So, we heard some very interesting presentations this week. I want all of you to choose one of the topics that were presented and pose 3 global questions total. After posing three questions, respond to one of the questions in your blog. Your comments to your classmates blogs should address one of the global questions they did NOT address.
Do not repeat a global question already posed by a classmate on the blog. Make sure you read all the blogs before you post.
These last couple days in class have been eye-opening to me and to everyone too, I'm sure. When we think of the world we like to think of all the good parts like exotic vacation spots and our favorite places not the war-torn countries or the unnecessary killing or even how poor some foster cares are. I feel Felicia's presentation was the most eye-opening because it was something directly connected to the United States, foster care.
ReplyDeleteFoster care has become a large industry in the United States in past years because of increased drug use, state intervention, and numerous other reasons for removing a child from his or her home.
Given the statistics Felicia shared today I have to wonder is it even worth removing a child from a child's home if they are going to be neglected and just another case number in the foster care system? Are they really being helped by this?
Or as a country each year millions are spent for military purposes but why does not the government use even a little bit of that money to provide better serves to foster care children, such as proper background checks and limitations?
Both of those questions deserve solid, thought-through answers because when given the cold, hard facts foster care seems to be, in most cases, more of a nuisance than actually helping the youth improve themselves.
A major question which kept resonating in my head as more and more information was presented was "If children max out of the system, where are they to go? They still need support and guidance, should there not be an agency to help those troubled youths?"
This question is one hard to pose and still harder to answer, if a good chunk of foster care children end up on the streets or poor and on welfare what did that do? Did it break the cycle? To truly help those who grew up in foster care it is only right to provide a program for them to teach them what they need to know for life, to provide cheap housing where they can live while finishing school or pay rent for at a flexible, low rate if they have a job. If the government wants to boost the country out of poverty and have an educated next generation they should find ways to help this often times neglected group of youth. As Ann said in her own speech 'many people will spend at least one year of their life below the poverty line' but without proper help these youngsters will never reach above the line, don't they deserve a second chance at a better life just like the rest of us? Why should we have all the best opportunities just because we have a solid support system, do not teens were defenseless against the system deserve the same? I fear there is no concrete answer to this difficult question, it only opens itself up to more questions and unknown answers.
Erin, I am going to answer your second question. I definitely think that the country should spend a little bit of money on foster care. It is rather important that these children are not just going to a new home where they actually end up in worse shape than they were before. Background checks would be a great first step. This way they are making sure that the home that the child is moving to will be a suitable environment for the child. This is something that should seriously be considered.
DeleteAwe, I'm happy that you liked it and my presentation got you thinking! In regards to your second question, the sad thing is, background checks are being made. Although their records go against the rules and regulations, they are often ignored because they are in desperate need for foster parents due to the amount of children in foster care.
DeleteSo I decided to go with the Rwandan Holocaust, probably because I already know quite a lot about the WWII Holocaust so I saw some similarities between the two. And for five hundred points:
ReplyDeleteWould there be more outrage regarding the Rwandan Holocaust if it had been in a more prosperous nation?
Would other governments have done more if the victims were of a different ethnicity?
What does the Rwandan Holocaust show about government corruption?
I am going to answer number 1. It seems hard to believe that more help would have been proffered if the location had been more wealthy or large. However, it does make sense. Would such an occurrence have been ignored if it were in, say, the United States? That is very doubtful. While it is a controversial topic, I think it is important to keep in mind the size of Rwanda and how that may have affected any form of help. Hannah said during her presentation that most people have no idea where Rwanda is, and it is very small as far a countries go. I personally believe that had Rwanda been a more influential country, the victims would have received more aid.
Meg, I can see where you would say that Rwanda would have spared victims if it were larger, say the size of the United States. I think that this is definitely a possibility, but there was also a situation at the beginning of WWII where Japanese people in America were taken to internment camps. They were held here for around three years, and though it was no mass murdering, America allowed innocent people to die. Just a thought, Great job!
DeleteMeaghan, I am going to answer your second question. I do believe that the ethnicity of Rwandans played a part in the genocide. However, I feel that no matter what the ethnicity of the population in Rwanda was, other governments were not going to do any more. I feel this way because I think that in these types situations if a country is not involved in the genocide, they will decide to not become involved in fear that their country will then have issues.
