Public Opinions

Revenge may be the first instinct when something unforgiveable occurs, but illegal revenge or any revenge for that matter will not change the past. Revenge just adds more problems to the current situation and resolves nothing. This opinion holds after reading the online article “Vitaly Kaloyev, the revenge killer hailed as a hero, joins Ossetian war.� “An eye for an eye� is a famous saying for revenge, but Vitaly Kaloyev puts it in his own terms as, “whoever hits me, gets hit back.� After losing his family in a fatal plane crash, Kaloyev decided to take matters into his own hands by murdering the air traffic controller who he blamed as the cause of the tragic event. What he received out of the deal was a sentence of eight years in prison and no return of his family. Yet, when he was released early from his sentence from good behavior, he was praised by his fellow Ossetians after returning home for his act of revenge, but apparently Kaloyev’s acts were of Ossetian traditions on loss and revenge (Gee 1). Kaloyev has also had suspicion of killing more people than just the air traffic controller. All this leads to questions as to why people would believe murdering someone for any reason would be worth praising, why revenge was the only solution to the problem for Kaloyev or for other people in his same type of situation, did Kaloyev deserve to be released, and what does revenge resolve.

On the issue of praising someone or a group of people who have murdered someone, it doesn’t seem that would be morally right. The people praising Kaloyev made it seem as though taking a life is worth it for the lives that were lost. Does that mean someone can take Kaloyev’s life away? Kaloyev blamed the air traffic controller even though there were complications with the plane leading to the loss of control. Yet, the man was murdered and Kaloyev was praised by many of his people. This praising could be compared to the “praising� or support of the KKK by their followers and members when they would murder a black member of the community for mistreating a white person. The KKK did acts of revenge to the black population and a lot of times had no evidence to back up their accusations. Their followers and members still believed they were doing justice. Neither Kaloyev’s nor the KKK’s situation were acts that resolved anything and were crimes worth being punished.

Now were the punishments fair. Vitaly Kaloyev was released four years early because of good behavior. A crime of murder only costed him four years of his life while the victim lost all of his years. He really wasn’t punished and he may be on his way to another murder as he is helping in the Ossetian war. This can also be compared to the KKK. One incident would be the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church bombing. Four members of the KKK planted a bomb in the Birmingham church killing four girls and also injuring twenty more people. After much investigation, there wasn’t a testimony saying those four members planted the bomb and killed the four girls. Charges were not filed against them and the case closed. These men were let go, were able to walk the streets again, and had no punishment. Maybe Vitaly Kaloyev would have to pay the price later though like those four men. The bombing case ended up reopening many times after, and three of the men were convicted of life in prison. Many people will have different views of the topic, but if murder is involved, a punishment is deserved. This is where debates over the death penalty come in.

When Vitaly Kaloyev murdered the air traffic controller, he did it to pay back for the loss of his family. If everyone believed what Kaloyev did on the topic of revenge, then he maybe would get murdered by a member of his victim’s family or his friends for the same reason. This could cause an ongoing chain of murders which would lead to no resolution for the problem. The air traffic controller wasn’t the person to put all the blame on. There were complications during flight that could not be prevented. After killing the man, it didn’t seem that Vitaly Kaloyev was even punished for his actions. He was praised instead. Personally that doesn’t seem right. After all of this, though, his family is still gone as well as all the other lives that were taken away. Revenge didn’t resolve anything, but made things worse.

Sources:
Gee, Alastair. “Vitali Kaloyev, and the plane crash that caused a murder.� Times Online. April 6, 2008.

Jessica, McElrath. “The Sixteenth Baptist Church Bombing.� About.com

Posted by jone1394 at 7:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

“When there’s no justice, there must be a reciprocal response.� Taimuraz Khutiyev, the deputy head of the North Ossetian Elders, made this statement expressing the popular belief in Vladikavkaz, Russia, the hometown of Vitaly Kaloyev, and many other Russian suburbs. This mentality that expresses the message delivered in the common phrase, “an eye for an eye,� allowed for nation wide support of Vitaly Kaloyev’s heroism. Hero, or any of its synonyms, would not be included in the laundry list of adjectives use to describe Kaloyev’s actions in the United States. These opposing outlooks are fueled by the words of Vladimir Putin’s anti-war rhetoric in Russia and the views of the West. It is no surprise the values of citizens from each of these very different parts of the world are also very different. So who is right? The answer is obvious.

