I agree that violence is destructive. It has caused devastation for as long as the world has existed. True, it is a part of life so I do not believe that it should be completely censored from children. If it were to be completely ignored as a topic, the ignorance would be more destructive. A problem such as this one does not simply go away when it is not addressed. However, it should be depicted as a negative result of something (like an argument or otherwise). It should not be shown as an automatic or healthy reaction to something. It is true that children are impressionable (just say something around a 5 year old and see how many times he or she repeats it). Therefore, we as adults should be careful as to what we expose young ones to. A focus on violence can lead to a violent adult, and vice versa. In order to lead the world into a less gruesome generation, it is our responsibility to shift the focus to more positive and healthy ways of life.
I did the same as you. When I first listened to this song, I didn't listen closely to the lyrics, but just looping the chorus that keeps repeating "So do what you want. What you want with my body. Do what you want. Don't stop, let's party. Do what you want......" I think this song is totally matching the style of Lady Gaga. I remembered that time I went to her concert in Seattle, she kept telling us "no matter who you are, gay, straight, Asian, American, African, black or white, would you care about what other people say?" "No! Never! Be brave to be who you are! People thought that I was weird but I just ignore them because I am Lady Gaga!" No matter her personal imagine or her songs, there is always a very strong message behind "Do what you want".
I agree that a child being born out of wedlock is a growing issue that's often overlooked and needs to be addressed in the United States. Throughout Bill O'Reily's video he uses only statistics to back up his claim. Seeing the percentages of poverty, drug use, crime, and other troubling statistics centered on fatherless or single-mother homes was shocking. But, statistics were the only grounds used throughout O'Reily's argument to back it up. I do not think his argument was very convincing, especially if the audience watching was a single mother. I think a number of single parents would disagree and say that raising a child without either the mother or father is doable and their child can still be successful and cared for financially or emotionally. I think it's more dependent on the actually person raising the child, where they came from or what their family background is like. Although the statistics showed that majority of poverty, crime, and despair in this country are a result of traditional family collapsing, I don't believe those facts alone are enough to support the argument being made. I think there were a number of other important factors O'Reily should have brought up such as the developmental or psychological effects only having one parent may have on a child, or explaining why these kids often end up using drugs or incarcerated as related to growing up without a father for example. As I stated in the beginning, I myself agree that children born out of wedlock is not a good thing, however I think O'Reily could have had a stronger argument by including other evidence to show why a child needs both a mother and father.
I think Tanya Luhrmann brings something new to the discussion of pro-life versus pro-choice. I heard that one of the arguments for pro-choice is that a large portion of rapes end in unintended pregnancies. I personally believe that women should have the option to terminate pregnancies if they are not in a situation to finance the child. But I also believe that women should have other options such as birth control and condoms. I think that abortions should be used only in extreme circumstances. We could develop a criteria and rape could be one of the categories. We need to make sure that women have options. But the more important point is that women need to be able to make decision about their own bodies.
I think that you make a good point when you say that, "the author seems to think that we should be taking sentences that should be dealt to human traffickers and reserving them for the people who purchase the services of a prostitute - likely without knowing that they are sex slaves at all." I didn't get a chance to read the article, but from your point of view I think your trying to point out a systemic problem. In my view, it's probably a good idea to go after the money. I think that we should legalize prostitution and destroy the black market. Then after destroying the black market you can tax prostitution at such a high rate that people will be unable to afford prostitution. I understand that there is a large moral issue against prostitution, but that moral issue can be fixed by legalizing it.
The 2012 film "Spring Breakers" received mixed reviews nationally. Many critics of the film cited disorganized dialogue, nonlinear plot progression, and what some considered to be overly sexualized depictions of modern youth as factors that amalgamated into a failure of a cinematic experience. For others, the marketing of the film as a standard spring break movie starring well-known actors and actresses ramped up expectations for a movie that would operate within the usual confines of a spring blockbuster. Unfortunately for those holding such viewpoints, the true aim and essence of the film is lost. As James Franco - close associate of director Harmony Korine and star actor in the film- details in his brief essay regarding the film, the wealth of aesthetic and implicit factors in the movie coalesce into a profound commentary on American culture.