DeleteSo far the presentations for English have been amazing and really interesting. I have learned so much about each topic and am excited to continue learning more. I choose to do three level questions for social media and the internet. Jessica did a great job explaining the different benefits and downfalls of using the internet and social media.
ReplyDelete1. How old does a person have to be to make a Facebook account?
2. Discuss the pros and cons of using the internet. Then discuss the pros and cons of social media.
3. How can the internet affect a person for the rest of their life?
I am answering my first level question. A Facebook user legally has to be 13 years of age to make an account. However, anyone can lie on what their birth year is making Facebook easily accessible to any age. Also, I believe that the age should be raised anyway. Facebook was originally made for college students so friends and classmates can stay in contact and communicate. Now, all ages have Facebook including young children and older adults. So is there ways to make people prove they are as old as they say? I don't know but personally I think some people are to young to be members of Facebook.
Jolene, I did not get to see Jess's presentation but it sounds like she did a great job. I completely agree that there is a problem with younger kids being on Facebook. Sometimes trouble comes from things, such as the internet, when they are abused and not used for their intended purposes
DeleteJolene, I'm so glad you enjoyed my presentations and chose it for your blog. I'm choosing to answer your third question. The internet can affect a person for the rest of their lives,if they post inappropriate statuses or pictures. Many colleges and employers look at social media sites and they use them to decide if they will get accepted or the employment. The internet can also affect someone life forever by sharing personal information. There are some people online that steal someone's identity and therefore ruin their lives for a long time. Over all great job on your blog!
DeleteJolene, I'm going to answer your third question. Personally, I think the internet can affect people permanently in both good and bad ways. Some people are bullied and eventually commit suicide. However, some people meet their partners on match sites or have thriving business thanks to their web page. So I think really how the internet affects people is different in each case. Great questions!
DeleteThree Level Question Blog
ReplyDeleteI decided to write my blog about Meaghan's presentation of the WWII Holocaust because it has always been a topic that interested me. In her presentation, Meaghan revealed startling facts about the number of lives taken and affected by the Holocaust and how well the Nazis managed to hide their death camps. My three level questions are as follows:
1. In Hannah's presentation she stated that after all of the Tutsi were killed they began to kill anyone related to the Tutsi. Did Hitler exhibit similar methods after he had captured a majority of the Jews? Is that why he began to attack Catholics and gypsies, or had he planned to all along?
2. Meaghan stated that the Allie forces did not offer much help to the death camp victims during the war because they were not totally aware of the horrors that were occurring. What actions would they have taken if they had known about the murder and torture that was taking place?
3. Many people often make reference to a World War III that is yet to come. Does remembering the Holocaust and other wars have the power to obviate such a conflict?
I chose to answer my second level question despite the fact that we will never actually know what would have occurred if the Allies had been made aware of Hitler's actions in their entirety. Approximately one year ago I watched a series called Band of Brothers; based on the real Easy Company, 2nd battalion of the 506th parachute infantry regiment of the 101st airborne division of WWII. In one segment of the series the company discovers a death camp towards the end of the war that the Nazi forces had abandoned. They did not release the captives because it was important to monitor them so that they did not over eat or become even more sick than they already were. Although the concept of leaving them trapped in those camps is horrific, it made sense. I do believe that the Allies would have attempted to seize control of the death camps if they had known about them. However, the US shut its borders, leaving Jews and others who were trying to escape Hitler's wrath helpless and homeless. I do not think that the government would have acted any differently even if they knew about the massacring that was taking place. They were well aware that people were being rounded up and that obviously meant that they were in danger. Our country did put its own needs above the needs of those innocent people in that way, but who am I to blame them for the choices they made? It is said that war changes a man, war changes a government to. They cannot help but to feel hostile towards foreigners and protective of their own people. I hope that I would have opened my arms to those who were being hinted down, but who can guess what they would do in the face of a fear such as WWII.
