When reading the “Impossible” reading, I was immediately struck by the quote “The problem is not that we have so little power. The problem is that we don’t use the power that we have.” This specific quote reminds me a lot of the American political system and specifically reminded me of the most recent two presidential elections where voter turnout was low from certain groups, such as younger voters whose turnout is always, disappointingly, low.

Currently, in our political system, the two parties are so polarized that the elections are entirely about defeating the other candidate rather than actually electing a candidate which the party actually backs and has faith in. For example, in the current presidential election, many people claimed that though they supported Bernie Sanders’ ideas, they did not vote for him because he was not “electable” and somehow that was more important than voting for a candidate who they actually believe in. Thus, Joe Biden became the candidate to win solely on the platform that he is “not Donald Trump” and many Americans believe that because he is more of a centrist candidate, he is more “electable” and this race was dissolved into who the people think can beat Donald Trump as opposed to who is the best candidate, which is unfortunate. People need to start using the voices that they have to stand up for ideas that they really believe in, as speaking out and coming together is the only way to achieve progress. Americans are fortunate to have power in the political process, and they need to stop letting the polarized party system and political establishment get in the way of this.

I watched a TEDx talk called “How Not to Take Things Personally” by Frederik Imbo. He became a referee to teach himself how not to take things personally. Referees will always deal with judgment from spectators, coaches, and players about the decisions they make on the field. Not everyone will be 100% happy. This reminded me about how having a leader lead large groups and how difficult it is to ensure everyone is happy with the outcomes that results from decision making.

He spoke about two strategies about how to be mindful of how you view situations. The first way is to realize the situation is not about you. It can be hard to determine if someone’s intentions but if you are feeling hurt by someone else’s actions, you should reflect on why they are doing what they are doing. If you have done this and still feel hurt by it then you move on the second strategy. The second strategy is to realize that it may be about you. it may be how you feel insecure about the situation and you should speak up about it instead of assuming why. Opening up without blame will allow the other person to see how to accommodate for how you feel.

I think this applies to how leaders are not perfect. You can always try to accommodate for everyone by asking everyone’s opinions on decisions. However, the result still may not please everyone. Whether you lean one way or another, there will always be someone not happy about the decisions. In our country, we choose presidents between the usually two main political parties: Democratic or Republican. Whoever gets voted in leads a whole country of varying perspectives and world views. I can imagine what our presidents endure whenever they’re in office as not everyone is going to agree on decisions of policies or laws. I assume they have to learn to not take things personally as in our large scale societies, we are always going to have varying views and ideas of who we like better or who we don’t.

Here is the link for anyone who would like to watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnJwH_PZXnM

I watched the recorded Jepson Forum Talk from February of this year by Virginia Eubanks, entitled “Algorithms, Austerity, and Inequality”. Virginia Eubanks is political science professor at University of Albany SUNY and author, notably of “Automating Inequality” which was the focus of her talk. Eubanks starts the talk describing what a poorhouse is, which was an actual building that people in the 1800’s had to go to, to get any public aid. Once you arrived at a poorhouse you had to surrender your rights to vote, own property, marry, and if you had children you were separated from them, so checking into a poorhouse was a major choice. She discusses how the technology and big data tools that our nation has implemented in choosing who gets recourses and who does not has created a “digital poorhouse” which is an invisible institution that is comprised of digital decision-making algorithms. Eubanks states that the high-tech tools that are used to measure effectiveness, and eligibility for social welfare programs are used to “recreate and rationalize austerity, proport to address bias in decision making (but really just hide it) and create empathy overrides for difficult decisions”. She states that one of the main reasons poorhouses were created in the 1800’s and why there are such problems with social welfare programs today is the idea of austerity; which is the idea that there is not enough for everyone and that we have to make difficult decisions about who should be able to make their basic human needs and who shouldn’t.

