Some Incentives

     Earlier in the week we talked about some of the incentives we encounter in our own lives. With that in mind, while I was watching Obama give his first State of the Union Address (here is a transcript of the full speech), I noticed that he mentioned several times, incentives for things. I found this to be very interesting because the other day when I was trying to think of incentives in my own life, I couldn't. I just couldn't think of anything that I was rewarded for doing, or anything like that. So when I heard President Obama use the word or suggested anything reward-like during his speech, it stuck with me.
     Most of the incentives Obama proposed had to do with money, like tax breaks for example. He said that he would "give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the United States." He also mentions in the same paragraph that he will "give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient." Many of his incentives also deal with clean energy: "But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives," because, "providing incentives for energy-efficient and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future." I just found it to be so interesting that he is explicitly offering rewards for doing good. And it was very ironic to me that just a day before his speech I couldn't think of one incentive in my life, and then here he was, the president, giving me some right to my face. Well, not really me exactly, but you get the point!
     But wait, that's not all! Just when you think he's done with this whole incentive thing, he does it again! During his section on education he says: "Instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success." I found it particularly interesting that in this line he uses "reward" instead of "incentive." "Reward" sounds more like something you would say to a child, and "incentive" more like something you would say to an adult. I guess I felt a little like a child again. Not that I think it sounded bad in his speech, because I don't think it did. Perhaps he was hoping to connect to his younger audience who are in still in school, as a way to encourage them. It's interesting (I know that I'm using the word "interesting" a lot, sorry!) the way he is planning on using incentives to get things accomplished. But sometimes that's what has to be done. Without something to gain for themselves, people won't always do things for the greater good. Hopefully his incentives will help get America back on track, but do you think it will work? Is he offering a big enough incentive? Too much? Does his constant mention of incentives reflect badly on our society?

It Was "Lost" or the President, And the People Chose "Lost"

     As some people may know, President Obama will give his first State of the Union Address this Wednesday, January 27th. However, this was not the original date scheduled for President Obama to give it.

     I was informed some weeks ago that the State of the Union was scheduled for the same night as the "Lost" season 6 premier, on February 2nd.  Many "Lost" fans were outraged by this and according to the preceding links, "prompted its avid watchers to launch a protest on Twitter against the potential scheduling conflict" and "inspired Facebook pages protesting how airing 'Lost' on time was more important than the State of the Union." And that's how the date of the Sate of the Union was changed.

     As a devout Lostie myself, I completely see where these fans are coming from. I admit that Twitter and Facebook protests are a little outrageous, but I have been waiting for season 6 to come since seventh grade and have the full intent of watching the 2 hour premier at the exact time it airs. And if that means missing President Obama's first State of the Union, then that's just too bad, that's what Tivo is for I guess. I know it sounds bad, but it's the truth. It shows the intensity that "Lost" fans have, or as some non-fans would say, the weird obsession that we have. Nonetheless, this little uprising of Lost fans made me think. It's kind of sad that we live in a society that would rather watch "Lost" than find out how our country is doing. More than that, go as far as protesting against the date of the State of the Union. I've never heard of such a thing like this before. It's just so extreme. Furthermore, I wouldn't have thought that the President would comply with the Losties, but in this society I suppose anything is possible. The Losties are an intense crowd and they get what they want.

Genius or Insanity?

 "Sometimes, for an artist, the only difference between insanity and genius is success."

     This quote was taken from an episode of "Criminal Minds," a show about FBI profilers from the Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU). It was used to describe a comic book writer turned serial killer, but that's beside the point. When you first read the quote, it sounds like just another t.v. show line, but I think it actually holds a lot of truth. There are so many artists that are just plain crazy, but absolute geniuses. And in agreement with the above quote, I believe that the reason many artists are able to achieve genius status is because of their success. An artist that I think foloows this quote to the dot is Van Gogh. Van Gogh is notorius for being the "crazy" artist, I suppose; at least the one who cut off his  ear, and that's pretty insane if you ask me. Furthermore, towards the end of his life, he check himself in to a mental institution. According to the link above about him, while he was at the institution, he completed 150 paintings including one of his most famous: "Starry Night." During his lifetime, I can guess that he was most likely seen as just plain insane, considering he didn't achieve any real success during his life, selling only one painting according to the link above. Now, he is obviously seen in a different light, as one of the best painters to ever live. And I truly believe that his later success after his death played a key role in his transition from insanity to genius in the eyes of society.
     Another artist that this quote made me think of is Andy Warhol. Contrary to what the quote states, Andy Warhol managed to be insane and a genius at the same time, which definitely takes skill. His success did not separate him from the insanity category, but merely added him to the genius category as well. One could also relate Andy Warhol's situation with Michael Jackson's. Both were geniuses, but seen as crazy at the same time, despite their success. 
     In a way, I think that all artists need to be a little crazy, otherwise they don't stand out. I just feel bad for the insane geniuses who never become successful, so they're just stuck being insane. And that's no fun, now is it?