Ann, firstly thanks for using my presentation. Secondly, I loved what you said at the end about not being able to judge them. That was one thing I had hoped to convey that I'm not sure I did. I believe they should have helped, but as you said, would I myself have done anything if confronted with that decision? Finally, I'll answer your third question. I do not think that remembering the Holocaust will stop wars in and of itself. However I believe the knowledge gained from the Holocaust will allow us to identify the signs of such large scale pandemonium. I believe that it can stop another world war, though, because to get to the level of world war the conflict must survive long enough to involve the rest of the world. If it can be stopped before reaching that then Armageddon will be avoided for the time being. Just a few people remembering won't be enough though. A large number of people will have to be able to see the signs for what they are in order for any thing to be done. And though it wasn't specifically part of the question, I'd like to address the possible outcome of WWIII if it does indeed occur. I believe that if World War III rolls around then we should fear the same thing as Augustus Waters. Oblivion. Because in the next world war, countries will eventually stop pulling punches. And with our advanced technology, that spells disaster for our planet and its inhabitants. Great blog and sorry for getting carried away!
DeleteUnfortunately I was unable to watch the presentations on Friday, but from the ones I was able to see they have been nothing short of excellent. I've decided to write my blog on Ann's presentation on Poverty. Her presentation was very informative to me. I felt very uneducated on the subject previous to her presentation, because what I thought about poverty was actually very far off of the facts. I really enjoyed the "test" we were given to prove her point that we actually did not know the facts.
ReplyDeleteThree Level Questions:
What elements categorize people as living in poverty?
How does poverty affect children? How does it affect the elderly?
Is there/ will there ever be an end in sight for poverty?
I chose to answer my first level question. Poverty is not having the money to take care of every day needs for ex. food, clothing, and housing. The cut off line for what is considered poverty in the United States for a 4 person family is 20,000. It is not just the homeless that sit on the side of the streets in cities that are in poverty. Many everyday working people that you know may be struggling to make payments on their house or feed their families. Poverty is a large problem in our country and Ann did a lovely job on presenting it.
Erin, I also chose Ann's presentation on poverty. I am choosing to answer your third question. There is no end to poverty insight, but that doesn't mean that it is not becoming less and less common. I personally don't think that there will ever be a total end to poverty because the world is too divided in their social classes. There are really rich people, people in the middle, and poor people. Although I believe it could get to the point where there are no specific poor people, there will always be some people that are not as well off as others. Good job girl!
DeleteErin, I also really enjoyed Ann's presentation, although I failed her quiz. I am choosing to answer your second level question. Poverty affects the life of children because they are malnourished and underprivileged. They are unable to receive educational benefits and other perks children receive. Poverty affects the elderly because they cannot afford for their medical needs and are unable to provide for the needs of their children.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it has been kind of depressing in AP Lang for the past two days of class. However, they are great topics and really make one think. I'm choosing to propose questions on Ann's presentation on poverty. She did a fantastic job at explaining the bad things, along with the good, of poverty.
ReplyDelete1) Most Americans spend at least how long in poverty during their life? Why?
2) Since many people experience poverty in their childhood, does this mean they will be in poverty for the rest of their lives?
3) Is poverty really bad thing or can it be considered a good thing when observed from the perspective of making one more grateful for the little things?
I'm choosing to answer my third level question. As I look around in today's world, I see many things that I own that I take for granted. For example, my cell phone, movies to watch when I am bored, and even my Catholic school education. When I take a step back though, I realize just how lucky I am to have the money and opportunity to have all of the things. When someone is in poverty, however, they don't take these things for granted. They appreciate all the little things that many of others tend to over look. Because of this, poverty is not all bad. It is not a great thing to be in poverty, but it is not always a bad thing either.
I found your third question really interesting, Jessica. I was actually wondering the same thing! I still think that poverty is a horrible thing, but there is always a bright side! Good job, Jessica.
DeleteJessica, you chose very good questions. I answered your first question since Jolene answered your second level question. I did some researching on this, and I was surprised. According to the New York Times, it is estimated that almost 40% of Americans between the ages of 25 and 60 will experience at least one year below the official poverty line, ($23,492 for a family of four). Additionally, half of all American children will reside in a household that uses food stamps for a period of time. Most of the time, it has to do with where you live, and the type of job you have.
DeleteJessica, I also I enjoyed Ann's presentation. I am choosing to answer your second level question. It is very probable for children living in poverty to live the rest of their life in poverty because they are unable to get an education and make something of their life. On the other hand, it is not certain they will live in poverty because the individual is able to make something out of their life and end up receiving an education and future.