As an American citizen myself, it is difficult to even grasps the views of Russian citizens, however, finding the reason behind mine is also a difficult task. It would be easier to determine what is right and wrong within the boundaries of an individual country. When crossing international borders with the same issue, the answer becomes more abstract. Definitions change and the problem is no longer translatable. The fact of the matter is the definition of what is just and unjust is determined by location and the nearest authority that is given the right to declare it.
Vitaly Kaloyev lost his four-year-old son, ten-year-old daughter, and forty four year old wife, in a devastating plane collision in 2002. Stuck with grief, Kaloyev went through two years of mourning over their deaths by readying the three corpses for burial, creating shrines, and looking for apologies. In 2004, he attempted to speak to the airline held responsible for the crash. When reportedly turned away, Kaloyev got even. Visiting the home Peter Neilson, a Zurich-based air traffic controller who was on duty the night of the collision, Kaloyev brought pictures of his family in order to receive sympathy. The conversation heightened, leading to Kaloyev loosing his temper, and murdering Neilson. Kaloyev was sentenced to eight years in jail and leaving Mrs. Neilson and her two children fatherless. Due to good behavior Kaloyev was sent free early and was proclaimed a hero. He went on to become a war hero as well in defending the words of his Prime Minister “No one fires on Russians and goes unpunished.�
Had every person in the world been raised with the same religion, leader, nationality, peers, family, etc. they would all see eye to eye. It is the variations of all these shaping experiences that alter the perspectives in people’s minds. The facts that are most important to these people change as well. For example, in the Kaloyev case, the average American pays attention to the facts that Neilson too had a family and there were too many factors, such as the telephone systems going on the brink, to even convict him of having full responsibility. The fact that Kaloyev was not receiving any justice from the court system and Neilson having disrespected some photos of Kaloyev’s family would be completely disregarded, but terms for revenge in the eyes of a Putin follower. Kaloyev’s return from jail he was praised for his actions, but went on to say, “Whoever hits me, is hit back.� This defiance and reiteration of his intention to get even, even after doing time is a sign of bravery and heroism. Where in the United States a change in the opposing direction is expected from a newly released criminal, in the hopes of them changing their outlooks having been confined.
Justice systems and facts pulled from a crime are not he only resulting differences between the molds of individuals from separate parts of the world. The United States Virginia Tech attacks and the similar Beslan shootings were responded to with different approaches. Although mourning and heartache were evident in both situations, Russian citizens went one step further in memory of the lives lost and created a memorial within the building where the murders were acted. They punched out the windows and filled it with flowers and a central cross. They went to much more extravagant lengths towards remembering their loved ones. Smaller memorials were held in memory of he victims of the Virginia attacks.
Controversy, over what is ethical or otherwise, are difficult enough between divisions of opinions within a county’s boundaries. Democrats verses Republicans is a common battle being fought here at home. Both sides easily understand the arguments presented by the opposing side, even though they are not nationally agreed upon. This is not the case with international debate. The arguments presented are often interpreted as absurd without any evidence to support such thoughts except the fact that they were not raised to think in such a manor. The issue of whether or not Vitaly Kaloyev’s is a hero is just not translatable.

Posted by reger019 at 7:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

“An eye for an eye� is a quote many of us grow up learning that and take to heart in many minor incidents. Some people such as Vitali Kaloyev take this saying to heart and live their lives following its principles in their every action. This is exactly what Kaloyev did when he took his revenge on the air traffic controller that caused a plane, which was carrying his wife and two children, to collide with another in midflight. After being sentenced to eight years in prison for premeditated murder and being released early for good behavior was greeted with a hero’s welcome when he returned to his homeland of Ossetia.
The fact that he was greeted as a hero in his country shows how much the theme of justice is defined from country to country. Where if Kaloyev had been living in America he would he been sentenced for a near lifetime instead of being praised as a hero for his actions. Many don’t understand why his actions were considered to be just in his own ways. People in America denounce his actions as insane and deranged while in his country he got praised for being a hero for defending his family and taking his revenge on their killer.
Americans view that their ideals are the only ones that are relevant and should be upheld as global laws. People are clouded in their judgment and do not believe that others’ ideas and beliefs can be righteous in their own rights. Kaloyev actions were to defend his ideals and uphold a country’s beliefs that have thrived and prospered for millennia longer than most countries have upheld independence. Many are closed to the fact that America is not ruled as a supreme lawmaker and has no say in whether or not other countries differ in which ways they uphold the law.
I believe if Ossetia honors people defending their family honor and protecting what they believe in than they should be able to uphold their traditions and should not be meddled with be other countries which have differing view points. Kaloyev is considering to be a person that holds up his faith and defends in what he believes to be right and that kind of person is defined as a hero in most cases but is looked down upon if murder is committed. Kaloyev is unjustly looked down upon because American views are taught to be differing of others and do not understand cultural difference throughout the globe. If Kaloyev was regarded as a heo in his country he should not be looked down upon be outsiders who have nothing to do with his case or the justice of foreign countries.

Posted by hammo133 at 8:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

“There’s gotta be some kind of catch, right?� says a young man receiving an instant grant in, of all places, a park. That was exactly my thought when I first heard of the The Federation of Students and Nominally or Unemployed Artists’s Instant Grant Program. I even had the cynical thoughts of one man, “My sense is, hmm, this is a bigger project than, you know, it’s not the money here. This is something else going on.� And as Joann of rocketboom.com comments, “Would you raise a thousand dollars and then give it all away?� What is the motivation?

The Federation of Students and Nominally or Unemployed Artists (FSNUA) is a group of ten students and artists who each raised $100 dollars. This money they didn’t donate to a charity organization, or a scholarship program for art school; instead they gave the $1000 raised to ordinary people in cash in the middle of Union Square! These people who received money were those with creative projects that needed funding, and “all we need is a good explanation,� says one FSNUA member. One recipient received money to offset printing costs, another for her endeavors in the photography of women, yet another to help her with her knitting projects.

So why does the FSNUA raise all this money just to give it away? According to their website, the FSNUA “aims to re-inspire creative thinking and action in everyday people by removing a small barrier and providing encouragement.� Apparently that encouragement is just a little bit of money. There are skeptics, like the man who received a grant but still insisted, “It’s not the money. This is something else going on.� So what if it’s not the money? What is the FSNUA trying to do?

In my opinion, this instant grant program was a bit of a stunt, but a stunt for the better. I think that this display in the park helped many individuals (around 40) with their individual projects, but most of all, helped to spread the objective of the FSNUA, which is to “encourage people to see themselves as something other than workers or consumers even if it just for the length of time required to apply for the FSNUA grant.� This project has caught the eyes of many people which has resulted in their organization presenting at a panel at the Conflux Festival in New York. “Conflux is the annual New York festival for contemporary psychogeography, the investigation of everyday urban life through emerging artistic, technological and social practice.� (confluxfestival.org) This type of recognition is a wonderful way to spread the important message of their mission: to promote the continuation of art past grade school, for people to see themselves as potential artists, “to re-inspire dormant desires to create.� I think they’ve done a good job of this.

