RPI: Engineering Institute for Young Women

(For July 19^th)

            The gender bias at universities is prevalent throughout history. It’s been said in the past that women make good nurses and teachers, men are better suited to run businesses and build technology. Despite women fighting for rights, and justly winning said rights, the bias of gender in professional fields remains. The majority of young women entering universities tend to major in the same areas: biology, education, communications, and literature. This fact strikes my curiosity, as I am currently attending RPI: an institute which is now being promoted as “an engineering school for women”.

            In this day and age, gender bias is a concept which is viewed as preposterous. The majority of women know that they have the freedom to be whatever they wish. It has been proven that women can do most anything that men can do. Regardless, personal preferences, such as individuals being more comfortable with a male doctor over a female, keep the concept of gender bias alive. As my professor had pointed out, more than half of the population is female. Going to this school, I would have never even guessed it was anywhere that large.

            The ratio at RPI tends to hover around a male:female ration of 70:30. This almost seems like a massive delusion, since I have almost never seen a girl in my classes. Being a senior though, I’ve discovered that typically the young women who attend this institute major in categories from a small diverse set: biology (or biology-based engineering), management, and philosophy inclusive. In contrast to that, it is somewhat rare to find a male philosophy major, or a male biology major that is not going into some pre-med program. This corresponds directly with what most of us see in the media: college classrooms filled with studious males, with male professors educating their students.

            The media’s perspective of a schoolhouse classroom is a room of mixed male and female students, with a female teacher up front. There’s nothing wrong with that setting, but there is a significant inconsistency with media’s portrayal of individuals in the workplace and the actual workplace appearance. Why is it that there are no portrayals of a male professor teaching? Why is it that the doctors in medical university commercials are almost always male? It’s ridiculous that students in technical institute commercials (similar to my own school) are primarily male. It’s obvious that these similarities between media’s portrayal of gender-specific jobs and actual jobs are not merely coincidental. The media has a strong impact on minds, both young and old, subconsciously telling individuals to accept those facts and conform to those stereotypes. Even in this day and age, when such big strides for equality and integration have been successfully made, gender-based discrimination thrives.

            For once, I’d like to see an all-female engineering school (or primarily female). In my entire time at this university as an electrical engineer, I’ve counted 5 girls in my classes overall. The media’s gender-specific encouragement (or rather discouragement) has such a strong impact on an individual’s choices in life. If an individual views a commercial claiming that they can make more money in one position, or discretely implying that they would be better suited for another position based off of their race, they can be strongly swayed to pursue that career. To quote what my preschool teacher told me years ago: “be what you want to be, not what someone else wants you to be”.

Syrian Missile Crisis

(For July 16th)

Governments are meant to be systems “for the people, by the people”.  If a government is corrupt, or does not meet the standards of its people, a nation’s direct response is usually to rise up and change that government. In the most extreme cases, governments may refuse to yield, fighting back against the people to remain in power by any means necessary. After having read up on foreign affairs, I’ve become intrigued by Syria’s current problems. I’ve become even more intrigued, however, at its response to these problems.

            Syria has been having increasing civil issues, fighting rebels and trying to contain unruly citizen protests. The number of rebels on its home front seems to exponentially increase as time goes on. As such, it makes sense for the Assad regime (the currently prevailing government) to crack down on citizens with restrictions/actions. However, recently Syria has begun to move massive quantities of chemical weapons out of storage, sparking intrigue and fear from citizens across the globe. Many now find themselves wondering if Syria will unintentionally set off a spark that could set the world ablaze.

            Any action that involves stockpiling weapons is cause for alarm. Syria has one of the largest chemical warfare stockpiles in the world, so the fact that it is relocating these weapons can indicate a possible threat to itself, or even the world, unless they can reassure others that the weapons will not be used to control these riots. Still, the United States has made it sound as though Syria posing a severe threat to others. It seems as though they compare the nation to a frightened, cornered, wild dog; they make it sound like Syria is acting unpredictably and could snap at any minute. Personally, I don’t see this as a great cause for alarm.

Rebel fighters of the Free Syrian Army

            The media in the US tends to make the actions of other countries seem more menacing then they are. My professor recently reminded me of the Iraq crisis, where the media leaked that Iraq was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. As we now know, this was falsely used as a means of securing US support to invade Iraq. The media may be pulling a similar trick here: using the fact that they are simply relocating those weapons to gain support for meddling in foreign affairs. Looking at the situation, it seems far-fetched that a country would use chemical weapons to control home front rebels. Attacking its own citizens seems like a last-chance effort to regain control, and would ultimately end in mass destruction. A true leader would attempt to regain control over the rebels, not destroy them and risk drawing unwanted attention from other uneasy nations.