ReplyDeleteEveryone's presentations have been really good and interesting to listen to! I was not in class on Thursday, so I did not see those presentations; however, I was very impressed by Hannah's, Felicia's and Jessica's PowerPoint presentations.
ReplyDeleteI decided to do pose questions regarding Felicia's topic: Foster Care. I was very interested in learning more about this topic, especially when she started presenting it. I had no idea that foster care conditions in the United States were that bad. Compared to some other countries, I am sure it is heaven, but I just had no idea. The statistics were frightening and startling to hear. It is clear that foster care in the U.S. needs to be improved.
1. What are other options besides Foster Care for children?
2. What can the government do to improve the conditions and outcomes for children in foster care?
3. How does the Foster Care systems in the US compare with other countries?
I decided to answer the third question. It never occurred to me that Foster care conditions in the U.S. were that severe, or that we even had that many children in Foster care. After a little bit of research, I compared the U.S. to many other parts of the world, and I think that the U.S. Foster care system reigns supreme; however, that is not to say that our system could not be improved though. Most African countries do not even have a foster care system because they simply do it have the funds to implement it. One may ask, where do these kids go then? Many of times, these kids are left to fend for themselves out on the streets.
In most Asian countries, the foster care systems that they do have offer little hope. If the child has extended family, he/she will then form a kinship family arrangement. For some countries, this is sometimes the only option that is supported by the government. When the child does not have extended family, they are put into orphanages that are overcrowded, understaffed, and have poor living conditions.
The International Foster Care Organization is working hard to regulate foster care around the world. Slowly but the surely the organization is making progress.
In conclusion, every child, no matter their race or background, deserves the right to a loving family, a stable environment, and a place that they can call home and is safe to them. All children need to be feel loved by other people. Hopefully the foster care system will continue to make improvements in not just the United States, but in all countries of the world.
Tori, I am choosing to answer your first question. I could only think of two options that a child in the foster care system really have. Instead of putting these children in private foster care homes, the state governments could place them all in state run facilities with qualified care takers. The only other option I could think of, which would only be an option for children who have reached an age where they can have a job and provide for themselves would be to become emancipated youths. This would mean that they are declared legally able to have their own home away from their parents, but they must be able to pay their own bills and other expenses through a full time job. For many people in the foster homes, this is not a option. So the best choice for helping out children in foster care would be to get the government to improve the standards set for foster care. Tori, you did a great job!
DeleteTori, I am going to answer your second question. I think the government could do a lot to improve the foster care system. They could establish specific standards and requirements that all foster parents must meet, especially the parents who are already in the system. Second, the government could do surprise check ups on the families to see just how well the child(ren) are liking the new home. I also think the government could set up a program to help foster kids advance. The program could have scholarships for those who want to go on to college but can't afford it. I beleive there is much the government can be doing, but for some reason, they aren't.
DeleteGood work, Tori!
The past few days we have learned a lot through some of the classes presentations, but one has stuck with me. The Rwandan Holocaust. I had never even heard of this before Hannah mentioned it. I honestly thought at first, wow it must not have been that bad if no one has heard of it, but I don't think I could have been more wrong. The Rwandan Holocaust was depressing, sickening, terrifying, and even haunting. Hannah's presentation had me thinking a lot and left me with some questions.
ReplyDelete1. Is it possible that something similar to the Rwandan Holocaust could happen here? Would we really turn against our neighbors?
2. If a similar tragedy were to happen here, how would the technology affect it? Would it help us put a stop to it before it got out of hand, or would it cause for an even worse outcome?
3. To my understanding, no one helped the Rwandans. Would anyone help us? Would the Rwandans help us knowing that we didn't help them?
I'll answer my second question. I think that our technology could really help us in preventing a similar event from happening here. For example, we could lock our doors against our neighbors. but technology can be a necessary evil, just like Jessica said, and I feel as if this situation can easily go the other way. Technology has given us more ways to protect and defend ourselves, but along with that it has also given us more ways to attack and kill.
Felicia, your questions are all really good ones, I'm going to answer the first one. In my honest opinion, I do not believe something on a scale that massive could happen here because of our government involvement. Most times there is a way for the government to calm down events like that and not let them get that far out of hand, but then again there is fighting and massacres within our countries borders. If you think about all the street wars and gangs are not those similar to the happenings of the Rwandan Holocaust? They are the slaughter of people different than you, someone of a crew but instead of it being the Hutu against the Tutsi it is the Crypts against Bloods and so on. Will these gang fights ever escalade into something more, it is hard to tell. One thing is for certain though, if it ever does occur it would not be as devastating as the Rwandan Holocaust.