A Selective History

     I recently finished a book called "The Historian," by Elizabeth Kostova. It is about the legend of Dracula, but it deals a lot with Eastern European history, particularly the histories of Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey. This made me realize that before reading this book, I basically had no knowledge of these countries, all I knew was that they existed, which isn't really saying a whole lot. And this made me wonder why I didn't know about their histories and many other country's histories. Why do I know nothing about the history of Argentina, the Ukraine, or New Zealand? Why is my only knowledge of Scottish history coming from a scraggly Mel Gibson in "Braveheart"? I guess my ultimate question is why do some histories seem more important than others? I studied the Ancient Greeks and Romans from 6th grade to freshman year. But before freshman year I had no previous knowledge of the Middle East or Chinese history. Why is it okay for 6th graders to learn about Ancient Greece, but not about Islam? I realize that elementary school has to create a foundation of knowledge for its students, but it troubles me that before high school I only knew a lot about the same three countries: America, Ancient Greece, and Ancient Rome. But who makes these decisions? Who decides what history is important, and what history is not important? And most importantly, WHY?

Talented? or Marketable?

     A little before winter break, I went to two very different concerts: Imogen Heap and the B96 Jingle Bash. Imogen Heap was at a very small venue; I would guess that there were about 300 people there and attracted a crowd that was mostly older than me. The B96 Jingle Bash was not at all like this. It was a huge venue; thousands of people were there. And the crowd was not like city dwellers at Imogen Heap. It was mostly girls my age or younger screaming there little hearts out for Justin Bieber.
     After going to both these concerts I noticed a significant difference between the music itself. At the Imogen Heap concert, she was on the stage making the music herself with various instruments and sound tools. During several songs, she would start and then stop suddenly saying: "I think I'm going to start over." I thought this was interesting because I had never seen an artist do this before. I was amazed because I realized that she had the option to stop because she was actually creating the music herself, unlike a lot of artists these days whose music just comes blaring out of gigantic speakers, and you have to wonder if they're really singing at all, or just lip syncing. It was genuine and that's what I liked about it.
     This got me thinking to the types of artists at these two concerts. In my opinion, Imogen Heap is a very talented artist, with genuine talent, but she is not widely known. But the performers at the B96 Jingle Bash who are very popular, like Sean Kingston, Jay Sean, and of course Justin Bieber, do not posses the genuine talent that I see in other artists. And here comes the connection to our class discussion during the past two days about advertising targeted at children. It's not just toys and food targeted at children: It's also singers and actors. These days an artist doesn't have to be talented, they just have to be marketable. Take Hannah Montana and the Jonas Brothers for example. Contrary to what most young girls would say, I do not think these singers posses any real talent. They are just able to market themselves extremely well, and like some people were saying "brainwash" kids into liking them. So my question is how have we allowed advertisers to overlook true talent like I saw at the Imogen Heap concert, and advertise crap artists? I want to hear about talented artists, not ones that are just an advertisement to get me to buy t-shirts and Hannah Montana wigs.

Red Nails and Army Boots

Red nails and army boots.
Diamond earrings and an army uniform.
Camouflage.
A matching cap tucked away in her carry-on.
Blue eyeshadow against her lovely, brown skin.
Cared-for hair pulled into a tight bun.
A sweet looking face sitting across from me on a cramped plane.
My eyes fixed on her.
She had a je ne sais quoi.
On her way home.
Or on her way back.
I didn't know.