady Queen of Peace church, Pattersonville Volunteer Fire Department, Rotterdam Junction Fire district, Rotterdam Senior Center, Rotterdam Town Hall, Rotterdam Volunteer Fire Department district 2, Schalmont High School, Schonowe Fire Department, South Schenectady Fire Department, and St. Gabriel’s Church. These surveys were hand delivered from the time 2:15 pm to 9:00 pm. The face-to-face method was chosen because of its high response rate.
Quality of Data
The sample population appears to be representative of the target population. The percentages received from the survey closely match the percentages taken from the 2000
SUPANOVA 25 2 5 U.S. Census. Some of the respondents failed to answer each question, or chose multiple answers when intended to choose only one. As such, percentages for gender and income come to slightly less than 100 percent. The survey as a whole was not affected negatively due to these minor setbacks. When comparing the target population to the sample population, all three key variables (sex, age and income) matched up very well. For example, the 2000 Census reported that, within the population of the Town of Rotterdam over the age of 18, 53% were female and 47% were male. The survey reported similar results, with 52% female and 44% male. For income, the numbers were accurate, falling within the allowed 5% margin of error with one exception ($15,000-$24,999). Many people surveyed were confused as to whether Income referred to personal or household income, which may have contributed to the why the income variable is over represented. Several surveys had write-ins, for example, two respondents surveyed wrote in their zip code as “12304” and one wrote their income as “Retired”. When conducting a survey in the future, we recommend that more space is put in between questions so that it is more legible for respondents, lessening the chances of skipped questions.
Quality of Data: Percentages of Target and Sample Population for Variables Gender Target Population % of Target % of Sample Difference (Total=430) Population Population Male 10,221 47% 44% 3% Female 11,553 53% 52% 1%
Age Target % of Target % of Sample Difference (Total=438) Population Population Population 18-19 511 2% 2% 0% 20-24 1,134 5% 4% 1% 25-34 3,273 15% 14% 1% 35-44 4,636 21% 18% 3% 45-54 4,015 18% 27% 9%* 55-59 1,580 7% 12% 5% 60-64 1,220 6% 10% 4% 65-74 2,773 13% 8% 5% 75-84 2,056 9% 4% 5% 85+ 576 3% 0.5% 2.5%
Income Target % of Target % of Sample Difference (Total=410) Population Population Population Less than 636 6% 5% 1%
SUPANOVA 26 2 6 $10,000 $10,000- 574 5% 2% 3% $14,999 $15,000- 1,479 13% 7% 6%* $24,999 $25,000- 1,340 12% 8% 4% $34,999 $35,000- 2,133 18% 17% 1% $49,999 $50,000- 2,939 25% 27% 2% $74,999 $75,000- 1,375 12% 11% 1% $99,999 $100,000- 846 7% 11% 4% $149,000 $150,000- 99 1% 2% 1% $199,999 $200,000+ 3 1% 1% 0%
*Indicates an over representation of the variable for the sample amount
Findings
A lot of useful information was retrieved from the 445 residents of the Town of Rotterdam who completed this survey. Of the people surveyed, 44% were male and 52% were female. The majority of the participants were between the ages of 45 and 54; they represented 27% of the sample population. The second largest group was between the ages of 35 and 44, representing 18% of the sample population. A three-quarter majority of the people lived in the 12306 area code. Participants were first asked if they owned property in the Town of Rotterdam. 82% of the sample said yes. There were a select few who listed owning multiple properties in the town. One alarming piece of information gathered by this survey was the fact that 55% of participants were unaware that this public referendum was going to be taking place. It was interesting to see that 64% of people had made zero ambulance calls in the past five years. When asked about health care, 91% of the people had it and only 6% did not. One of the most significant questions in the survey had to do with peoples’ opinion on the new ambulance tax district. It was found that 58% of people were not in favor of the creation of the tax district and 38% were in favor. When asked the reason why they were not
SUPANOVA 27 2 7 in favor, 74% responded that they did not want a tax increase. Other responses included that they already had health insurance or they felt too uninformed or indifferent. Others went on to say that they felt Rotterdam was nice enough without the tax district in place. Some just simply stated that they wanted Mohawk to be the provider for Rotterdam.
Figure 1: Are You In Favor Of a New Ambulance Tax District?
70% 58% 60%
50% 38% 40%
Percent 30%
20%
10%
0% Yes No Response
Source: Data collected for the Rotterdam Town Board by Syracuse University Maxwell School, Syracuse University, November 2010.