DeleteFelicia, these were very thoughtful questions. I am going to answer the third one. There were many reasons why the Rwandan people did not get the help they deserved; however, that is no excuse. If something similar to this would ever occur in the United States today, I hope that other countries would get involved and help us. I sincerely hope that Rwanda would also help us. It all goes back to not holding a grudge. If people are being tortured, more than likely, they would not just idly stand by. History plays an important role in our world. We should all work together and learn from our mistakes rather than holding them as blackmail. After all, everyone saw the devastating consequences.
DeleteNice post, Felicia!
Of all the presentations that we saw last week, Meaghan's intrigued me the most. I've always had an interest in WWII and the Holocaust, and her discussion opened my eyes even more.
ReplyDelete1. Did the Holocaust cause a questioning of faith among the Jews?
2. If Hitler had not been stopped, could he have turned on the German people who did not act or think the same way as himself?
3. Why did Jews wait so long to resist against the Nazis? Do you think an earlier resistance could have changed the way things?
I am going to answer my first question about whether or not the Holocaust caused a questioning of faith among the Jewish people. I think that for some people the Holocaust made them wonder what they did to deserve those conditions. They constantly asked why God wasn't doing anything to help them. They probably thought they sinned too much or were not worthy of God's love. For others, the Holocaust might have increased their faith. They probably knew the Holocaust was bigger than their faith, and there was not a whole lot God could do for them. They also figured that if God intended for them to survive, then they would and vice versa.
Natalie, I am going to answer your second question. I believe that Hitler had already established a system of getting rid of political figures that opposed his ideas. I think that if he would have continued to succeed in his plans, he would have eventually set into motion a system where any muttering against him from any person could be named treason. With a charge like this, he could have justified putting any ordinary citizen in jail to get rid of the Germans who didn't like his ideas. Great job Natalie!
DeleteNatalie, I'll answer your third question. Over the course of history the Jewish race has always been the majority's kicking bag, starting before Jesus and onward. At this point would you not think that they are sadly immune to it and thought it would be a passing craze like the other times? Who knew what the extent of the Nazi damage would be, and by the time the Jews realized it it was too late. If they would have acted sooner then maybe the Holocaust would not have been as intense as it was and looking back it is easy to say that, as the saying goes "hindsight is 20/20."
DeleteI found all of the presentations rather unique so far that have been presented in class. I am doing my global questions on poverty because I feel that this topic really grabbed my attention. I thought that poverty seemed pretty interesting. I cannot imagine what it would be like to be a person living in poverty.
ReplyDeleteGlobal questions:
1. Would it be better if everyone had to live in poverty for a period in their life?
2. Does poverty contribute to the crime that takes place in the world?
3. How much does poverty truly affect the economy?
I am going to answer my first question. I do believe that it would be better if everyone had to live in poverty at one time in their life. This is because I feel that people would appreciate each other more than they do now. It seems that there are always stories about how when people visit countries that are living in poverty, the people are very grateful for what they have. What they have is very little, but they never complain about having to live a difficult life. People who are fortunate enough to live in a country like the United States are pretty lucky. Even though we have poverty in our country, it seems like it is not near as bad as it is in other nations. All in all, it would be beneficial if everyone had to live in poverty so that we all could truly understand what some people are going through every single day.
Drew, I found that poverty does actually affect the economy. In fact, about the United States spends about $500 billion each year dealing with childhood poverty. That is almost 4% of our gross domestic product (GDP). Additionally, childhood poverty reduces productivity and economic output by about 1.3% of GDP. It also raises the cost of crime by 1.3%. Finally, poverty raises health expenditures and reduces the value of health by 1.2% of the GDP.
DeleteAlso, I disagree with your response to one of your questions. I do not believe that is right to say that it is better for everyone to live in poverty sometime in their life. That just is not right. I understand that we could all truly understand what it would be like to live like that, but it is not right to wish poverty on the whole United States.
