To smoke or not to smoke?

     "Thank You for Smoking" follows Nick Naylor, Vice President of a tobacco lobby called The Academy of Tobacco Studies.  Naylor is known as a smooth talking lobbyist, however is highly hated for defending tobacco products.  He completely understands the hazards of smoking, but his job is to, essentially, get people to keep smoking.

    

     The movie "Thank You for Smoking" relates to the articles that we discussed in class this week.  The article "Organized Interests and the Decision of Whom to Lobby in Congress" written by Marie Hojnacki and David Kimball, discussed the role that lobbyists play in Congress.  A lobbyist's job is to influence the decision of policy making in favor of what they were hired for.  As seen in the movie, Naylor lobbied in favor of tobacco use, claiming he had no solid evidence of risks.  We also discussed Harvey Sapolsky's article "The Political Obstacles to the Control of Cigarette Smoking in the United States."  According to the article, one-third of adult Americans are smokers (Sapolsky 1980).  This raises the question, adults have access to find out the hazards of tobacco, however, still smoke, what would it really take to make them stop?

    

     Recently, the government has stepped in and has made the decisions for us, in regard to smoking.  In New York and in New Jersey, smoking is banned in restaurants and apartment buildings, among other places.  I guess if the public will not stop for their own health, the government will attempt to make them.

How is immigration and segregation effecting our culture?

     Immigration and segregation are two very important issues in the United States.  Immigration always seems to be the center of many political campaigns because the citizens of the United States feel that immigrants from other countries who come into the US are seriously effecting the country.  Segregation is very potent in the United States as well, making some people wonder; are we really all equal?

     

      Darrel West, author of "The Costs and Benefits of Immigration" discusses a few reasons as to why citizens of the United States have concerns with immigrants entering the country.  West (2010) claims the reasons are; taking jobs away from citizens, utlizing government benefits when they should not be, and not adapting to the US culture by
learning English or becoming a citizen, which in turn greatly effects our culture.  In regard to segregation, the article "Cracks in American Apartheid: the Political Impact of Prejudice Among Desegregated Whites" written by Donald Kinder and tali Mendelberg, discusses the white's perspectives of blacks.  According to the article, 44.6% of whites believe that blacks are lazy, while 56.3$ of whites believe that blacks would rather live off of welfare than make their own living (Kinder, Mendleberg 1995).  No wonder segregation still exists.  Why would whites and blacks want to co-mingle if they secretly feel resentment toward each other?

     

     We had the opportunity to watch "District 9" this week.  "District 9" is an area in Johannesburg, which is essentially an alien ghetto.  An alien aircraft broke down over the city and the officials of the town took hostage all the aliens and placed them in the ghetto.  In essence, it was basically and alien holocaust.  The aliens were treated like criminals and not given very good resources to survive on.  The movie coincides with the articles from this week very well.  People tend to judge those who are not similar to them.  White people judge black people, US citizens judge immigrants, and human beings judge aliens. 

How does Congress get corrupted?

In the film "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" the viewer gets to see how Congress really works.  Most people do not get a chance to sit in on a Senate meeting, however, watching "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" allows the audience to do so.  The movie focuses on Jeff Smith who was chosen to replace a recently deceased Senator.  Smith is overwhelmingly naive and truly believes that his fellow Congressmen are looking out for his best interest.  However, he film divulges the viewers into the corruption of Congress.  Smith just wants to start a camp for young boys, however his plans coincide with a dam-building scheme that Smith's coworker, Senator Paine, is supporting

     

     We had the opportunity to read further about corruption in politics this week.  The article "Corruption and Political Culture in America: An Empirical Perspective" written by Michale Johnston, discusses various methods and perspectives that explain why there is corruption in politics.  One perspective is the personalistic perspective, which claims that corruption is caused by bad people, people who do not have values, and people who do not generally care about the public good (Johnston 1983).  A second perspective is the institutional perspective, which claims that corruption occurs because of poor organization or flaws in the system and laws (Johnston 1983).  We can relate the personalistic perspective back to "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."  The corruption that took place in the film was due to the crooked Senators who were a part of the dam-building scheme. 

Would you fight for his right?

     Would you be willing to stand up to the masses?  Would you be able to stand up to 11 angry jurors?  That is exactly what Juror 8 did in "12 Angry Men."  "12 Angry Men" follows 12 jurors who are having a difficult time reaching a unanimous verdict on a murder case.  Juror 8 stands up against the 11 other jurors, who all vote guilty, to show them how the defendant may potentially be innocent.  The evidence that is presented to the jury is circumstantial, and juror 8 wants the defendant to have a fair deliberation.

