The "Beauty" of Politics

Through our class discussions, we have come to a conclusion that oftentimes the media uses attractive women and their sex appeal to entice an audience. This was thought to be common sense, think about all those commercial with half-naked women that have nothing to do with the product its selling. So what if it was the same with politicans?

What if instead of attractive women that have nothing to do with the product being sold, it is an attractive face that has no indication of the candidates' inner qualities?

Well, it is.

This frighteningly accurate video (click here) sums up the problem America doesn't even know it has.

A politicians ability to lead has absolutely no correlation with their attractiveness. So why is attractiveness a factor in choosing a political candidate? As our American Studies class creeps towards voting age, this is an important concept to keep in mind. Regardless of whether you vote for the conservative tea party maverick, that liberal Chicagoan with those captivating speeches, or whoever else's name is on the ballot; vote for WHO they are, not what they look like.

Meta-Post

Rereading my blog posts, I have definitely made some leaps and bounds since last semester. In my last meta-post, I complained that all posts were pretty standard and followed the same format. They discussed a topic from class, took a new take on it, and then proposed and answered a question. While my first few posts somewhat followed this format, they also became increasingly creative. I began giving more commentary and coming up with more interesting subjects. For instance, in Goodbye Summer, Hello School and Yet Another Teachable Moment, I discussed current events and connected them to topics and motifs discussed in class, rather than directly referencing class discussions and books we've read. While I used to mostly answer the questions I proposed, I began asking thought-provoking questions at the end of my posts. (see Goodbye Summer, Hello School).

While these creative improvements were nice to spice things up, there were some downsides. I realized the more out-there and creative I seemed to get, the less concrete and substantial evidence I provided. 2011 was fun and interesting, but did not have any real, substantial information, nor was it related to class. And, sometimes I don't conclude properly and could add a lot more. In The Ugly Truth, I bring up the very interesting statistic that "unattractive defendants are 22 percent more likely to be convicted than good-looking ones" and tied it to to unfairness of the court room in The Crucible. However, I end with the conclusion that these biases are unstoppable and are "something the justice system will just have to live with." This is a very thought provoking, interesting subject and I could have either gone in more detail or raised more questions, instead of simply providing a hasty and naive conclusion.

So, for the most part my blog posts have improved. They become increasingly creative and interesting. However, sometimes they tend to lose their reliability and substance. I think my goal for second semester will be to find a healthy balance between my random, fun posts and important, class-related posts, as well as fusing the two together.

Well Mr. Kohlberg...

While learning about Kohlberg's theory of moral development in class today, everything was pretty simple and clear. However, I couldn't seem to come to comprehend the notion that a person morally matures onto the next stage solely by thinking through moral dilemmas and having discussions.

I think there is another factor to keep in mind: experience. While I am certainly no psychologist, I do feel that a person develops, in all ways possible, based off experiences they have. Yes, they can discuss moral issues and learn from different discussions with different people. But don't they need to experience various moral dilemmas themselves to learn what is morally right as well?

So this leads me to wonder about good ol' Huck Finn. We have generally concluded he is between the second and third stage. But what experiences have lead him into this stage? Would he be at a different stage if he had a stable childhood and home? What stage is Jim at and what experiences has he had that's left him there?