Figure 2: Why Are You Not In Favor Of The Tax District?
80% 74% 70% 60% 50% 40% 33%
Percent 30% 20% 10% 10% 0% Health Insurance Tax Increase Other Response
SUPANOVA 28 2 8
Source: Data collected for the Rotterdam Town Board by Syracuse University Maxwell School, Syracuse University, November 2010.
Comment: Some participants chose more than one of these options when completing the survey.
Figure 3: Are You Aware of The Referendum? 60% 55%
50% 40% 40%
30% Percent 20%
10%
0% Yes No Response
Source: Data collected for the Rotterdam Town Board by Syracuse University Maxwell School, Syracuse University, November 2010.
Figure 4: How Many Ambulance Calls Have You Made in The Past 5 Years?
70% 64% 60% 50% 40% 30% 24% Percent 20% 10% 4% 3% 0% 0 1 to 2 3 to 4 5+ Calls
SUPANOVA 29 2 9 Source: Data collected for the Rotterdam Town Board by Syracuse University Maxwell School, Syracuse University, November 2010.
Figure 5: Do You Have Health Insurance? 100% 91%
80%
60%
Percent 40%
20% 6% 0% Yes No Response
Source: Data collected for the Rotterdam Town Board by Syracuse University Maxwell School, Syracuse University, November 2010.
Figure 6: Are You A Business Owner In The Town Of Ro erdam?
100% 91%
80%
60%
Percent 40%
20% 9%
0% Yes No Response
Source: Data collected for the Rotterdam Town Board by Syracuse University Maxwell School, Syracuse University, November 2010.
SUPANOVA 30 3 0 Appendices Table of Contents Appendices I (1) Tax District Poll………………………………………………………………………………..…..Page 15 Appendices II (1-4) Statistics and Data Frequencies from each question on Tax District Poll…………………………………………………………………………………………..…Page 16-18 Includes: a. Target Size b. Sample Size c. Category d. Percentage of Target e. Sub-Category f. Number of People g. Percentage of Sample h. Answers to open-ended questions from Poll
SUPANOVA 31 3 1 Appendices I- 1
Syracuse University Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs is compiling this survey for the Town of Rotterdam. The purpose of the survey is to evaluate the public’s opinion of the establishment of a new taxing district for emergency medical services for the town and to see how often residents utilize the town’s current ambulance service. To help us better serve our community, we ask you to take a few moments and complete this survey. Thank you for your time and participation.
Section One: Community Member Profile
Sex: Male ___ Female ___
Age: 18-19 ___ 20-24 ___ 25-34 ___ 35-44 ___ 45-54 ___ 55-59 ___ 60-64 ___ 65-74 ___
75-84 ___ 85+ ___
Income: Less than $10,000 ___ $10,000-$14,999 ___ $15,000-$24,999 ___ $25,000-
$34,999 ___
$35,000-$49,999 ___ $50,000-$74,999 ___ $75,000-$99,999 ___ $100,000-
$149,999 ___
$150,000-$199,999 ___ $200,000+ ___
What is your zip code? 12150 ___ 12137 ___ 12303 ___ 12306 ___ 12308 ___
Section Two: Resident’s Opinion
Do you own property in the Town of Rotterdam? Yes ___ No ___
SUPANOVA 32 3 2 Do you own a business in the Town of Rotterdam? Yes ___ No ___
If you own multiple properties within the Town of Rotterdam, how
many? ______
Are you aware of the referendum on December 14th, 2010 that will
create a new ambulance tax district? Yes ___ No ___
How many calls have you made for an ambulance service within the
past five years?
0 ___ 1-2 ___ 3-4 ___ 5+ ___
Do you have health insurance? Yes ___ No ___
Are you in favor of the establishment of a new ambulance taxing
district in the Town of Rotterdam?
