By the People, For the People?

For the past 7-8 years, my grandfather has been waiting for the day when I would finally reach that point of “maturity” (in his words) and switch to a more politically conservative mindset. Upon receiving my first paycheck, he phoned: “See how much money they take out of your check for taxes? Makes you think twice about voting for democrats, doesn’t it?”

Well, it is nearly a year now since I have graduated college (or the “haven for liberals,” as my grandfather likes to call it), and I must confess: I have had my first shift of thought towards a more conservative attitude. Ironically, I credit the current “conservative” administration’s handling of power for my recent change of heart. Yes, I am indeed about to argue that the administration’s overwhelming abuse of office has actually led me to give MORE credence to the ideology that it claims to adhere to.

My contention primarily regards the increasing distance that the federal government is maintaining from its constituients: aka, “The People.” Ever since 9/11, this government continues to relay only one core message to the masses: don’t worry about it; we’ve got it taken care of. In perhaps one of the most bizarre twists of public leadership in the history of this country, the current administration successfully managed to dissuade a united, emotionally committed, and eager generation of Americans ready to make sacrifices and geniuine pledges to public service from doing anything worthwhile at all. In response to the rhetorical question, “what can you do for your country?” Bush told us to go about our daily lives. Which, in his definition, included going shopping at the mall and cheering for football teams. The irony of this call to service lies in the perversion of its message. What outwardly looked like an attempt to ease the minds of a fearful public was in reality an act to NUMB our minds into complacency. In a time when the U.S. was facing a serious identity crisis, Bush located America’s identity within our economy. Unlike other wartime or crisis-engaged presidents who equated America’s strength with the moral courage of its people, Bush claimed that our strength as a people depended on our consumer power. In that crucial time of national uncertainty, we were told that our most important role stemmed not from our place as citizens but as consumers.

Six years later, we are suffering the results of our assigned role. By valuing our consumer power over our civic power, we have exchanged our civil liberties for economic liberties. Indeed, the consumer has never been more powerful: lower taxes (in the middle of a multi-billion dollar war), lower interest rates, easier loan acquisitions, and greater amounts of credit have all led to a staggering growth in consumerism. Yet what kind of power have we laid claim to as citizens? Yes, we did vote for a change of power in Congress. We, as voting citizens, changed the party ticket of the legislative branch. But what kind of political pressure have we actually managed to effectively exert upon our elected officials? Corruption has decayed the effectiveness in all facets of our federal government; yet for the most part we can do nothing. Lower polls have not dissuaded the executive branch from carrying out their original plan of action. Public outcry as expressed through angry editorials (such as this one) and news media has not managed to effect change. Our generation often gets criticized for not protesting in the streets. Yet how effective can public protests be when they are in fact SANCTIONED and surveyed by the government?

It is this line of questioning which has led me to look upon the conservative ideology towards government more favorably. This ideology involves favoring smaller government and giving greater authority to state and local government. Currently, our access to the federal government’s daily operations has been severely limited. (Does it alarm anyone else that one of the first moves of security after September 11 was to ban public access to the Capitol?) Until the federal government undergoes a complete administrative change in ALL branches, I believe that we as citizens will remain relatively ineffective in shaping the actions of elected officials. I, for one, have “given up” in believing that I can storm on Washington.

However, I feel that great opportunities currently abound for citizens within state and local governments. The internet and computer technology has made and can continue to make such governments extremely effective and accessible to its citizens. Blogs announcing local meet-ups, programs which allow you to file taxes, apply for state tags, and other bureaucrataic matters can make and have already made local/state governments much more efficient. E-mail makes any city council offical easily accessible. If we want legislation that actually makes a difference, I think we need to stop focusing on the federal government and start focusing on the local government. Bush is unwilling to place emission controls? Fine. We can convince our mayors and governors to place them here. No universal health coverage? Start demanding it to state officials. While on the federal level we may now be denied much of power that is rightfully ours, I believe the step to reclaiming that is through the power that remains through our role as residents in our communities and reigions.