Eubanks shares the stories of multiple families and individuals that have been negatively impacted by the automation of the eligibility for social welfare programs, and the outsourcing of the case workers that used to be able to have more empathy for the families. The automation of the system has not only prevented well deserving people from getting the aid that they need, but also wasted millions of dollars creating the online programs, money that could have gone to families in need. Additionally, she discusses the justification that the technology gets rid of bias is making it worse for minorities. The system she discusses records all of the state aid that families need, and if they get reported for doing something wrong it is from a bystander, who can racially profile, not the machine. Also, by leaving these hard decisions to computers that could change people’s lives is a way for the people running the programs not to deal with the bad feelings they get from denying people basic aid. Finally, Eubanks ends the talk with discussing what we can do to end this negative feedback loop that the digitalized programs have created. She says that the US needs to tell a vastly different story of poverty in the country than they do now. Today there are millions of Americans that deal with poverty, although the majority temporary, it is not due to the classic lazy person taking advantage of the government picture that we all have learned about. The fact that so many people deal with this the main reason why this system needs to be fixed. Additionally, everyone thinks that technology is neutral, but it is neutral it will support the current status quo. When building technology for social welfare programs it needs to be built justly on purpose. Overall, the problems of this system have to do with the leadership involved. The people leading all of these programs are middle to upper class who have no idea what the poor people really need. This talk really opened my eyes to see how large this problem is in our country and how desperately it needs to be fixed.

COVID-19 Warning

I watched a TEDtalk by Bill Gates called “The next outbreak? We’re not ready”. It was recorded 5 years ago but watching it connected to so much of what is occurring today. It’s scary to see how 5 years later, what Bill Gates was talking about is now reality, almost like he made his speech during the current pandemic. He talked a lot about what ended up being current problems we are facing like: lack of doctors, lack of appropriate response to the increase of cases, failing health systems and properness for an epidemic. I know he was not the only one with these concerns so it amazes me how unprepared we really were for this pandemic.

Bill Gates is a well known leader as he is an investor, philanthropist and software developer (Microsoft, of course). He is however, not the first person I would think of doing a talk about global health. It’s interesting to see how passionate he is about global health. The Bill Gates Foundation has a Global Health Division meant specifically for issues like we are facing today. 5 years ago, someone not in the healthcare field warned about an epidemic that was bound to happen and he knew we were not prepared for it. We saw the effects of Ebola and how the world was not prepared to face something so serious. This disease was not air-borne and caused about 10,000 deaths in 2015.

It’s interesting to see how much has been affected by coronavirus. The economy, job market, healthcare field and access to- everything in society has been affected. It’s kind of amazing to see how other leaders should have been concerned about this as some were. The world was not prepared for something major like this to happen.

Here is the talk for anyone that is interested:

https://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates_the_next_outbreak_we_re_not_ready

The Impossible chapters reminded me a lot of a saying I encountered a few months ago: “Anything worth doing is worth doing poorly”. My perfectionist tendencies immediately reared their head reading this. Why would I do an assignment if I wouldn’t get a good grade or try something if I wasn’t sure I’d be able to do it? I had to challenge myself a lot to open myself up to this saying and eventually understood that even if I couldn’t do something perfectly, if I thought it was a worthwhile endeavor I should try, regardless of the outcome. If the options are missing out on an opportunity to do something or potentially failing or doing that thing imperfectly, there is a lot more to be gained from at least trying.

The reading reinforced that idea. It can be overwhelming to think about the enormity of the problems in the world, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t at least try. While we can’t completely solve climate change single-handedly, that doesn’t mean that we should throw our hands up and accept climate change as a fact of life. We can still recycle, shop sustainably, or whatever options are accessible in our lives. We may not be able to pay for our neighbor’s surgery, but we can still give them a ride home when they need one. As Zinn says in chapter 5, “Not to play is to foreclose any chance of winning. To play, to act, is to create at least a possibility of changing the world” (64). There are no guarantees in life, but when we try in any small way, we open up possibilities that don’t exist if we choose not to act at all. Small actions have the possibility to spark big change, but that requires us to do something. Life is unpredictable, power can change hands in an instant, ordinary people banded together have the power to do incredible things, so we kid ourselves when we say we aren’t capable of making a meaningful impact. Even if we don’t make changes on a national scale, improving the life of just one person is better than not helping anyone at all. 

I don’t really have anything to say about this quote but I had to write it down in my notes on my phone because I found it so moving/inspiring/whatever you want to call it so I thought it was worth including in my final blog post: “The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory” (72). I think that’s a fitting message to take away as we wrap up the semester. 

COVID-19 Warning

The “Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizens Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear” by Paul Rogat Loeb was an amazing read during the times we are living now. It is easy to forget about the good in the world, especially when things are so uncertain right now. CoVID-19 has uprooted all of our lives in a way no one has really known before. Maneuvering in our current climate right now is difficult, stressful, and confusing. This reading really reminded me to look at the glass half full instead of half empty. As difficult as it may be right now, it’s important to not lose sight of hope and our happiness.