Although suspicions may arise about the motives of the FSNUA, I believe that they have good intentions. It is important for people to break away from the everyday of work and school and to break out into their artistic talents. If the Instant Grant Program is a stunt, it is a stunt with worthy ulterior motives.

by: Nora Nolden

Posted by nold0020 at 2:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

In March of 1998 Google Inc. entered the world and revolutionized the way we search the internet for information. One of the questions still goes unanswered. Does Google make our lives easier or are we becoming stupid? We all need to think about if new technology is really helping us or if we are losing skills because of the ease at which it is attained. I would say it’s up for interpretation whether or not it makes us stupid. We do not have the skills our grandparents had, because it wasn’t required of us to learn them. Instead of having to dig deeply for our information in the libraries and in card catalogs we simply get on a computer and type whatever we need into a search bar. I think this causes the information to matter all the less to us. Since we don’t have to work for it we begin to look at the search as simply a waste of a few minutes of our lives. This may cause a decrease in our creativity and natural logic, because instead of inventing way to obtain the appropriate information we simply search through a different database. This lack of experience has diminishes what many call our “Street Smarts.� We seem to lack some of the interpersonal face to face skills our parents had, because we have not had to rely on our own wit to get us through difficult situations.

The new technology gives us new skills in return, and brand new challenges arise for us to worry about. Through our search systems we are able to view a much larger group of knowledge than our ancestors. Also, we have greater opportunities to view the information, because our time is not spent looking for it. The new challenges that arise from the new technologies include credibility, availability, and safety. Whenever we view a new piece of information on the internet we must always ask ourselves the question where did this come from and can I trust this source? The internet allows anyone to put virtually anything on websites, and many of them can be misleading or inaccurate. The second problem is that the search engines won’t always be available for you to use. The internet can malfunction or the desired website may have been erased completely. Finally the issue of safety comes to mind. Over the last decade we have heard numerous news stories about people who have been raped and murdered by people they have met on the internet chat logs. Many speculate that these people who abuse the internet are abnormal cases and should be considered outliers and not commonplace. Many young people, however, have gotten into fights over what someone posted about them on websites like MySpace. Another instance where safety has come into question is when individuals looking for jobs have been robed, beaten, and raped by people they met on the internet. Whether or not these acts of violence correlate with intelligence is undetermined. However, many speculate that meeting people online has lowered the initial caution we have when meeting people in person. Though it may not be considered a direct safety issue, the decrease in exercise due to more screen time has lead to a rise obesity rates. This higher weight can lead to depression which has formed a negative coloration with intelligence.

Based upon all the information available I would say this technology that should bring us together, actually is driving us back to the Stone Age. The new advances no matter how great are just introducing us to new problems that our predispositions are not ready to deal with. While the websites like Google do give us untold access to information, we have yet to discern what is accurate and what is not. While we are doing this we are ignoring the tools our parents used to survive before Google. This leaves us at an interesting crossroad where we don’t use Google to its full effectiveness and we no longer have the old skills. In the future this lack of effectiveness may correct itself, but for now we must practice the time honored traditions our parents used.

Posted by lage0062 at 11:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

As a child I remember keeping all of my coins and dollar bills from family in a small jar on my dresser. At the time I never fully understood the concepts of money. What I did understand was that if I were to give money to a cashier, they would give me a candy bar. Before watching the Six Billion Others video clip I was unaware of what money means to others completely. What is important is the deeper meaning of money. The value that money plays in people’s lives differs greatly. Money is important because it is a means of bartering to fulfill needs of people’s lives. Money is simply a means of trade, which has more recently caused greed, chaos, and turmoil around the world.

Money causes many people to lose sight of what is really important to them. In the video clip from Six Billion Others, the woman from South Africa said that her only dream was money. She went on to say that when seeking a man she only looks for one with money, because that is what will make her happy. Too often members of society tear apart their family; they only care about money, not about love. Their values have been defined in money rather than love, family, and friends.

In the United States of America the divorce rate had risen to 50%. In India, money is looked at as much less and bartering and trading take place more often; the divorce rate is as low as 1.1%. (1) The importance of money has drove people to put work before their families. In the United States, on average, a person will annually spend 3300 hours at work whereas in Germany a person will annually spend 1350 hours at work. (2) People from the United States spend double the amount of time on the job than do the Germans. Clearly values of some countries need to be taken away from money, and put towards different entities.

James Agee also highlighted the importance of money in the book Let us now Praise Famous Men. In the book Let us now Praise Famous Men, James Agee illustrates the importance of money, and the stress it had on people in the 1930’s. Agee states at one point that the Ricketts were at one point prosperous. After a pair of their mules died before they could have profit made on them, they went into debt severely. As the years went on and the Ricketts couldn’t provide for themselves, children died, and they lost almost all they had. (3) Living in a country where mortgage debts are through the roof, and families are going further and further into debt, it is easy to see that money still has a similar effect on people as it did to the Ricketts in the thirties. The United States of America is currently 12.25% in debt alone. (4) It is quite apparent that this is a world where paper is only backed up with figures and the poverty of many.

Money is thought to bring happiness to all who will ever touch it. This is a philosophy that many people live by. This is all but true. In the excerpt from Six Billion Others the woman from Bolivia was very rich. She was born into a family that one of few above the poverty line. In Bolivia, sixty percent of all people are set below the poverty line, (4) therefore, those who do have money, are the minority. Because this woman had so much money compared to others in her country, she found herself in a feeling of guilt. This ultimately led to counseling. (5) Money will not buy happiness.

Money will not guarantee anything in a person’s life. As I dug deeper into the excerpts on Six Billion Others I looked at what made people happy. Freedom, music, agriculture, God, family, along with many other entities made people happy. Not once did any of the individuals who were interviewed say that money brought them a sense of happiness.