            The main argument for the idea that weapons will be used on the home front is that rebel forces are becoming more advanced. The rebels tend to use guerrilla warfare tactics on regime soldiers, as one article says. While advancing rebellions can pose a threat, such would not be enough to justify the use of deadly chemical warfare on its own nation. Hopefully, Syria will publicly announce that it does not intend to do so, so as to put uncertainties at rest. Logically speaking, it seems like the media is just using this as a way for the US to gain a presence in other parts of the world. In a case like this, the ends wouldn’t justify the means. 

To Infinity and Beyond

(For July 18^th)

            The origins of the human race have long been a mystery. Before science advanced, the world had contributed all of the creation of life to the work of deity’s, acting outside of the influence of anyone. Later on, it was discovered that life evolved over vast periods of time, adapting to the surrounding world as species instinctively saw fit. As time goes on, humans continue to discover additional clues as to how they came to be. In a recent article/interview in the times, those discoveries are outlines, ranging from the Big Bang up to the recent “hobbit” discovery.

            As a young aspiring engineer/scientist, I have always been interested in the advancement of technology and formulation of new ideas. I’ve learned to never discard impossible ideas, for most times the most farfetched ideas become the most accepted in time. Think about it: the idea that out planet revolved around the sun years ago was ridiculous. The concept of a round world was preposterous; the world was flat in the eyes of humanity for thousands of years. In the past, human and animal origins were unknown for years. In a fairly short time frame (relative to the rest of the universe) the direct answers to these questions were discovered.

            In the past, humans were believed to have come from Homo sapiens strictly. However, as the article/interview states, humans are more than 2.5% Neanderthal as well. The evidence comes along with the discovery of a peculiar race of small, slightly deformed beings known as “hobbits”. Their discovery and DNA testing has led scientists to strongly believe that Homo sapiens and Neanderthals have bred with one another.

            One of the most surprising aspects of this article is the fact that this information is relatively new to readers. Yet, at the same time, the information presented in the article/interview is said to be at least a few weeks old. This is infuriating, to say the least. How can media print the sheer moronic shenanigans of celebrities and overlook the concept of evolutionary discoveries that can shake the foundation of society as we know it? This isn’t the first time something like this has happened. The news had printed an article some time back about how “fragments” of the universe back when it first originated were discovered. These fragments had little recognition in the eyes of the public though. In my time spent looking for articles on the topic, I managed to find 3 on them (in the New York Times, on Yahoo.com, and on Nasa.gov). Of course, we can look back at another recent discovery: the god particle. At the very second that it was observed (to some extent), the god particle made newspaper headlines. The majority of people that had never read up on the concept were fascinated by its discovery.

            It truly is sad to see that “Katy Perry’s recent boyfriend” or drunken celebrities take preference over actual news in the world today. The majority of society is so fascinated with gossip and drama that they’re completely ignorant of some of the most groundbreaking finds of this century. For once, I’d like to see a science article stay in the news for as long as some of this mindless dribble. I tend to look at this as an idea of acceptance. As said in “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”, the meaning of life is 42. Try to look at this in a different light: the meaning of life is 42, but only if you accept it as such. That’s the beauty of discovery: there’s no telling what you’ll learn if you open your mind to possibilities.

Animal Cruelty in Horse Racing

Ever since I was 18, the concept of gambling on horses at racetracks has appealed to me. In the US, horse racing has become such a big event that it’s considered to be a sport. It’s a sport of honor, where the slightest slip-up can cost a horse the race, or even their career. I’ve kept up to date on horses, trainers, and jockeys (riders), and I consider myself to be “in-the-loop” when it comes to NYRA (New York Racing Association). That’s why when an article is published in the times that claims that a very famous horse has chosen not to release important information, I can’t help but feel irritated.

In the racing industry, the biggest events are considered to be three races during the summertime: the Kentucky Derby, the Belmont Stakes, and the Preakness. If a horse happens to win these three races, he becomes famous (the equivalent of winning the Super Bowl, World Cup, and the World Series combined) and receives an award known as the “Triple Crown”. He collects a massive amount of fame, wealth (for his trainer, jockey, owner, and himself), and goes down in history as a member of an elite group of winners. This past year, a horse known as “I’ll Have Another” made a name for himself. He ran in and won two of those races: the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness. He was about to run in the Stakes as well, but the media reported the day before the race that his leg was swollen. He was said to be suffering from some extreme pain, resulting from a “freak accident”. In time, it was revealed that the horse had developed tendonitis, and would not be able to run. As such, the horse was taken out of the race the day before to prevent further injury, much to the disappointment of everyone.