Yes___ No___
If no, why? I have health insurance ___ I do not want a tax increase ___ Other
(specify below)
______
SUPANOVA 33 3 3 Appendices II- 1
Target- 21,744 people Sample Group- 445 people (2.04%) Category Percent of Sub-Category Number Percent of Target of People Sample Gender 47% Male 198 44% 53% Female 232 52% Age 2% 18-19 9 2% 5% 20-24 19 4% 15% 25-34 62 14% 21% 35-44 79 18% 18% 45-54 118 *27% 7% 55-59 52 12% 6% 60-64 45 10% 13% 65-74 34 8% 9% 75-84 18 4% 3% 85+ 2 .5% Income 6% Less than 22 5% $10,000 5% $10,000- 10 2% $14,999 13% $15,000- 33 *7% $24,999 12% $25,000- 35 8% $34,999 18% $35,000- 77 17% $49,999 25% $50,000- 121 27% $74,999 12% $75,000- 50 11% $99,999 7% $100,000- 47 11% $149,999 1% $150,000- 11 2% $199,999 1% $200,000 or 3 1% more *Sample percentages are ±5% different than target percentages Zip Code 12150 16 4% 12137 10 2% 12303 75 17%
SUPANOVA 34 3 Appendices4 II- 2
12304 2 .5% 12306 322 75% 12308 0 0% Do you own property in the town of Rotterdam? yes 366 82% no 77 17% Do you own multiple properties in Rotterdam? (open-ended response) Two 20 Three 4 Four 1 Five 1 Twenty 1 Do you own a business in the town of Rotterdam? yes 38 9% no 405 91% How many calls have you made to an ambulance in the past five years? 0 287 64% 1-2 109 24% 3-4 16 4% 5+ 12 3% Do you have health insurance? yes 404 91% no 26 6% Are you aware of the referendum for a new ambulance taxing district? yes 176 40% no 243 55% Are you in favor of the establishment of a new ambulance taxing district in the Town of Rotterdam? yes 169 38% no 257 58% If no, why? Percentages from “no” answers only: I have health 84 33% insurance
SUPANOVA 35 3 5 Appendices II- 3
I do not want a tax 191 74% increase Other 25 10% Open ended responses: In support of REMS-- I feel volunteers are more sensitive and caring than paid employees. Same one they have now. (2) What we already have works fine. Happy with REMS. I prefer to keep Rotterdam Emergency. Feeling too uninformed to have an opinion, or indifferent-- Don’t know. (2) Need more info. (3) Not enough info on the subject. Haven’t evaluated pros/cons yet. Need more info to make a decision. Knew nothing about it. I would need to review information before I decide. Not aware of specifies. Don’t know enough to have an opinion. Undecided. Not sure. Not informed enough to make a decision. Not enough info. More details needed. Against the formation of a new taxing district (on a financial basis)-- We need to consolidate resources: families are financially hurting. Just what we need, another taxing authority. I WILL VOTE NO!!! No more taxes for anything. I think there are enough taxes being paid in the state of NY. Enough is enough. People who use a service should pay for it, not all residents. I don’t want to pay for other people to use a service that I might not. Cost. I am a cop; and I know that cops as well as our firefighters can handle these calls. No more taxes! No more taxes! I can’t afford to live here already. Too many taxes! Taxes are too high already. Fixed income things are hard enough to juggle to pay bills. Too high of price for service already provided. Against the formation of a new taxing district (on the basis that it is unnecessary)-- No need, Rotterdam is a nice place to live. Don’t need it. The Town should hire its own paramedics.
SUPANOVA 36 3 Appendices6 II- 4
No need. In support of Mohawk-- Use private service. Private ambulance. I want Mohawk. Uncomfortable with REMS as is-- REMS personnel should have certification to administer appropriate emergency medications. Opinions regarding Joe Vander Werker-- Joe Vander Werker is a horse’s patoody.
SUPANOVA 37 3 7
Honorable Mention Essays English and Textual Studies 142
ETS 142: Narratives of Culture—Introduction to Issues of Critical Reading is a course that foregrounds and interrogates interpretive practice, stressing less what we read than how we read. These two essays, which have earned an “honorable mention,” both emerge out of the “Subjectivity” unit of ETS 142 and share a similar project, a textual analysis examining the “self” as an effect of culture. Both student writers exemplify the speculative spirit of the course in their animated questioning of the cultural norms and representational practices shaping our reception of the monstrous and the celebrated. They also illustrate the challenges and difficulties of working with theoretically complex readings and abstract concepts.