I never completely understood the feelings that were deep inside of that jar of money on my dresser. Nor did I understand that I was richer with the happiness and comfort that I had, than with the money. Now I realize what greed can do to a person because of the turmoil our world has gone through over trading, bartering, and money. If it were only understood that money is as evil as we make it, the world will be a better place

(1) http://www.divorcerate.org/divorce-rate-in-india.html
(2) Ritter, R. (2002). The Oxford Style Manual. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-860564-1.
(3) Let us now Praise Famous Men
(4) CIA World Fact Book, online
(5) Six Billion Others

Posted by mulhe020 at 10:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Technology, is it the Rep?
Many people believe that technology is destroying our youth and our intrapersonal skills because it allows us to communicate with others without actually being next to them. Facebook allows us to communicate and see pictures of our close friends and people we have met for the first time. Google and Wikipedia allows us to gain knowledge about a subject to a certain extent without having done any research or reading on the subject ourselves.
Now is that a bad thing, would you say it is wrong of technology to inform us of what is going on in the world today. Do you think people who are well informed have very little communicational skills because he uses the internet and technology to become informed on many subjects? I think this makes people more diverse and conversational, if you are a urban person, you’re not going to know a thing about farming, and you are not going to fit in a conversation about farming at all, but if you read a little something off Wikipedia about chemically enhanced crops you will be able to talk about it. You might not have all the facts, and might be a little off with some of the terms used in farming, but you can at least talk. Moreover, with Facebook, you may not be sitting next to the person but you can still talk to them, or maybe even set up a video chat so you can see and hear them instead of talking in Times New Roman.
Technology has also made incredible discoveries, and opened our youth to many new opportunities. All too often do you here your parents and grandparents say that you are lucky to have all the technology that exists today. They often complain about when they had the typewriter and if they made a mistake they had to start over, and that they had to research in books. Technology has made us very efficient with very little drawbacks. Sure, a book has more facts than the first web link that Google turns up, but it takes how long to find that book, and read it to find what you need. Where as in Google or Wikipedia I can just type in what I am looking for and have 10,000 results within seconds. And all I have to do from there is find the credible ones.
However, technology gets a bad rep for many reasons. Misuse of technology being one of the main reasons it gets such bad feedback. People say cell phones are bad because the cause accidents when people are driving and they prevent the user from noticing what is around him or her. What does any of that have to do with the cell phone; the cell phone was not invented so you can talk on the phone while you are driving, or while you are at a store. It was made so that people can reach you wherever you are, but answering it is all up to the user, the phone does not answer itself unless you count voicemail. So when someone is talking on their phone while driving and they get in an accident, on the police report the officer does not write it was the phones fault, it was the drivers misjudgment of using the phone while driving that caused the accident which is indirectly related to the phone.
In addition to cell phones, people say the invention of the gun was wrong. But I bet if you ask Mikhail Kalashnikov the inventor of what is known as by some “the real weapon of mass destruction,� the AK-47, he would say his goal when inventing this weapon was not the murder of millions, but world peace. Though it seems awkward, the man who invented a automatic rifle was hoping for world peace and the end of war, Kalashnikov has said "No single gun starts a war, “all kinds of weapons are used in modern warfare. Therefore, you cannot say there is any relationship between this weapon and any war.� He has never been apologetic about inventing the gun, rather he states that the gun has earned many people their freedom, for example Mozambique, who received their freedom placed the gun on their countries flag. Mikhail does however; wish he had invented something more useful and less linked to violence, especially when he is questioned about the child soldiers or “boy brigades.� His response to this is simple though, he has never seen one, and it was not him who put the gun in their hands. This again points at the fact that it was not the technology but the misuse.
In conclusion, I state that technology by itself is not a bad idea or concept, but it is the misuses and the people who link technology to horrible things that give it such a bad rep. Because in the end, it is all the users decision, and misuse of technology that makes us believe technology is a bad thing. And blaming the technology instead of ourselves is an easy way out of guilty feeling for when something goes wrong.

Posted by koski120 at 8:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Today’s computer technology gives us the ability to network with many people. E-mail gives us the capability to write messages to one another without making direct contact. Popular messaging programs like Facebook, AOL Instant Messaging, and Skype gives us the ability to keep in touch with friends and family without direct contact. Internet sites like Google give us the ability to research certain topics without analyzing them. The question then becomes is technology actually hurting our society?

Many experts have agreed that by constantly relying on technology to communicate our ideas, without actually talking to a physical person will lead to diminishing intrapersonal skills. In simple terms, by using e-mail, Facebook, and text messaging as our main source of relaying information, we will progressively become worse at physically talking to other people.

One website that I viewed discussed the idea that technology makes it capable to accomplish more by ourselves, but sacrifices our ability to work well in group situations. As the world moves more towards a group society that emphasizes working with others, technology will slowly begin to hurt us.

A text-messaging craze is another situation that is taking place with people. The ability to express our thoughts in a few sentences and send these thoughts to a recipient is much easier than actually having to talk to the person. There are multiple debates out there that discuss whether or not this crisis should be dealt with.

Another interesting article that discusses the negatives of technology is from Business Week. The article is entitled, “Google is Making You Dumber.� This article discusses how it is too easy for us to obtain information in the digital age. We simply do not think, but rather go online to Google and search a particular topic and receive a surplus of information.

Many researchers argue that having the luxury of online databases such as Google, make kids less apt to go find information by themselves. The whole idea of finding information within the pages of a textbook or encyclopedia has been lost. In today’s digital age, critical reading skills are being lost. Instead people go online and reading an article of someone who has done the criticizing for them.

The other side of this argument says that by having this online technology available to us, it forces us to think critically and analyze certain things to decide which gives us the best source of information. By having social networking programs like Facebook and others similar, they force us to become familiar with the changing technology. Researchers on this side of the issue also argue that it increases a person’s intrapersonal skills. It makes us more able to communicate with others that we may not otherwise talk to.

My thoughts on this issue are simple. Technology can take away from social skills if a person spends too much of his or her time online. However, the majority of us don’t live online, we are constantly interacting and having conversations with others daily. Although we may talk to some people only online, we talk with others in person daily.