It was very powerful to read how change and activism really begins with an idea or just one person. It reminded me a lot of the quote “be the change you wish to see in the world”. Many people believe that you need to gather an audience in order to do good for others. Especially now in mainstream media, it seems people do good deeds for just views and not from the goodness of their hearts. It is refreshing to read about how something small or how just one person creates an enormous impact. Danusha Goska receiving a ride back to her home from strangers at a food bank really shows how something that may seem small to some creates a huge impact for others. The world seems so selfish now as greed has taken over many’s mind and goals- small acts of kindness really goes a long way.

The article Howard Zimm wrote reminded me a lot of one of earlier readings about how we always focus on the bad. Our generation tends to center the bad outcomes and often forgets about the good in the world. We especially tend to want fast results from movements and expect progress to be made overnight. The beauty of movements is the journey it takes to build up community and audience. It relates back to Danusha’s point of how progress really starts with one person. To expect change overnight is an expectation that will not always guarantee happiness. However, looking back at history to see how movements took years and different routes to get to the effectiveness and power they have today is fascinating to see. It’s kind of like the light at the end of the tunnel. The more you work towards something, the more of the light you’ll end up seeing.

I really liked this reading, especially because throughout my life I have heard many people talk about how they can’t make a change on a small scale. In particular, I discussed this idea in my ethics class and we spend a great deal of time on it. For example, so many people do not donate money to charity because they do not think their money will do anything or will make a difference. But this reading describes how small efforts and small actions can really make a change. For instance, a mosquito net costs about $2. Therefore, say I only have $20. That is 10 mosquito nets. I am making a huge difference! Or think about the current coronavirus pandemic. Donating $20 could probably supply multiple masks and gloves. In sum, this quote from the reading really encapsulated how mighty small efforts can be: “We don’t have to engage in heroic actions to participate in the progress of change. Small acts, when multiplied by millions of people, can transform the world” (71).

After this reading, I started to think about this quote more and more, especially in terms of policy. For example, what if (locally and nationally) policy is being drafted or passed that many people are against. I thought about this example especially in terms of my research project because currently, the US has drafted a peace plan for Israel and Palestine that if enacted, will just be very bad for the region and will exacerbate strife and conflict. But many of us probably think that we can’t do anything about this; 1 of us versus millions of other citizens and leaders. But in fact, if just one person emails their local representative about an issue, that issue immediately gets tallied on their itinerary. If more than one person contacts their representative, then representatives actually have to discuss and consider this issue; the more people that contact, the more likely representatives are to pose legislation, address issues, and pass bills. Therefore, even one person contacting makes a difference.

We can see the impact and importance of this in all walks of life; the reading described giving someone a ride home and even Rosa Parks refusing to move. But we can also see how important this can be for our government and legislation. For example, if I email my representative about my concerns about this peace plan, they will have to consider if. But if 5-10 people contact their representatives, whether they are the same or different, this issue can be addressed a lot easier than we may think (this applies for many different issues and legislation, I just used my research project as one example).

For my last response post, I watched the TEDTalk “How to gain control of your free time” by Laura Vanderkam. I thought this was a really interesting thought that made me change the ways of how I perceive my time. The first thing that really struck me was her quote, “We don’t build the lives we want by saving time. We build the lives we want and then time saves itself.” Often times in the past I have found when I am pressed for time, I will look for little ways to save time by multitasking or figuring out ways to be more efficient. While Vanderkam believes it is important to use time elastically since we cannot make more of it, it is more effective to consider time as a choice. Vanderkam describes how people use the phrase “I don’t have time” as an excuse all too often to not do things when in reality, a more useful way of thinking of things is to not recognize those tasks as priorities. When people default to claiming they “don’t have the time,” much more time is wasted, and tasks we consider to be priorities are left unfulfilled.