Intellectual Power
Jasmine Ramos-Ortiz Memorial High School, West New York, NJ Instructor- Ms. Gomez
Student Comments: My name is Jasmine Ramos-Ortiz and I went to Memorial High School in West New York, New Jersey. I am currently attending Ramapo College of New Jersey. The Syracuse University classes only began to be offered at my school when I was a senior. I had to take advantage because being able to get college credits in high school is an advantage over other freshmen going to college with no credits. The classes I took were WRT 105 and ETS 142. These classes help students understand what is expected of them in college. They helped me realize that everything I knew about reading and writing was nothing compared to what I should have learned. I learned to question everything and try to find answers. This was one of my final papers for ETS 142 and I had a great time writing it because I was so interested in the topic. This is one of the best papers I have ever written and there is still room for improvement. I had a great teacher. Thank you, Mrs. Gomez.
The brain is one of the most vital organs of the body. The brain is what controls all body functions from our memory to thinking to breathing. The brain is such a major organ but we only know many basics about it. No brain is the same and that would mean that no one thinks or develops the same. It is estimated that we only use 20% of our brain not reaching the full potential that we could. This makes one wonder if the environment affects the development of the brain or are the learning habits one has already set in stone by the DNA and genes we are given? Can the brain characterize if you will be a criminal, a person of power, a good/bad person or even a good/bad thinker? Or do we learn things like this? In real examples, like the movie Frankenstein we are forced to question just how much of the brain we know. In the essay "Panopticism," by Michel Foucault, we are given this theory on how people of power have control over others. This theory being called Panopticism, is explained to be a hierarchy of people in power and everyone else below them. The people with a high-class stature would have some power while everyone else would do as they say. In the movie Frankenstein, Dr. Henry Frankenstein creates a monster as an
SUPANOVA 38 3 8 experiment. He dug up a corpse and made a body then his assistant Fritz stole a brain. He was successful with this experiment and said he now knows what it feels like to be god. He had brought the dead back to life and in his mind creation was the ultimate power but with creation comes destruction. Dr. Waldman was Dr. Frankenstein's professor in college and witnessed this creation but notified Frankenstein that the brain stolen from his classroom was the brain of a criminal. Dr. Frankenstein said that the monster's brain would need time to develop. In the first days the monster learned how to listen to basic commands like come or sit. The monster cannot be discovered so they keep him in the dark broken windmill. The first time the monster is shown light from outside he reaches up yearning for something as if he needs the sun or wants it. Fritz shows the monster fire, which he is highly afraid of because he has a negative reaction to it. The monster gets tense, pushes everyone away and wants to be nowhere near it. This is the first time the monster shows just how powerful he can be. They feel as though they must take control so they beat the monster and tie him up in the dungeon. In the Panopticon everyone has certain jobs and if these jobs are not fulfilled correctly, there will be punishment. Panopticism can be applied to anything like the way the government is run, the school systems, or the jobs people have. The best example that Foucault used to describe the theory of Panopticism was the prison systems because it shows how the theory evolved, from a town of castle structures trying to contain a plague to a simple panopticon watching everything that goes on in modern prisons. Even though the monster was an experiment he was always being watched by Dr. Frankenstein, Dr. Waldman, or Fritz. They believed they had the control over him because they created him and were more intelligent than he. However, by trying to keep him from the town's people they kept him in captivity to be watched. In prison systems, the inmates are constantly being watched by guards in the panopticon. The panopticon is just a control center that has cameras all in the building and someone is constantly in it paying attention. The inmates are fully aware that they are being watched. Foucault states, "He who is subjected to a field of visibility, and who knows it, assumes responsibility for the constraints of power; he makes them play spontaneously upon himself; he inscribes in himself the power relation in which he plays both roles; he becomes the principle of his own subjection."1 By being watched, the inmates begin to act and behave good/bad but they know if they act out they will be punished. If someone in the panopticon has all the power over the inmates, then the inmates start to mess with their own heads. If one changes how they think or act then they would be changing themselves. It also does not matter who is in the panopticon because they cannot see them but the thought is subconsciously in the minds of all the inmates creating all sorts of emotions like fear or anger. The inmates start to accept that they are in prison for whatever they have done and instead of the prison entrapping them they begin to entrap themselves in their own heads and accept there is no way out. The monster was put into his own type of prison system because he was thought to be bad. Could the use of the panoptic be the reason the monster acted out? Something set the monster off and made him want to escape the constraints. Foucault also states "He is seen, but he does not see; he is the object of information, never a subject in communication."2 First of all, in the whole movie the monster does not say
1 Pg 218 2 Pg 214
