The Power of Stories

In English, we are currently reading the book Reading Lolita in Tehran by Azar Nafisi. The book chronicles Nafisi’s efforts to teach a literature class for a group of young women, an action that directly rebels against the strict Iranian government. The book is obviously specifically about Iran and its oppressive regime, but the main idea of the book can, in my opinion, be made much more universal. This fundamental idea is that stories are often the best, or at least a good, defense against tyranny.

In places where people’s lives are not what they would like them to be, stories can serve as a form of escapism. In Iran, for example, I would imagine that reading F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby would be eye-opening for Nafisi’s students (I haven’t read this far in the book yet, but I will soon find out what kind of meaning the students take away from this book). The Great Gatsby describes, in great detail, a world that Iranians, especially women, would be unfamiliar with. It’s important for an oppressed people to be exposed to a culture that is radically different than their own (in the case of The Great Gatsby, an extremely materialistic one, to the point of excess), even if that culture is only experienced through stories. If these stories are not made available, there is the possibility that the population as a whole will be brainwashed, in a way, into believing that the current societal norms and culture is the only option. This can be very dangerous, as it often perpetuates tyranny.

Interestingly, it is just as important for stories to come out of places like Iran as it is for them to go in. Only by hearing first-hand experiences of everyday people can the rest of the world begin to understand what they go through, and try to help them. Stories like Persepolis and Reading Lolita in Tehran can go a long way toward getting the rest of the world to sympathize with the oppressed, and possibly do something to help.

The Smartphone STD Test: Good or Bad?

Recently, I saw a story on my Google Reader that intrigued me, and that I think speaks to a larger narrative within our society. When I read the article, which in essence said that British researchers have developed a program that allows smartphones to analyze the user’s urine and check for STDs, I was skeptical. After reading that the user does not pee directly onto the phone, but rather onto a computer chip that is then plugged into the phone, this seemed like a slightly better idea.

Actually, it may seem silly, but this development has the potential to be a very good thing. People who are too lazy (or embarrassed) to see the doctor might be able to catch these diseases earlier than they could have without the app. That being said, this seems like one more demonstration that our society is too reliant on technology. When a phone starts to replace actual professionals with advanced medical degrees, it’s not a good sign. The phone app can’t be right 100% of the time, and sometimes a person might rely on it when it shows a negative test when there might actually be a problem. Unlike a doctor, a program on a phone can’t be held accountable when it makes a mistake.

Technology is good in most instances, but we need o have boundaries on what we expect to be done for us. In my opinion, the STD app is probably a little much. That being said, I’m interested to see how, and to what extent, it gets used in the future.

Disappointment

I know I've been writing a lot about the midterm elections lately, but as they just occurred this Tuesday I thought it would be appropriate to bring them up one last time. For the last couple weeks, it was hard to turn on the TV without seeing either a campaign ad or a pundit predicting or analyzing election results, so it's obvious that Americans have been bombarded, like it or not, with news about this major event, so I think I can be excused for adding my two cents one last time.

Obviously the elections can't be neatly summed up in a word, considering the multitudes of people that participated, all with different outlooks and opinions. That being said: disappointment. In my opinion, this word most accurately describes the climate of this election. While legions of incensed Tea Partiers got a lot of media attention, these people did not represent the majority of American voters. Aside from the far-right Obama-haters and the die-hard Obama fans, the majority of the country's voters were simply disappointed with the direction that the country is headed. To back up this theorizing with some data, the Global Language Monitor conducted a study and found that the terms "frustration" and "disappointment" were far more frequent than "anger" or "rage". Of course, whenever people are unhappy with the way Washington is working, they look to blame the party that is in power, and therefore should be in a position to do something about it. In this case that party was the Democrats.

There's nothing wrong with being disappointed and informed, as many voters were. However, acting on uninformed disappointment can be problematic. In other words, it is difficult to pick out members of our government to "blame" our current mess on. Washington is so complicated that often the"bad guys" are hard to find. The "good guys", however, are substantially easier to pick out. One apparently negative outcome from Tuesday's elections was Russ Feingold's loss in the race for the Wisconsin Senate seat. He has authored a lot of important legislation on campaign finance, a huge problem in politics today. He also has a reputation as a good compromiser, which is something that voters supposedly were interested in. Still, Feingold, who was greatly respected for voting his conscience and not strictly adhering to party lines, was ousted along with many other incumbents in favor of Ron Johnson, an adamant global warming denier.

Though I do lean left politically, I don't see anything wrong with the disappointment directed at the Democrats, though I do think both parties should shoulder some of the blame. When one party has a clear majority in Congress and has control of the executive branch, they are expected to pass major legislation that will affect Americans' lives for the better. With the possible exception of health care reform (which is largely unpopular), this hasn't happened. Therefore, it's okay for voters to be disappointed and to want to get some new faces in Washington. That being said, I think they could have been a little smarter about it, and tried to differentiate between good incumbents and entrenched career politicians. It's a fine line, but I assumed Americans were intelligent enough to tell the difference. Instead, I was a little disappointed.