Social networking sites have given us the ability to keep in touch with many of our friends that otherwise we may never talk too. One could argue that we should pick up a phone and call them. By using online sources we save ourselves time and money. If we were to call each one of our friends each night, we would waste so much time on the phone. By using social networking means, we leave them a brief message, and they leave us a brief message back. By doing so we don’t consume so much time.

As for using online sources to research topics, there should be a balance. When a person has to do a quick paper based of small facts, it’s all right to check online sources for information. A person doing so just needs to be careful about the sources he or she uses. Anyone can post things on the Internet, fact or fiction. When taking facts from a particular source it’s important to check for credibility.

Scholarly sources are located all over the Internet. Many prominent companies have databases with free information and articles on multiple topics. Many times a person doing research can even find magazine articles and newspaper articles online.

However, critical reading in books to find information is a useful skill to have. When one is preparing research on a topic it is important to use credible books in addition to websites. By backing up a website’s information with information from a published book, it can be very effective.

Technology within computers is not hurting our society. It is helping our society. By finding the correct balance between time spent online and time spent socializing with others, it equally develops each skill. Computers can be used to do many effective things, and social networking programs like Facebook give us the ability to socialize with others that we may not otherwise. Overall, the pros of technology outweigh the negative.

Works Cited:

http://management.silicon.com/careers/0,39024671,39166508,00.htm?r=1

http://blogs.wsj.com/biztech/2007/09/06/does-technology-make-us-anti-social/

http://management.silicon.com/careers/0,39024671,39153486,00.htm

http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2007/07/google_is_makin.html

Posted by muell484 at 6:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Imagine you are an artist who can’t afford to keep going, what will you do? How can you get the money to keep your passion for the world of art alive? According the video, “Instant Grant Program�, it is now possible to apply for a grant in the park. The Federation of Students and Nominally or Unemployed Artists, sets up a station in a park allowing people who wanted to re-define their artistic sides to apply for a grants and receive cash right there on the spot. The applicants have to fill out a very small form stating what they would use the money for and there name. To my knowledge that was all they had to do. For some it almost seemed to good to be true.

What is the Federation of Students and Nominally or Unemployed Artist? This was something that first came to mind after reading through the information and watching the video about the “Instant Grant Program�. This program appeared to good to be true, but I was proven wrong because as seen in the video the money was given directly to the recipient after applying with a valid excuse for the need of money, with that however, more questions came to mind, such as are these recipients legitimately in need of money, and why when searching for the organization did I only find information about this one activity that they have done?

The question that really makes me doubt this program is the fact that they had done little or no screening on the recipients of the grants. Anyone in the park that day could have gone to the federation and ask for money claiming to be in need of money. Also when the recipients were interviewed by the cameras, some of them appeared to making up the excuse and excitement, looking at it in my point of view I would be extremely excited if someone gave me money, and these people just did not seem very excited, at least not as much as the donors. I do not want stray from my point here but, I do believe that giving this money away was a good deed done by all, but I wonder if it was done for the right reasons and given to the right people.

Considering the federation only had 1,000 dollars to give, I understand the reason for trying to break up the amounts and spread the donations more widely through out the community, but I think they could have gotten more publicity and interest if they would have made the grant so it was official and not just a form filled out in the park one day for anyone who claimed to need it, to take it. I think that the money could have gone to the cause they wanted it to better if they had taken more time and looked in the recipients more closely, getting to know who they really are. In doing this, the federation could have made better use of their fundraising and made absolutely sure that all their hard work and dedication to this foundation was going towards the cause that they wanted it to.

I also wonder where this money came from. When further investigating their website, I found that the money was raised by each of the ten members and then disbursed. It did not say where the ten members raised the money from, and I’m wondering if whoever gave this federation money, knows how carelessly the money was given away? To make it a more credible federation, I believe that they should have more deeply explained where this money came from.

Another point that I wanted to investigate after viewing the video, was what exactly is this Federation of Students and Nominally or Unemployed Artists? I have never heard of this before, not even anything remotely close. Do they do anything else beside give their fundraised money away in the park? After further investigation, I found no evidence of this federation besides their own website, there was no links or new articles found about them beside that of the Conflux Festival, which is a festival for art and technology. This only alludes back to my original point, is this grant program credible? How are they affectively reaching who they want to by just going to the park.

After analyzing this story, I have come to my final opinion that this federation may be real and is doing a good deed, but goes about doing it in all the wrong ways. For any federation or foundation to be credible, it needs to be backed up sources and ways of finding information about them, and the Federation of Students and Nominally or Unemployed Artists, does not have this credibility and lacks the publicity it needs for is grant program to affectivley reached its intended targets. This federation has some problems beyond that considering they are not distributing their money in correct ways, as anyone could come up with a “sob-story� and act as if they need money. This would have been more believable if they recipients would have seem more excited. However much I disagree with the operation of this foundation, I am glad that they are trying to help those in need.

Sources:
http://confluxfestival.org/conflux2008/profile/x/327/steve-lambert/

http://generosityfoundation.org/

Posted by donne099 at 4:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

SNAP! You are sitting in class, looking out the window, daydreaming, when the teacher’s quick crack of a meter stick on your hard shiny, desk awakens you to reality. Your teacher, annoyed, tells you to either leave the classroom or pay attention. You sit up straight, apologize, and class goes on.

We have all seen or experienced a scenario somewhat like this. It feels normal to us: if we get caught daydreaming, we are going to get in trouble. But what if, instead of mocking or disciplining us, the teachers expressed an interest in knowing what we were thinking? What if they embraced daydreaming and incorporated this into their teaching strategies, or even in their lesson plan? Would society be more advanced then it is today? Some of the greatest inventions and most practical devices were discovered when people were simply daydreaming (Lehrer).