SUPANOVA 39 3 9 one word. The brain was not able to understand language enough to be able to give back verbal responses. The monster instead uses gestures and sound to communicate. The reason Dr. Frankenstein created him was for experimental purposes only. He wanted to see how long the monster could live when being brought back from being dead. The monster was the object of information and with that, he was only important for those purposes. The monster being hidden didn't allow him to see or grow. No one knows what could have become of the monster if he was actually given a chance under some normal living circumstances like being taught, getting to roam around, and to learn from any mistakes made. From the monster's perspective we must question how much he really knows and understands. The monster was not given a choice on coming back to life on earth. Dr. Frankenstein messed up in planting the monster with a damaged brain. Does this make the monster dangerous, or was it the conditions he was put through in the first couple days of life? Frankenstein said it himself the brain must develop, but in the first days the monster was in nothing but darkness, scared, abused and locked up. If the average child was put through these same conditions chances are they would become angry and anger could lead to criminal ways. The monster was doing fine in the beginning when he was learning the basic commands. When Dr. Waldman notified Dr. Frankenstein about the criminal brain they all created preconceived notions about the monster being bad. When the monster acted out, it scared them and they had to overpower him before he did them. With this, they made the monster vicious. One must also take into account the state of the brain. Dr. Frankenstein was confident in the brain until told it was damaged. He stated that it was just a mass of dead tissue anyway. However, if it is dead tissue and given life does that mean that the knowledge that brain had during its first lifetime is passed on to life after death? If so, then the monster had all the tools to become a criminal because of the previous life the brain led, but he didn't know how to use those instincts. The intimidation and control that Fritz showed with the fire could have easily set off these traits in the brain. If this was not because of the already tainted brain it could have been an animalistic reaction. Almost all humans have natural reactions especially to things like fire. For example, when a person gets burnt on a stove the reaction to fire is sent to the brain so fast it is almost like a reflex and pain is not felt. The interpretation of the monster's reaction to that flame that Dr. Frankenstein, Dr. Waldman, and Fritz had, could have easily been wrong. With this anger that was created because of being abused the monster does start to realize the power he wields. Fritz was the main person antagonizing and persisting with the abusing even when told to leave the poor monster alone by Dr. Frankenstein. Fritz is the first one killed by the monster because of this. The monster may have pushed away as the first reaction to the fire but learns more about how to be abusive through his abusers. With this knowledge he becomes even more aggressive and later in the movie also kills Dr. Waldman before he tried to dissect the monster. When both were out of the way the monster was free to roam the town. The most captivating scene of the movie is when he finds a little girl by a river. Her name is Maria and her innocence does not make her afraid of the monster. She approaches him with no fear and asks him to play with her. He follows her close by the river where she plucks flowers and says she can make them float like boats. Maria would throw a flower then he would. He was so happy in this scene he giggled. When he runs out of flowers he then throws her into the river to see if she can float. The little girl screams and pleads for the
SUPANOVA 40 4 0 monster not to but he still does and she continues to scream. By the time the monster realized she needed help he went to look but didn't find any. This scene shows how undeveloped his brain functions are and the authority he has but does not know how to use properly. The little girl taught him how to throw and he learned that the flowers could float. He just mimicked exactly what he learned proving the brain has the capacity to learn but also can mimic and be influenced. We find out later that the little girl drowned. The difference with this death is that the girl did nothing to the monster. It was a genuine accident. The monster showed some sign of wanting to be good because he has desire to find help. He understood he made a mistake. In the end, the monster takes away three lives showing ultimate power. It is ironic because he was given life back but goes around taking so much away. The monster is big and strong but when someone scares him or angers him he will react in the ways that he knows and learned. His brain processes very little information. In the movie, he learns very little because everything he does is mostly mimicked from someone else who did it. It is not clear if the tainted brain really made him the monster or if the people and his environment created the monster. He was never given a chance to show how the brain would function because the circumstances he was brought into were never in his favor. Maybe if the conditions were as though he were just re-born and had the mind of a baby, they could teach him the basics like to eat, read, communicate and so on. Develop the brain some so the monster is not in the dark and if the outcome was still the same then they would have answers. Then the experiment would have been more successful.
SUPANOVA 41 4 1 I’m Still Here: Studying the questions of subjectivity that arose from “The Lost Years” of Joaquin Phoenix
Cameron Charlton Berkley High School, Berkley, MI Instructor- Mr. Duffy
Student Comments: I took Project Advance WRT105 and ETS142 at Berkley High School, in Berkley, Michigan. I found it to be an insightful course that not only taught me skills in writing and literary theory but also introduced me to new ways of thinking that allowed me to shift my whole perception of the world around me. In taking this course, I developed critical thinking skills that have enriched my life and helped me to further fulfill my potential as a thinker and world citizen. I will be studying English and Politics at the University of York, England in the autumn where I hope to continue developing my love of literature and skills as a writer.