One tip Vanderkam gave that I thought was very insightful was to look at how you want to spend your time ahead of you instead of focusing on how you’ve spent it in the past. She gave two examples which I thought were very useful. The first is to plan the following week on Friday afternoons. Friday afternoons are considered to typically be a low opportunity cost, as many of your goals for the current week are already fulfilled and you have a sense of what meetings, classes or assignments will take up your following week. Vanderkam described the time as a good reflection time on what you achieved the past week, and create goals for the next one. This goes into her second example, of asking what personal and professional goals we have a year from now, and try to incorporate ways to accomplish them with the pockets of free time we have. I thought both of these points were useful to people regardless of what extent their schedules are packed. I think planning out free time decreases the likelihood of wasting it, and our goals will be much more likely to be accomplished when they are planned and makes us feel more fulfilled. Coming into Finals, time management can be more important now than ever, so I am grateful I was able to come across this video and will implement these ideas into my daily life in the coming weeks.

Prior to leaving Richmond, I attended the state senate hearings for Reproductive Health Protection Act (RHPA). This bill sought to get rid of the 24-hour waiting period and 2 visit requirement that was required for a person to receive an abortion. It also combated TRAP laws which restricted abortion access through requirements on the buildings in which an abortion could be preformed. The requirements were for things such as the number of parking paces the building had or the width of the hallways.

The most interesting day for me to visit the senate hearings was the day that I got to hear and give a testimony for the bill. I was originally supposed to read the testimony of someone that could not make it to the hearing but wanted to express how the bill would help them. Since we ran out of time, I was only able to stand up and express my support for the bill, which district I vote in (my state senator was one of the co-authors on the bill), and which organization I was with (my fellowship was through the organization sponsoring the bill). However, being able to listen to everyone’s testimonies, from both side of the issue, was very interesting to me. Some people were appealing to pure emotion while others were trying to appeal to logic, citing how any of the previous restrictions were not necessary for preforming a safe abortion.

The main connection I saw to this class was in our discussion of ethics. While no one explicitly came forth saying “I am using this normative claim and from there appealing this approach to ethics,” it was still very much present in the arguments that were being made. You could trace back the arguments on both sides to very different normative claims, either a right to autonomy or a right to life coupled with the claim that a fetus constitutes as alive. These claims could see seen in the carefully worded testimonies that people were giving, where the words used are chosen to portray the values that are etched into someone’s support or opposition of the bill.

The bill ended up passing both the state senate and the House of Delegates. It was signed into law on April 10th, ahead of schedule, to ensure access to safe, legal abortions during the epidemic.

The first portion “Political Paralysis” talked about the power of small, everyday kindnesses and very positive effects that they can have on others. Danusha Veronica Goska talked about how people can view their contribution as small and insignificant which can make people discouraged and inhibit them from taking small steps or contributing to a larger solution. I think this relates to the COVID-19 situation because not everyone understands the necessity of social distancing and how limiting contact with other people contributes to addressing the public health crisis. I am not in a “hot spot” area, and as a result, some people in my community feel separated from the issue and do not recognize how drastic a situation this is, causing them to break social distancing protocol. I assume they are thinking “the crisis is so far away from us. why should we be expected to alter our lives when the crisis isn’t here?” when in reality, social distancing is important so that St. Louis doesn’t become a hot spot like some other cities.

Zinn’s chapter “The Optimism of Uncertainty” talked about power. He says that people often feel powerless because sometimes change is slow and it is hard to see the progress that movements make. He also talked about certain movements in history which succeeded to due to persistence; the longer these movements existed, the more traction they gained, the more people they attracted which led to them become successful. He claims that many people also share your thoughts on certain issues and will eventually join you when they realize that you exist. When reading this chapter, I felt my heart swell with pride at the different movements that have succeeded against strong opposition and changed the status quo. It gave me a sense of hope that movements for my generation that seem hopeless (fighting climate change, closing the income gap) might not be if we practice the patience and persistence that Zinn recommended. However, upon greater reflection, the way that Zinn explained it is that no movement is doomed if it keeps going, but what about the movements that are counterproductive to progress. If read by a different audience, someone in a white supremacist movement for example could believe that if they just never give up then their movement will eventually succeed.

This reminds me of the importance of context that we’ve talked about previously. Based on the examples that Zinn used, I don’t think this piece was meant to inspire white supremacists. However, their context and views differ greatly from that of a Bostonian educator which means they would apply the advice to their own ideas opposed to the ideas that Zinn intended. This makes me wonder how two opposing movements who are employing the same strategies would face-off. I would like to think that the majority of opinions in the US would side with Zinn, but until an actual show-down occurs, I’m not sure there’s a way to know.