Every factor within the film - including aesthetics, casting, pacing, editing, and subject matter- combines to form a mental narrative that exceeds the explicit cinematic depictions. By analyzing their significance in relation to the cultural commentary they create, Franco convincingly articulates the film's landmark importance in American cinema. The basis of Franco's analysis is formed upon the specific factors mentioned previously and how they include elements from both standard cinema and other forms of cultural expression. Many actors are cast in ways that subvert cultural expectations (teen drama/Disney star actresses perform the lead roles in a less-than-parent-friendly manner) while others essentially portray their real-life personas within the context of the script. Comparisons are drawn between American culture itself and the film's glitzy aesthetic, contrast of real and fabricated personas, and dreamlike pacing to bring viewers along a logical series of commentary points. Compounding this effect is Franco's own role as a central figure and collaborator in the film. This position amasses enormous ethos persuasion due to the full integration and insider knowledge of the film. Although Franco's writing style itself is informal and relaxed, the combination of logic and credibility in his argument speaks for itself.
I found this to be an interesting take on responding to sex trafficking issues, but I also thought it ultimately missed the point. The author seems to think that we should be taking sentences that should be dealt to human traffickers and reserving them for the people who purchase the services of a prostitute - likely without knowing that they are sex slaves at all. There doesn't seem to be much mention of the morality of paying for sex or seeing a prostitute at all, so I have to assume that the author's main purpose is to limit the sex trafficking industry, but I think persecuting Johns is the wrong way to go about it. Attempts to curb any black market are unsuccessful at best in this country, and the dent that harsher punishments would make on the demand for prostitutes would be negligible, at least by my assumption. Prostitution is the world's oldest profession, and no matter how many johns you put behind bars the "industry" will still thrive.
Also, it seems odd to me to advocate using legal punishment on one group of people to try and limit an entire industry. The purpose of the judicial system is not to regulate the black market economy, it is to punish those who have broken the law. If the author's problem is with sex traffickers, and his problem with johns is that they enable sex trafficking with their business, he should be pushing for larger efforts to catch human traffickers rather than lonely men and women looking for physical pleasure.
The drama Modern Family is about three happy and funny families and all of them are under the same household. It does not have those scenes that make the audience feel very excited. The whole drama is very simple yet hilarious and touching. The way that everyone uses to get along with each family member is exquisite and profound. They treat each other as close friends. Although they always have misunderstanding, they feel free to talk to each other in order to solve the problems. There is an attitude inside every one of them, which is family members are the most important people, and they are the one who we should not have estrangement with.
Sometime, we may think that we are who we think. However, there are always some aspects we may forget or we don't even know that exists. One of the influences of the media is to make us reflect ourselves by providing great numerous of information, messages, and point of views. Media has not only opened our eyes but also our minds. Just like The Modern Family. It looks like a very simple TV drama talking about family is very important, but the messages it shares is exactly what people need nowadays. In this generation of information technology, many things have developed to be better. Life is way more convenient than it used to be, but it seems that rapid and astonishing development does not develop the relationship between people and people become closer. One of the reasons is that everyone has become busier and does not have time to care about the people surrounding, even our families. Although Modern Family is very hilarious, its purpose is to make us reflect that our families can be as happy as it does if we can also find some time to talk to our family members, play with our siblings or greet our grandparents. The drama is talking about happiness is simple and around us, yet we always forget that easily. Moreover, it is also persuading people to be generous to others no matter in the family or in the society through the bright and various characters of different roles in the drama. All individuals in The Modern Family are extremely different. For example in the Dunphy's family, the mother is stubborn, the father is unruly, the elder sister is lazy and sociable, the little sister is a genius but antisocial and the little brother is crazy. They never reach an agreement by having such a various characters so that they argue a lot. However, they will concede every time since they don't want to hurt their family. On the other hand, their neighbors are also weird, such as pretended to die or hit the Dunphys' car intentionally. Despite they have brought many troubles to the Dunphy's family, the Dunphy is still living happily in that community. It is telling the audience that although we may not always agree others' opinions or even have conflicts with them, we still have to be generous to them since we are living as an entire rather than individually.