Drew, I think that people who are in poverty are more likely too, and commit crimes because they need to find money to survive and crime is an easy way to get it. I found this especially true for people who have just been released from prison or another institution. These people have no money and have already committed crimes, so it seems almost to easy to commit more crimes to get money.
DeletePoverty is a subject to which I really never paid much attention. After Ann's project however It really got me thinking deeper into the entire subject of poverty. The other subjects that were discussed I had at least heard about or studied, but I really did not think poverty was a big deal so I never thought about it's statistics or the effect it had on the world. Ann's project has really created deeper thoughts about poverty and a better understanding of the subject as a whole.
ReplyDeleteGlobal questions:
Does poverty typically lead to death?
Does poverty cause a high percentage of people who fall into poverty to become homeless?
Does poverty cause the separation of couples and families? Does this harm the world?
I am going to answer global question number three. The answer to this question is definitely yes. Whether it is from grief or opportunities in another place, families in poverty sometimes become split up due lack of funds. Fights also occur between couples and families because of the anger and fear which also leads to hatred and splitting apart. I would also have to say that this makes life for small children hard, but it may be beneficial. With less bodies to clothe and mouthes to feed it may be possible for one single parent and a child to get out of poverty, rather then two parents who are arguing all of the time. It is hard to even really think about what goes through some of these poor people's minds and to discover what they would truly think was the best in their time of need.
Austin, I am going to answer your first question. I did a little bit of research, and I found that those living in poverty will live 6.5 years less than those not living in poverty (citation below). With that being said, I think that poverty is very well a death sentence, depending on what type of aid is available for those people. If an impoverished person can receive no aid what so ever, and has no hope at getting a job or work, then I believe that poverty will be the death of that person. However, I think that there is always hope for the impoverished. I think it just takes the right mindset and will to get out of poverty, but sometimes that is the problem. How can an impoverished person obtain such a mindset and will? Maybe that is where the government comes into play; I think it is their job to motivate those in poverty.
DeleteSanders, Sen. Bernie. "Is Poverty a Death Sentence?" The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 13 Sept. 2011. Web. 30 Mar. 2014.
Nice job Austin!
Everyone that has presented this past week did a fantastic job. I learned so much information on so many different subjects. I really was interested by Jessica's presentation because I have always been wary of the effects social media and the internet have had on our society. Despite the numerous benefits that come with the social media sites, there are also many things that can be dangerous on the internet. Jessica did a great job of explaining them all, and used some great humor to keep it interesting.
ReplyDeleteSo I thought of some of the questions I would like to discuss if we had a chance to seminar:
What was Facebook originally intended for?
What is one of the most common problems on the internet?
How have social media and the internet affected the way the world communicates? Outline both bad and good parts of this question?
I am choosing to answer my third question.
Because of the advancements of the internet, everyone is communicating differently. We no longer speak face to face when seeing each other on the streets or in a store, but instead communicate through instant messenger windows on our computers or smartphones. This is extremely good for families who live with enough distance between them that it is difficult to communicate regularly. It also allows international communication to easily take place as long as the internet is working correctly. But, on the other hand, the internet is very impersonal. Many people find it difficult to find the difference between sarcasm and sincerity in a typed message. This allows for miscommunication and a weakening of relationships. People no longer are able to quickly communicate, because online you can take time to reply, so communication skills are being lost. Yet, despite these drawbacks, I think that smart usage of the internet's communication options is a good thing for the world.
Hannah, excellent post!
DeleteI chose to answer your second question. One of the most common problems on the internet is cyber bullying. Some things people, especially teenagers, would never say to someone else in person, but they can do it much more comfortably behind a computer screen. This becomes a huge issue in social media. However, there is one easy solution: block or unfriend people with negative posts. Everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and opinions online, and that's the way it should be. However, each person has the ability to choose his or her own friend list. The internet is an important part of our world today, and within that comes the social media. A lot of time can be wasted on these sites, but, overall, they are a good tool to communicate with friends and family.
Nice job, Hannah!
Hannah, I chose to answer your first question. Facebook was originally intended for Harvard students, where Mark Zuckerrberg went to college, to connect and be open with one another. Eventually Zuckerberg and his coworkers expanded the availability to the Stanford, Yale, and other Ivy League schools. After that, Facebook, which was initially called thefacebook, became open to all college students, and later high schoolers.