For weeks after, the name “I’ll Have Another” brought sadness to the hearts of millions. This horse truly had a shot at the Triple Crown, but an unfortunate misstep caused him to miss his big chance. Now however, more than a month after the Stakes, evidence has come to light that the horse may have been injured well before the announcement/race. In fact, the horse may have been injured as early as after his first race, forced to run during the second, and worsened his already-poor condition.

The article in the times states that veterinary records recently revealed that the horse was X-rayed 4 days after his victory at the Preakness. The images showed distinct signs of osteoarthritis, a serious condition for a young horse attempting to train for the Stakes. This was in addition to the tendon problem, making this seem more and more like a case of animal abuse.

The fact that this was not released to the media was a complete disgrace. It was depressing to hear this horse not have a shot at fame after coming so far. It was even more depressing, as well as disgustingly cruel, to hear that the horse was being given excessive amounts of painkillers to help him deal with stress of training. It would make more sense to have the horse rest, relax, and then attempt to gradually bring him back into his training routine. Forcing the poor animal to run on an already injured leg only served to permanently damage him, and prematurely end his racing career.

One can only help but wonder who would be so cruel as to force a colt to run under excruciatingly painful physical conditions. Well, the trainer of “I’ll Have Another”, Doug O’Neill, is infamous in the racing community. He has been accused of using tactics considered illegal by the NYRA to enhance the physique/performance of the horse. Despite this, due to his known success with legal methods, the man is also highly regarded as one of the most experienced trainers in the business. Once again, O’Neill is under investigation, and the entire racing community is looking into this case to prevent future incidents of cruelty similar to this from happening.

Sadly, disgraceful events like this happen in all fields of athletics. What makes this case so different is that the runner, the horse, was probably not aware that it was being “jacked up” on painkillers. He was forced to something which I’m sure he wasn’t ready for. It’s good to hear that he’s well off now, enjoying retirement. Regardless, I can’t help but wonder how many more times this will happen, how many more animals will get hurt, just so that people can gain fame and wealth. Hopefully, the NYRA will put  a stop to these cruel practices once and for all.

               

Violence in Video Games

For the longest time, I’ve associated rises in crime rates in the US with rises in unemployment rates. It makes sense: when an individual has trouble getting employed, they seek to obtain money in any way that they can. The easiest way to get money, ignoring risks, would obviously be to just take it, which is how I’ve always thought the majority of criminals think. After reading a section in “Media and Culture” though, another source of inspiration for criminal activity was brought to light: video games.

Video Games are shown to have a large impact on hostile behavior

            Just thinking about the fact that games have evolved from beloved “Pong” to gore-ridden 3D slaughter-fests in 40 years is absolutely amazing. Looking at a brief history of games, one can see the massive shift in opinions and acceptance of ideas. The first game to actually be considered violent was known as “Death Race”, and was a two-dimensional driving game where the player ran over creatures known as gremlins. The game received harsh criticism and was pulled from shelves almost immediately. Soon after this, a rating system was developed for video games, where games were assigned a letter corresponding to the minimum age to which the game could be sold. Less than 20 years later, the infamous “Duke Nukem” emerged, bringing a wave of sex and violence into the video game world. The game was widely accepted as a standard for which games were rated (games similar to Duke being given the T=Teen 13+ rating). In the years following, as graphics were enhanced, higher quality games were developed. Duke made a comeback several years later, entering the 3D era, but having been unable to maintain his teen rating. The game was so violent and filled with mature themes, it was given one of the higher ratings today, M = Mature 17+. Other games, such as Halo, Call of Duty, and Gears of War have all been given the dreaded M-rating.

            The evolution of gaming and the game-rating system has certainly downplayed the concept of violence in the modern world. When you play a game where you experience combat as a soldier, your adrenaline rushes. However, knowing that it is only a game, and likewise that you most likely will never see the true horrors of war, one tends to feel more at ease. I speak out of experience when I say this, as I’ve noticed my views on violence and drugs change greatly from just playing a game. For example, recently I’ve taken quite a liking to “Battlefield 3”, an FPS (first-person shooter) war game. When playing the multiplayer aspect of it, I don’t feel nervous, horrified, or as though I’m actually at war; I feel excited and hungry for revenge on the player that killed me last. There is almost no association between fiction and reality for the player in these games.  