To the viewers of his films, popular Puerto Rican-born actor Joaquin Phoenix is a definitive modern gentleman. He maintains a clean-cut look that complements his healthy physique both on and off the big screen. Phoenix made his name starring in popular roles such as Commodus in the 2000 blockbuster Gladiator and Johnny Cash in the academy award winning 2005 biopic Walk The Line. A majority of the characters that Phoenix played shared insecure personalities, often with a dark flair that proved to be dangerous later in the film. As Johnny Cash, for example, Phoenix portrayed the musician as a man who never fully came to terms with the death of his older brother at a young age nor could properly handle the pressures put on him as a young adult by his father and his failing marriage. These insecurities came out later in alcoholism and drug abuse. Although this character bore minimal resemblance to the actor and his life, critics and the film-savvy public began to treat Phoenix as if it did. To corroborate with this, some of the most documented narratives of his life were his very brief rehab stay for alcoholism in 2005 and a mysterious car crash in August 2006 that involved German film director Werner Herzog. Whether he liked it or not, to many of the people with whom he was interacting, Joaquin Phoenix was fast becoming this very specific subject: the strong male figure that had his insecure sides and vices. In 2008, however, Phoenix very suddenly called this subject position into question. After the premiere of his film Two Lovers, Phoenix announced his retirement from acting in order to pursue a career in hip hop music. This career shift and subsequent search for self became the topic of the 2010 documentary I’m Still Here. Early on, this film presents a monologue by Joaquin Phoenix, newly bearded and looking uncharacteristically unkempt. In this startling introduction, Phoenix states his dilemma and outlines his intentions to overturn his current subject position as it has been created. According to Phoenix: “I am stuck in this fucking self-imposed characterization… I don’t want play the part of Joaquin anymore. I want to be whatever I am”. In this moment, Phoenix is experiencing what French Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser named interpellation. Interpellation is defined as the operation of alerting an individual to his or her socially constructed subject position. It is the moment when the individual (in this case Joaquin Phoenix) understands his or her subjectivity with painful clarity. In this bout of interpellation, Phoenix must choose whether he will remain within the subject position that has been created around him, or whether he will reject it and attempt to change the way that others perceive him. There is, however, no way to ignore his
SUPANOVA 42 4 2 current subject. Phoenix’s only agency here is to either act in a way that corroborates with his subject position, or not. As the film presents, Phoenix chooses to reject his original subject position and create a new one. As he states: “My artistic output up until this point has been fraudulent. Now for the first time I am doing something that really represents me.” And to Joaquin Phoenix, this “thing that really represents him” isn’t acting; it is hip-hop. This surprising subject position shift introduces Phoenix in a new role: that of the trickster. The “trickster” is defined in Lori Landay’s essay “Commodification and the Lucy Phenomenon” as “a subversive, paradoxical fantasy figure who does what we cannot or dare not by moving between social spaces, roles, and categories that the culture has deemed oppositional” (Landay 26). In I’m Still Here, Phoenix fits inside this description very well. As soon as he announced his retirement from the film industry, Phoenix was met with many interview requests probing his reason for throwing away his profitable acting career to make a hip hop record of questionable sincerity. Phoenix showed his attitude change by acting rather oppositional and ignoring of all of these requests. Phoenix also adopted a lifestyle characterized by activities that those in the context in which he existed dare not; activities such as snorting cocaine and hiring prostitutes. These scenes display Phoenix’s complete transformation from his older subject position of a clean cut, hard but still emotional film star to his new subject: the drug taking and self destructive failing hip hop artist named “JP”. What Phoenix has done here isn’t only a subject position shift, it is a complete subversion. Phoenix fully utilized his agency and turned the culturally accepted and respected Joaquin Phoenix on its head and in the process created the culturally oppositional trickster named JP. This transition, however, proved to not be as smooth as Phoenix had originally hoped. At his first gig, the crowd pressured JP with much “judging” and he was left embarrassed and disheartened. After storming out of the bar in a huff, JP proceeded to free-style rap for his friend who praised his flow. But according to JP, “you felt it, they didn’t, because they were preconceived”. Much to his chagrin, JP was being viewed with the context, or frame of meaning, that his old film star alias created