     

     When called to serve Jury Duty most people do not jump for joy.  Serving on a jury was not always a privelage granted to all people.  In "12 Angry Men" we notice the jury is made up of all white men.  Women and men of other nationalities had to fight for their right to serve jury duty.  However, in current times most people see serving on a jury as tedious and inconvenient.  In the article "Another White Race: Mexican Americans and the Paradox of Whiteness in Jury Selection" written by Clare Sheridan, the reader follows a case that descriminated against Mexican Americans.  Although Mexican Americans were classified as white, they were still not allowed to serve on a jury (Sheridan 1992). 

     

     Although women and minorities fought hard to have equal rights, specifically to serve on a jury, did it really pay off?  The articles do not discuss how many people were excited when called to jury duty, even though all of their hard work paid off.  Would our ancestors be terribly disappointed in all of us now, knowing how we feel about jury duty?

Are newspapers old news?

     Leo Bogart, author of "The Public's Use and Perception of Newspapers" discusses the change in media over the years, and which outlet consumers prefer.  With the growing technology, people are no longer relying on the morning newspaper for their source of information.  Television was the first major competitor against the newspaper, however the most convenient outlet now is the internet.  With such a diverse outlet, the internet, having sites like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, why is a newspaper even necessary?

     

     The movie "Citizen Kane" follows the life and death of a newspaper proprietor, Charles Kane.  The movie is made up of flashbacks of Kane's life told by different characters.  However, a large part of his life was running his newspaper, The New York Inquirer.  Kane did not seem to care whether or not what was printed in his newspaper was the truth or was misleading.

     

     Do consumers expect the news to be completely honest?  Or do we know, for the most part, which networks, stations, or outlets will focus on one side of an issue?  Is freedom of the press such a great thing after all?  Newspapers are allowed to write about pretty much whatever they want to.  Is this really freedom of the press or is it just newspaper's biased opinions?

Can women be the breadwinners in the household?

     The article "WASP (Wives as Senior Partners)" written by Maxine Atkinson and Jacqueline Boles, discusses marriages and families who are organized around the wife's job rather than the husband's job.  According to the article there are three social conditions associated with WASPs: wives have traditional male jobs, flexibility around male's job, and absence of children (Atkinson, Boles, 1989).  It is interesting that the authors do not discuss the reason that a marriage might focus on the wife's job is due to the woman just having the better skills to make more money.  The above reasons relate back to the male partner.

     

     The companionate theory of marriage focuses on having a higher quality of marriage for wives as well as showing positive emotions from the husbands (Wilcox, Nock 2006).  This theory is discussed in the article "What's Love Got To Do With It? Equality, Equity, Commitment and Women's Marital Quality" written by W. Bradford Wilcox and Steven L. Nock.  We can relate this theory to the film "Adam's Rib."

    

     The film "Adam's Rib" follows a married couple who are working on the same trial.  The husband, Adam, has been chosen to be the prosecutor against a women who shot her husband for cheating on her.  Adam's wife, Amanda, find the case interesting and becomes the woman's defense attorney.  Although, during the time period it was rather uncommon for a woman to have such an elite job, Adam does not seem to mind that his wife is a lawyer.  It bothers him that she is on this specific case, but otherwise he shows positive emotion toward her, as in the companionate theory of marriage.

     

     Are WASPS becoming the norm?

Can bureaucracy kill us?

     After watching "Brazil" I am sure some people might assume that bureaucracy can kill us.  "Brazil" follows Sam Lowry, a government employee, who is assigned the task of fixing a mistake that was caused by a bug jammed in the printer.  A man becomes a victim of a wrongful accusation and is killed due to the bug error.  "Brazil" is a very radical movie.  Everything has a hidden meaning behind it.  The movie pokes fun of 
bureaucracy by adopting the "I am not responsible for that" method.  The characters in the film tend to pawn their work off to others, as well as send the customers to various departments to fill out massive amounts of paperwork.

    

     In the article "Citizen-Initiated Contact and Satisfaction With Bureaucracy: A Multivariate Analysis" the author, George Serra, discusses the relationship between the people and bureaucracy.  According to the article there is a gap between the two and a main reason is because it is rather difficult for the consumer to receive the correct data (Serra, 1995).

     

     A lot of people can attest to having a bad experience with the bureaucracy.  For example, how many pleasant trips to the DMV have you been on?  I am not sure there is anyway to improve the relationship between the consumer and the bureaucracy.  However, just watch "Brazil," it might make you feel sorry for the bureaucrats or might just make you laugh at its craziness.