The media has made sure to portray violence in a different manner, so as to appeal to the younger generation. Spectacular footage of protagonists performing impossible acrobatic feats (back-flipping onto a helicopter’s cockpit, for example) appeal to younger viewers, amazing them and encouraging them to buy the product. Nowadays, almost any game is available to everyone, regardless of the rating. Parents will purchase their underage children excessively violent video games, whether or not they are aware of the damage they are doing to their child. In some cases, the online community for a video game classified with an M rating consists primarily of children. Ironically, two of the three games mentioned above (Call of Duty and Halo) fall under that category.

When a kid plays a video game and realizes that no harm can come to them, they get a rush. They feel invincible, controlling every aspect of some character and committing violent acts and crimes with no punishment. As that child matures, there is a much greater chance that they’re going to end up idolizing that character too much, which may lead to them attempting to act as their idol. We should make sure to remind our children that the events in these games are not meant to be replicated. Parents should be aware of what their children are playing these days, as some children may be too immature for games (hence the rating system). If people can distinguish between reality and the digital world, they will find that video games can be a great way to unwind and relax, as well as a means of taking out pent-up frustrations. Video games themselves aren’t a menace to society. It’s only when we allow them to control us that they become dangerous.

The Legality of Marijuana

No matter how many times I attempt to avoid partaking in the discussion, the concept of legalizing marijuana tends to resurface. Hearing the concept of legalization of marijuana brought up, regardless of whether or not I agree with what’s being said, sets me off. It seems ridiculous that in this day and age, people can still find reasons to bash the substance. The product was marked as an illegal substance back in 1937, when the Marijuana Tax Act was implemented. As time progressed, the government felt the need to “protect” society from the herb, and eventually outlawed the possession, growing, and selling of it entirely. Now, society has finally begun to question the legitimacy of the claim that the plant is as evil as it’s made out to be.

I must say that it’s truly baffling at how ignorant mankind can be at times. For almost a century, marijuana was said to be evil. It was determined that due to the rising stereotype that African Americans and Mexicans were the primary smokers of the herb, as well as the negative stereotypes associated with those particular ethnicities at the time that associatively, marijuana was bad. These claims are blatantly racist, yet in modern times, it seems as though the herb has come to be associated with negativity. There is little supporting reason behind it as well; in my eyes, it’s almost as though the “middle man” was cut from the story. While racism is a large contributing factor to the illegality of the plant, let’s not overlook another major cause of its prohibition: marketing. As a democratic society, our nation is entitled to certain freedoms, namely freedom of choice. When it came time to discuss the legality of marijuana, various industries stood up to fight against it. A prominent example of this is the nylon industry, which had started booming at that time. Despite nylon being a useful product in this day and age, back then there was a great uncertainty as to whether or not it would truly take off. Hemp was notably a cheap substitute for multiple products (rope and paper, to name a few). If hemp was removed as competition, the market for nylon and timber products would be much more successful. As such, the illegalization of marijuana had gained more than enough support.

I severely doubt that most Americans have ever reviewed the causes behind the illegalization of marijuana. If anyone ever had taken the time to look them up, they would have found exactly what I’ve stated above: marijuana was primarily prohibited because of personal interests and racist remarks. Numerous studies performed over the last few decades have proven that the substance is less harmful than nearly every other illegal drug, as well as multiple legalized substances (alcohol and caffeine, for example). When used in clinical trials, it has shown noticeably positive results on patients with social disorders, suffering from depression, and who are experiencing physical discomfort (severe injuries or health conditions). As my professor brought up in one of my in-class discussions, it seems utterly moronic for cigarettes and tobacco in general, with incredibly high addiction rates and multiple negative effects, to be legal while marijuana is not.

Marijuana has an incredibly low "lethal dosage" quantity. Lower than caffeine,
 which the majority of American's consume daily

The fight against the illegality of marijuana has taken a turn for the better. It seems as though people have become more aware, while the government has become much more ignorant. More and more states are starting to legalize medicinal marijuana, something which has proven to be beneficial. Additionally, in a recent public interview with the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration), the head of the department proved to know little to nothing about marijuana, or drugs in general. When asked for her opinion on heroine’s effects in comparison to marijuana, she simply stated that “All illegal drugs are bad”. By this statement, our government is claiming that because something is illegal, it is bad. As far as ignorance goes, this takes the cake.


It seems that society is starting to develop opinions different from those of our government. This can only mean that change is coming to our nation. Of course, I can agree that some conditions call for marijuana to remain illegal (such as driving under the influence of the plant). However, I really believe it’s about time that we realize that the media has had too much influence over us. We need to open our eyes, look deep down, and ask ourselves: what influence are we really under here? Marijuana? Or our government's?