around him. This also proved to be problematic as JP looked to publish his hip-hop work. The only producer who agreed to hear his music was Sean “Puff Daddy” Combs. After traveling coast to coast and being blown off several times, JP and his team finally were booked to record with Puff Daddy in the studio. After hearing portions of a few songs and interrogating JP about finances, Puff effectively shrugged JP off as a joke. Here, like the large majority of subversive figures, or tricksters, JP has become a “dupe”. Because no one apart from his immediate friends take his career shift as anything but a joke, JP functions as nothing but a source of comedy. He has no power to act in a way that pleases him without running into the opposition created by social and personal historical context. The height of JP’s role of the dupe, the parody of his free spirit, was his infamous appearance on The David Letterman Show on February 11th, 2009. This harsh interview boosted Phoenix’s position of the dupe to the mainstream. When explaining to Letterman that he was working on a hip-hop record, the live audience burst into laughter. This was another moment of interpellation for Phoenix. For in this moment, he saw that he could not fully subvert the subject position of Joaquin Phoenix in favor of JP. Try as he might, he will always be hounded by the context of being a white, middle aged, retired movie actor. His attempts at being a rapper are nothing but a joke to everyone observing. Even with his attempts at subverting the authority that his older context placed on him, the only thing that was accomplished was the reinforcement of said authority.
SUPANOVA 43 4 3 Weeks after I’m Still Here was given a limited release in the United States, director Casey Affleck admitted to its falsity. Most of Phoenix’s three-year life as the character of JP was scripted in the hopes to create a documentary exploring the role of celebrity and the relationship between the media, consumers and celebrities. This, however, doesn’t mean that Phoenix’s transformation into a hip-hop artist was a joke. It was simply a creative and, in my opinion, effective method of carrying out and presenting research on a prominent phenomena in contemporary life. Hip-hop ambitions aside, the opening mantra still holds true. For possibly the first time in his professional life, Joaquin Phoenix was not playing the part of Joaquin Phoenix anymore. And although whether or not JP was more of the “real” Phoenix or not is debatable, this attempted subversion of power proved to be one of the best explorations of subjectivity, subversion of power and the role of the trickster/dupe in modern times. Even the film itself and the reactions it received work to show these sorts of interactions. Its attempts at subverting the authority of celebrity as a dictator of culture failed horribly. As of December 2010, it only reported revenue of $553,130 and it received, at best, lukewarm reviews. Quite ironically, the movie itself followed the traditional path of the trickster turned dupe. The main reason for I’m Still Here taking on the unfortunate role of the dupe is that, in the context of the contemporary world, the film is horribly unappealing to most consumers. In the context of 2010, a film, claiming to be true, but admitting to being false, that worked to expose the ridiculous nature of celebrity culture and how impossible it is to subvert cultural authority, didn’t draw the masses like the fashionably abstract blockbusters along the lines of Inception or Black Swan. I’m Still Here failed in very much same way that The Great Gatsby did at the time of its publishing. Because Fitzgerald’s masterpiece worked to exploit the lives of the lives of those with the most power in ways that the masses felt were uncomfortable, the now quintessential American novel was viewed as unappealing in its original context. Today, however, it is because of this exploitation that The Great Gatsby has become one of the most important American novels of all time. I’m Still Here has the potential to have a similar trajectory. In 20 years or so this film will provide a very poignant look at the context that American society in the early twenty-first century has created around itself. Future Americans will have this film as an artifact and text with which they might look back to and learn the implication of living in its time and place. They will also be able to analyze how this context interacted with Joaquin Phoenix and created his inescapable subject position. As a text, I’m Still Here explores many questions of subjectivity that, as time goes on, will only become more important in understanding who we are and what the world around us means.
Works Cited
Althusser, Louis. "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses." Lenin and Philosophy, and Other Essays. New York: Monthly Review, 1972. Print. I'm Still Here. Dir. Casey Affleck. Perf. Joaquin Phoenix. Mongolia Pictures, 2010. DVD. Landay, Lori. "Millions ‘Love Lucy’: Commodification and the Lucy Phenomenon." NWSA Journal 11.2 (1999): 25-47. Print. Nealon, Jeffrey T., and Susan Searls Giroux. The Theory Toolbox: Critical Concepts for the Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003. Print.