Somehow the real life is not as dramatic as the drama does, but we are still facing the same problems. It is because media is also constitutes by people, so we use it as a tool to communicate, and try persuading or influencing people through some messages which we think that is true. It is benefic to learn and self-reflect when receiving different point of views, but at the same time, it is easy to be lost in too many kinds of information. We have to be critical enough to filter all messages come out from the media.
Violence is everywhere, and it sometimes brings severe problems to people, especially young people. Some are concerned that children are exposed to an excessive amount of violent content from various sources. However, others think that violent media can have some positive effect on people. In "Violent media may have a cathartic role in healthy lives" by James C. Klagge and "The Effects of Media Violence on Teenagers" by A. Elizabeth Freeman, each author says that violence on the media has various effects on teenagers and children. Both articles acknowledge that watching violence on TV and movies has an effect on children and teenagers, but the authors have conflicting ideas on how dangerous that effect is.
Both Elizabeth and Klagge say that violent media has an effect on people, especially children and teenagers. Elizabeth says in "The Effects of Media Violence on Teenagers," violent media can be found everywhere, such as in movies, TV, video games. She has researched that there are more than 25 violent actions showed in children's programs each hour, and cartoons which depict many violent images are one of the most dangerous programs. According to Klagge in his article "Violent media may have a cathartic role in healthy lives," he also knows that children can get bad ideas from the violent media. It is easy for teenagers to absorb the images of violence because they are too young to recognize the truth; however, he claims that violent media can play a positive role in healthy lives. In those two articles, they shows the similarity that violent media has significant effects on people.
Nevertheless, Elizabeth continually says about how dangerous an effect is that violent media has on children and teenagers, while Klagge thinks that violent media also brings up some advantages for people. Elizabeth mentions watching too much violent media can cause children and teenagers becoming desensitized to violence on media, make them confused about the difference between imaging and real life, and between right and wrong, and also it can change their behaviors and attitudes toward the negative side. In addition, violent media can encourage children to learn aggressive behavior and also, watching violent media can make teenagers more pessimistic and worry. In contrast, Klagge explains that sometimes people can relax and release their negative emotions by watching the modern violent media. It is harmful if people hide and repress those emotions in their heart because that gives them too much pressures. And also he thinks that tragic plays give a cathartic effect on the audience. The two authors have different statements in part because they look at media violence in different way.
In conclusion, according to both articles, watching violence in the media has several effects, but the authors have different ideas on how dangerous that effect is. Especially for teenagers and children, media violence causes some problems such as desensitization, confusion and aggression; however, violent media also can play a positive role like giving a cathartic effect and releasing bad emotions. Therefore, I think parents should take care of their children from violent media, and limit the amount of violence in media.
-> Klagge's article
People who are unfamiliar with the culture try to generalize the culture based on their observations and assumptions, which might not be true. The way Family Guy portraying Asian is a common phenomenon many Asians portraying Americans or people from a different culture. As an Chinese, I know ordinary Chinese think Americans are too open and crazy, which compared with most Chinese would be true but not absolutely. In a group of people, members of culture minorities are more likely remain silent, which is another common phenomenon. In US, Asians, as a group of minority, behave relatively quiet or shy. Culture difference is reasonable based on different situations of different regions, which may make people from other cultures feel curious and surprised. Asians are good at math, compared to other races. Chinese students trained to solve tons of difficult math problems since they are in elementary school. China has a huge population. The math skill is a major factor for students to compete for a better education in college.