DeleteGreat job, Hannah!
After I took Ann's poverty quiz, I quickly realized that I do not know as much as I thought I did, considering I only got two questions correct. I had no idea how many people actually live in poverty in America until her presentation. That had a profound affect on me, especially because, more than likely, I will live at least one year in poverty myself. Just like Ann said, there are many things that we take for granted each and every day. My favorite part was when she discussed Rachel's mission trip. The people in the Dominican were always so happy and thankful for every little thing they received. Her presentation got me to think a lot harder; thus, I composed a list of three global questions:
ReplyDelete1. I live in a family of four. The government's definition of poverty is based on total income received. In 2012, a yearly income of $23,050 for a family of four was considered the poverty level. How was this number determined? Should it be higher or lower?
2. Someone living in poverty may be an extremely hard worker, but a victim of misfortune. On the other hand, someone living a luxurious life may have just lucked out with everything always being handed to him or her. Technically, aren't they both impoverished? A rich person may have a lot of cash, but they may be poor or lacking in other areas of their life. Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.
3. Should the government try to close the gaps in order to put an end to poverty, or should poverty be left alone? What are the consequences of each? Instead of the government giving impoverished people some fish, shouldn't they teach them how to fish?
I am going to answer my first question. The government measures poverty by income; however, that does not include the amount of debt a family has. This poverty level was established by a method created in the 1960s. It was assumed that families spent about one-third of their income on food; therefore, the government multiplied food price by 3 in order to create the poverty level. However, this method may be outdated. Food now only makes up roughly one-seventh of an average family's expenses. Today's world is more complex, especially with the cost of health care, housing, child care, transportation, etc. Therefore, there are even more people living in poverty compared to the amount that the government considers. Ann's presentation forced me to think a lot harder about my world. I live in a place where I don't even know the statistics. However, there may be something that each one of us can learn from living at least one year in poverty. Sometimes struggling is a good thing. This presentation really changed my mindset, for the better. After I just got done complaining about my house being too warm I realized how lucky I am to even have heat on these cold days.
Sam, I am going to answer your third question. I do not believe that this is such a black and white issue. For instance, I think that there are extreme consequences for choosing to close the gaps in order to end poverty and extreme consequences for letting poverty alone. If a country decides to focus on closing the gap of poverty there comes the issue of where the money is going to come from in order to aid such a focus. It would take a collective agreement to end poverty among everyone in the country to close the gap. I do not think such a collective agreement would happen, considering some people believe that those impoverished are doing nothing to help their own cause. I also do not think poverty should just be left alone, because there are some people who just need that little push to help them get out of poverty. With that being said, I am going to totally agree with your last question, and I say that the government should teach the people how to fish. I do not believe it is the job of the wealthy or middle class to exclusively help those in poverty, because those impoverished learn nothing when they receive, what they might deem as “free money” in the mail. Actually, they probably learn that by doing nothing they can make a decent living. I believe that the impoverished should be educated first and foremost, teach them about financial aid and tell them that there is a better life out there if they are willing to work for it.
DeleteNice job Sam!
I learned a lot this past week about poverty, foster care, the Rwanda genocide, the Holocaust, and the effects of social media. While all very interesting topics, I have decided to focus on Ann’s presentation about poverty. I felt like I really needed to learn more about the topic of poverty, considering that I got zero questions right on Ann’s quiz. Some of the statistics and percentages really grabbed my attention, and I knew I had to learn more about the issue of poverty.
ReplyDeleteGlobal questions:
1. What can be done to increase economic security for children and families?
2. How does the poverty rate vary under alternative definitions?
3. Does corruption in developing nations prevent aid from reaching the most impoverished people?
I am going to go ahead and answer my third question. I believe that corruption in developing nations, whether it be corrupted leaders or a corrupted government, can prevent aid from reaching those in need. For example, financial aid sent to other countries could very well be pocketed by a single leader or the government. However, I do not think that corruption is a justifiable excuse for aid not reaching millions of people. Through the use of aid transparency charts corruption among leaders and the government can be prevented. Aid transparency charts are simply charts used to plot how much aid is being provided, what the aid is being spent on, and what the programs who receive the aid are trying to achieve. I believe aid transparency charts will ensure that aid coming to those countries in need is being spent effectively and going to those people who need it the most.