Children of Men: Review

In the post-9/11 Hollywood era, gloomy apocalyptic films with overt political messages have become the expectation for the average filmgoer. Movies such as V for Vendetta, Babel, and Syriana have all been noted for their mirror image of current day or soon-to-be current day tribulations. Most come laden with heavy moral warnings; some have novel insights about what our near future might be like. But relatively few have the emotional depth and cinematic skill to drive the message of the film beyond moral pontifications and towards a more fragile, intricately complex, examination of the modern-day human condition. Thanks to the brilliant workings of its director, Alfonso Cuaron, Children of Men creates a world of astonishing terror which opens a window into our own everyday lives. I say it is terrifying not because of the possibility that Cuaron’s world may soon come into existence, but because the film’s familiarity reminds us that this world already exists within us, deep within the heart of humanity.
Part of the film’s ability to grapple with such emotional issues is the script itself. There is nothing more natural and human than the process of reproduction, as it is essential to the continuance of our species. Set in London 2027, Children of Men opens with the bizarre news that the world’s youngest person, aged 18, has just been assasinated. Soon, we come to find out that no women in the world are able to give birth, due to a worldwide pandemic of infertility that began in 2007. A world without children means a world without hope, and despair has brought on worldwide destruction. A tv ad on a subway reads “New York, Toyko, Beijing: destroyed. The world has collapsed, but Britain soldiers on…” A drug called “Quietus: You decide when” quickly unveils itself as the #1 lethal suicide drug of choice for the middle-class. In this world, where Britain remains the only country with some societal infrastructure, illegal immigrants have become the villians to despise. Signs warning about consequences for those who harbor refugees (“fugees” for short) abound, and news clips reveal refugee camps which more closely resemble concentration camps. This is the world that Theo Faron (Clive Owen), a common worker for the ministry of energy, has come to cynically deal with, until a rapid turn of events involving his former wife’s (Julianne Moore) involvement in an underground resistance group leads him to discover that not all hope is lost. The resistance group is harboring an illegal immigrant, Kee: poor, young, and pregnant. As the group seeks Theo’s help in getting her to an organization dubbed “The Human Project,” Kee and Theo’s journey leads us through the horrific depths of the refugee camps, the greedy games of those who seek only their own best interest, and finally to an uncertain yet strangely hopeful end, in which the best and the worst of human behaviors collide to produce one of the most initimately vulnerable scenes ever filmed. The film ends with both the hope and uncertainty that faces us all, as we desperately seek salvation from the cruelties of the world.
Cuaron’s filmwork stages some of the most realistic battle scenes I’ve ever seen. I would credit this accomplishment due to his use of a very 3-D view, in which you see things going on peripherally while simultaneously fearing what may be creeping behind you (or the character). Despite the undenabily bleak, gray, look of the film, Curaon inserts rich textures into the shot which warm the otherwise dismal outlooks. An old, orange cat playfully rubs against a war-torn Theo clothed from head to toe in black. A car chase which ends with a betrayal and multiple deaths is paired against a beautiful English countryside and streaming sunlight. These glimmers of familiar comforts weaved in with the absolute evil acts committed lend a disturbing credibility to the film, and create lasting images which resonate with you long after you leave the theater.
Ultimately, Children of Men succeeds as both a dark apocalyptic film reminiscent of modern times and as a universal psychological portrait of human nature. While Alfonso Cuaron has been hailed as a children’s film director (A Little Princess, Prisoner of Azkaban), it is filmic depiction of a world that contains no children which, ironically, I feel is his absolute best work. I encourage everyone to see it, while cautioning against becoming heavy-laden with the emotionally taxing burden the film asks you to carry.

College: Community or Commodity?

Recent responses to SciTeacher’s excellent post, “The Devil’s Bargain in Education,” has prompted me to muse over the role of higher education in the modern world. In the past decade, rising tuition costs, increasingly competitive applicant pools, and greater emphasis placed on college “rankings” have elevated the “cultural capital” of college, especially small, private liberal arts schools. The middle class, once happy and boastful to have their children attend the largest public school in their state (or the one with the best football team), now sit at home strategizing over the latest US News Rankings. Why should Junior have to go to Michigan State when the rankings tell them that his SAT and AP scores (thanks to public school’s greater inclusion of them) are good enough to go to, let’s say, Washington St. Louis, or hmm…Carleton College? These institutions, once unheard of by people outside of the reigion, are now hot commodities, names to be dropped in the right circle. No longer is the college world bifurcated into “state schools” or “ivy leagues”: instead, the increasing demand of the middle class for their chilidren to have access to the “best” has led to the rise in prominence of “potted ivy” schools…small, private liberal arts colleges with big pricetags. Couldn’t get into Princeton because your uncle doesn’t know the dean of admissions? That’s ok…you’ve gotten into Northwestern. Fork over the money, and that name will pave your way into Wharton Business School. Hello Middle Class student. Welcome to to the big time.

This “new” method of higher education has greatly changed the relationship between colleges and student. Previously, colleges — both public and private — had a great amount of power in regards to the requirements for curriculum, the size of the dorm rooms, and the grading system of professors. Now, the overwhelming amount of college “shopping” has led to a power shift, where the student (or, more accurately, the parents) can take her business somewhere else. What’s that you say? Community bathrooms for my child’s living arrangements? Screw You Oberlin….we’re going to Brandeis. They have private SUITES for their freshmen. Junior’s got to study you know, if he’s going to go to Johns-Hopkins for med school. Or maybe Miami-Oxford college; they have that special undergrad internship with the Mayo Clinic…ooh! and sparkling mineral water….I’m sold!

From my perspective, a great irony exists in this process. While colleges are now clamoring to show parents and students the inherent “value” in their school, and parents are placing greater achievement demands on their children in order to have the ability to go college shopping, what gets lost/forgotten is the very thing that gave these colleges worth to begin with: a stellar liberal arts education. Why has Harvard Med School continued to choose applicants from private liberal arts colleges over state schools? It’s not the name, but the quality level of education that the name is believed to represent. A liberal arts college means several things to an Ivy-league admissions committee: this student has been given a low student-teacher ratio, has been exposed to a broad range of world knowledge — both historic and contemporary — and has been taught how to make connections within the world around her. Because of this exposure to this kind of education, she can write a paper: unlike this applicant at X state school who didn’t have to take composition thanks to the CLEP test. I think it would be wise for parents and colleges to remember this point. While US News and your next door neighbors may care about the name of your child’s school, Harvard and Yale care about the education received. Parents who want their child to have the prestige of attending a liberal arts school while simulatenoulsy insisting that they forgo a liberal arts education clearly do not understand the “true” nature of higher education: in a world of “the best,” ideas — not names — are the highest form of currency. A lawyer does not win her case because she went to UChicago Law, but because she absorped the critical skills she was given there. If parents truly want to pave their child’s road to “success,” then they should DEMAND a liberal arts curriculum: one that is challenging, rigorous, and interdisciplinary. Only then, I dare say, can you believe you are giving your child the best education money can buy.