For years, daydreaming has been seen as frivolous, counterproductive, and a waste of time. Society has done its best to do away with daydreaming – we see advertisements for pills that help us focus, and we expect discipline if we allow our minds to wander. The word itself has been given negative connotations.

In the article, “Daydream Achiever,� the author explains science’s new view on daydreaming. Daydreaming promotes creative thinking that is necessary for human survival. It is so important that scientists now see daydreaming as a “fundamental feature of the human mind� (Lehrer). It allows us to think into the future, and allows us to “imagine things that don’t really exist� (Lehrer). It is only logical that human progression can be attributed to people envisioning a world that, at the time, seemed impossible.

The study especially focused on children. Scientists observed that kids were becoming very unimaginative. When they were bored, they simply turned to other forms of entertainment, such as television, to amuse themselves. When I was I a kid, my mom seldom let me watch television. As a result, I imagined games and interacted with other children who also had limitless imaginations. We came up with entirely different worlds! However, as I’ve grown up, I have seen myself become less and less creative. I attributed this change to my personality; I reasoned that I am just naturally a logical “math and science type� person. Looking back, I realize this was not always true. Has my imagination been stripped of me because society has embedded in my brain that knowingly spending time daydreaming is out of the question? The article also refers to daydreaming as a “skill that requires real practice� (Lehrer). Has the discipline that came along with daydreaming forced me to quit “practicing?� I honestly do not know.

While scientists focused on the neurological benefits of daydreaming, I thought of it on a much simpler scale. Daydreaming gives us a five minute break from our daily trials and tribulations. It gives us a break from being practical and logical, and it allows us to think of unlikely, made-up scenarios. Basically it gives us a mini-vacation from, well, life. This break, in turn, allows us to have happier, stress-free lives. Furthermore, I truly believe that happiness leads to healthier lives. Daydreaming helps to relax you, and it can also help you organize your thoughts. Most importantly, it can inspire you. Some of the most brilliant minds, such as Albert Einstein, were well-known for being daydreamers (Lehrer).

I will argue that daydreaming is beneficial and necessary for, not only children, but all people. However, I also want to be clear that there is a time and a place for it. People often daydream when doing normal, routine parts of their every day, such as driving (Lehrer). Nevertheless, when this daydreaming leads to something, such as a car accident, it becomes a problem. Furthermore, people often daydream while sitting in class. When you start to notice yourself paying attention less and less, and your grades slipping lower and lower, it, again, has become a problem. Daydreaming while working with dangerous equipment is simply asking for an injury.

There are also good and bad ways to daydream. One scientist in the article differentiated between two types of daydreamers. The first type simply does not realize they are daydreaming – they never quite “snap out of it� unless they are forcibly told to do so. The second type, however, catches his or her self daydreaming, and these are the people who experience increased creativity (Lehrer). Furthermore, daydreaming can become a problem when people cannot distinguish between reality and the imaginary. Autism and schizophrenia are diseases commonly linked to people whose “default modes� are either over or under active (Lehrer).

A reader-friendly article, such as “Daydream Achiever,� may not be enough to convince everyone that daydreaming is an important aspect of cognitive thinking. However, this source, as well as myself, are not alone in understanding its benefits. “Psyche,� an interdisciplinary journal of research on consciousness, also includes an article on the importance of unconscious thinking. While the article includes a lot of scientific jargon and is by no means an “easy read,� its basic premise is the same. Many of the scientists mentioned in the article have conducted studies that “show measurable non-conscious processing of information that is not consciously represented� (Price). The article also explained the “additive conscious and non-conscious processes� that are involved in performing any given task. I found the most interesting study to be one that focused on an unconscious reaction to a stimulus contradicting the way we might react with “conscious task instructions� (Price). The journey into the unconscious and the daily occurrence of daydreaming are very intertwined.

Another article published on the popular website WebMD further discussed the benefits of daydreaming. While the article briefly explained negative effects of daydreaming, it cited multiple examples of its benefits, such as being able to organize problems and conflicts, sustain important relationships, increase productivity, reinforce ones moral code and ethics, improve creativity, and alleviate stress and boredom (Chang). The author of the article, Louise Chang, is a certified Medical Doctor.

Overall, the new science surrounding daydreaming and unconscious thought processes is still somewhat controversial. After reading a variety of articles on the subject, I feel that daydreaming is a normal, beneficial part of everyday life. By restricting our thoughts, we cheat ourselves from all that we could create and accomplish. We instead, should not only embrace our thoughts when we go into “default mode,� but should also try to understand them and apply them to our everyday lives.

Sources:
Chang, Louise. "Why Does Daydreaming Get Such a Bad Rep?" 2006. WebMD. 25 Sept. 2008
.
Lehrer, Jonah. "Daydream Achiever." The Boston Globe 31 Aug. 2008.
Price, Mark C. "Cognitive Models Go Paddling in the Waters of Consciousness." Psyche (July, 1999).

Posted by harpe174 at 3:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

On July 10, many of the United States major news papers released a photograph of four Iranian missiles shooting up into the air, later to find out that this was a faked image. Errol Morris who is an expert photo analyzer and professional filmmaker went to work on the photo. He contacted Hany Farid, a Dartmouth Professor and a digital photography expert, and Charles Johnson, an expert in “fauxtography�, which is the publishing of manipulated photographs (1), to get their opinion of this story. What Errol Morris and Hany Farid agreed on the most was captioning a photograph. Anyone can do that, you do not need Photoshop, which is a bitmap graphics editor trademarked and published by Adobe, released in 1990 (2). Errol Morris also talked about captioning photos in his article titled Liar, Liar Pants On Fire. With a photo of a cruise liner, anyone can guess at what that really is a picture of, but when it is labeled as the Lusitania, people do not have to decide for themselves anymore; they will believe what is told to them. Same thing goes for the photos of the Sanitation of Ammunition Depot at Taji. Colin Powell used these photos to justify a war. Someone put captions, labels, and surrounding text on the photo that said “Decontamination Vehicle�, “Chemical Munitions Bunker�, and “Security.� When the other photo was released saying that it was a delivery truck, an International House of Pancakes restaurant, and an SUV, and as said by Morris, “The image remains the same but we see it differently.�

You Have Seen Their Faces is a great example of captioning photos. Written by Erskine Caldwell and illustrated by Margaret Bourke-White, was a book on the depression in the South. Reviewed by Donald Davidson, he says that, “To accompany the pictures we have appropriate “legends,� or dramatic speeches put into the mouths of the characters depicted. These, Mr. Caldwell states, are in no case the actual words of the subjects. Mr. Caldwell has made them up to fit.� What Davidson is saying, which is correct, that Caldwell and Bourke-White made up the captions for their pictures to show the reader what the authors are saying. So instead of using our imagination about what the picture is saying, Caldwell and Bourke-White go ahead and do that for us.
The question here is should pictures even have captions? There seems to be pros-and-cons to having them and not. They clarify what the picture is showing us, but can we believe it? Of course if our mom writes on the back of a school picture, “2nd Grade� we can trust that it is true. But for example the Taji pictures that Powell used; is that really a Chemical Munitions Bunker or is it really an International House of Pancakes. Putting a caption on a picture is subliminal messaging. It forces us to see what we want to see, and as Errol Morris states, “It is said that seeing is believing, but often it’s the other way around.� A caption is a statement, and when we question the photograph, we are actually questioning the statement.
Maybe James Agee and Walker Evans were the geniuses here, by not captioning, or labeling any of their photographs. As they said, “The photographs are not illustrative. They, and the text, are coequal, mutually independent, and fully collaborative.� By not labeling any of the photographs, it forces the reader to make a connection with the text and photographs on their own; guessing which photo goes with the text and also guessing what the photo is really saying. This forces us to use our imagination which most people argue we lose with age. Maybe it is because we have everything spelled out for us that we no longer need to use or have an imagination. As David G. Meyers says, “Use it or lose it.�
With photo fraud on the rise today with personal computers and Photoshop, you have to ask yourself, can I still trust pictures? That will be up to you to decide; depending on the location of the picture, will help decode if it is a fake or not. Also, there are experts out there that are very good at sifting through the fake and real photos. It did not take long to uncover the truth about the Iranian missile launch or the Hooded Man. Captions though are still the main reason why pictures are subject to their actuality. They force the reader to see what the captions themselves are saying. Anyone can write anything on a photograph, we just have to decide if we should or not, and if we can trust it.
Works Cited:
(1) “fauxtography.� Wikipedia. 23 Sep. 2008.
.
(2) "photoshop." Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. 23 Sep. 2008.
.
3. Agee, James, and Walker Evans. Let Us Now Praise Famous Men. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1969.
4. Caldwell, Erskine, and Margaret Bourke-White. You Have Seen Their Faces. New York: Modern Age Books, Inc., 1937.
5. Davidson, Donald. “Erskine Caldwell’s Picture Book.� Rev. of You Have Seen Their Faces , by Erskine Caldwell. Southern Review (1938): 85-93
6. Meyers, David G. Pyschology. 8th ed. (2007): 180
7. Morris, Errol. “Liar, Liar Pants On Fire.� New York Times 15 Aug. 2007. 23 Sep. 2008 http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/pictures-are-supposed-to-be-worth- a-thousand-words/.
8. Morris, Errol. “Photography as a Weapon.� New York Times 11 Aug. 2008. 23 Sep. 2008 http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/11/photography-as-a-weapon/.
9. Morris, Errol. “Will the Real Hooded Man Please Stand Up.� New York Times 15 Aug. 2007. 23 Sep. 2008 http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/15/will-the-real- hooded-man-please-stand-up/.

Posted by mill3982 at 12:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

When tragedy strikes, one’s life is turned upside down, everything that they knew before is no more. This shock and pain can cause people to do things that they would never do in normal circumstances. However it is an extreme case where that person responds with violence to relieve their aching heart. In Vitali Kaloyev’s case he chose brutal murder as way to make even. He was quoted as saying “Who hits me, shall be hit back.�
Kaloyev’s wife and two children were on plane back from vacation in Spain, when they smashed into an oncoming cargo jet over a Swiss lake. 71 one passengers were killed including Kaloyev’s family. The air traffic controller, alone in the tower and besieged with a bad telephone, told the pilot to dive, in order to avoid the cargo jet. However accidental, this decision turned out to be fatal not only for the passengers and crew, but also for the air traffic controller him self. Months after the crash a distraught and vengeful Kaloyev traveled to Switzerland tracked down the controller responsible for the crash and brutally stabbed the man to death in his own home.
A Swiss court sentenced Kaloyev to 8 years in jail however he was let out early as a result of good behavior. When he returned home to Russia he was welcomed as a hero. Hundred’s of people were waiting at the airport and he was even voted man of the year in South Ossetia, where he lives.
Now when I read this, I thought that it must of occurred at least 20 years ago ,that violent acts of revenge like this don’t happen anymore. I was surprised when I read that it only occurred just over five years ago. It shocked me that a man could do something like this, in this day and age, and be treated like a hero.
The history of South Ossetia is one that is steeped in violence and intrigue. All portion of land bordering the Georgia, South Ossetians have long been caught in the middle of many conflicts. In 1991 after much violence and sabotage, South Ossetia broke away from Georgia and aligned itself more closely with Russia (BBC). With so much violence over the years this little state has often taken the same motto as Vitali Kaloyev, “Hit us and we will hit you back.� So in away it is really no surprise that Kaloyev was received the way that he was.
“An eye for an eye will make the whole word blind.� Gandhi’s famous words couldn’t be any more opposite then the reasoning that Vitali Kaloyev used for killing the Swiss air controller. I think that this is the motto that must people in the world live by. It tells us that yes, we have been hurt and we maybe angry, but if we retaliate then we will be on the same level or worse then those that wronged us. I think that in Kaloyev’s case, by retaliating he definitely put himself on a worse level then the air controller. In my opinion the air controller just made a very costly mistake, he was making a decision based on his judgment and the limited amount of tools that he was given. In my opinion this is no justification fro Kaloyev to kill him. In fact I wonder how he was given only 8 years for that brutal and premeditated of a murder. Kaloyev says that if someone hits him than he will hit back, then by his rule it would be totally justifiable for a relative of the air controller to come to South Ossetia and kill him. Kaloyev’s motto would only start an uncontrollable cycle of violence that no body wants; I don’t care who you are.
The final question that I had is that can Vitali Kaloyev be the only one held accountable for his actions. My answer is that no he cannot. A violent culture will breed violent citizens. This is especially obvious when you look at the way he was received by his countrymen. There are not many other countries in the world where someone would be given an award for brutally stabbing another man to death.
As many of you may know Russia is currently in a violent conflict with Georgia. South Ossetia as you might have guessed is again in the middle of this conflict. Vitali Kaloyev has already joined the Russian cause. He joined up with a Russian convoy on its way to Georgia to fight. When asked what his reasoning was for joining the army, he again stated, “Who ever hits me, will get hit back.�

Posted by tipp0013 at 9:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

In the book Who We Were: A Snapshot History of America by Michael Williams, Richard Cahan, and Nicholas Osborne we are presented with a collection of photographs, 350 total. Their goal with this is to try and tell the story of America and some of its history between the time period of the 1890’s to the early 1970’s. This book was passed around in class the other and day I found it very interesting. Now since I do not have a copy of the book myself that complicates things, but while taking sneak peak I was able to get a good idea of everything. With many pictures to look at such as a picture of dead rats, random families, old houses, a car, and much more. Now I’m sure the actual book is much more exciting and entertaining than what you’re given through the sneak peek link. Including photos of all kinds of things/events like wars, the depression, the civil rights movement, and so on. But how much do we really learn from just photographs with a short caption if there is a caption at all? Does this style for a book really help us learn about the history of America?

First off I think it is necessary to know some statistics about how we learn. Many people are visual learners while some do better with other learning styles such as audio. In fact ninety percent of learning is visual with eighty-five percent of the brain wired for visual processing (1). We see things everyday and learn from them without even realizing it. So much of our everyday learning experiences are visual. Also in Errol Morris’s article Photography as a Weapon he has a conversation with Hany Farid and Hany talks about how about 30 to 50 percent of our brain is doing visual processing. The brain processes what we see and there is a ton of information that we see and that the brain has to process. It also says how “the brain is just very good at processing visual imageries and bringing in memories associated with images� (2). But that brings up another question, can we learn from those images without prior knowledge to the subject of the image.

I feel that an image without a caption does not do you any good for learning because without a caption it doesn’t necessarily mean anything, you can believe the image to be what you want like what is said by Errol Morris in his article Will the Real Hooded Man Please Stand Up. One picture is of two people: a man and a young girl taken in 1938 near Kentucky. Just by looking at the picture it means nothing and I don’t learn anything from it. Along with that the caption is “Just a nut from the old family tree: Fleming Tackett, 34, poses with his ten-year-old bride Rosie Columbus. Their 1938 marriage cause a furor,� and there is a little more to it but the point is I would know nothing about that picture and would not learn really anything from it without a caption. With that caption I learn that in 1938 in Kentucky a 34 year old was able to marry a 10 year old. Things have changed a bit. With a photograph like that I do not know how much having prior knowledge would really help. But if you have a photograph of a World War II scene and a caption for example, prior knowledge would really be helpful because you are able to see it in the reality of what it was to go along with that knowledge. There is another page with some pictures showing some random small shacks with people by them, but there is no caption. I learn really nothing because I do not know what the image is pertaining to. I could guess that those were the houses of the people and that’s how some people lived during the time of that photograph, but I don’t know if I’m right that would just be a guess.

So if you have a caption explaining that image you can learn something. That depends on how descriptive the caption is, what the image is of, and other factors. If you have prior knowledge of a topic though and there is an image of that topic you can learn a lot. You visualize and see what you have learned. Things become so much clearer to you through images, but without that prior knowledge, what does it even mean to you? Without prior knowledge you can still learn something from an image just by seeing it but its value is limited because the meaning behind it is not there. Now with some of the pictures no knowledge is required, the picture is just trying to show you something.
The pictures are still interesting to look at but to me I just don’t learn much if I know nothing about the topic and I don’t learn anything if there is no caption to let me know what’s going on.

1. http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Sep_05/article03.htm
2. http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/11/photography-as-a-weapon/

By Ryan Crowe

Posted by crowe079 at 3:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The current financial crisis initiated by a number of factors (including subprime mortgages and the loss of stability in the historically static housing market) has created widespread adversity in the United States. Whether these factors were caused by corporate greed, a failing regulatory system, or sheer ignorance has yet to be determined. Regardless of the origin of the aforementioned, the economy has grown worse and the main problems still persist. According to David Francis of the Christian Science Monitor, “But the mild 2001 recession and the current slump are a bit different. Their cause, at least partly, has been dishonesty, greed, and weak business ethics.�

Francis postulates that the current crisis was caused directly by immoral behavior. While there is relatively no documentation of this, much less a way to support such statements, Francis also cites David DeRosa, from the Yale School of Management as saying that the current problems are a result of “reckless unwise decisions on home financing,� and “poor risk assessment.� In the context of Francis’s article, the hypotheses of immorality are merely subjective.

While morality and ethics may seem altogether similar to most, their meanings have separated. The primary concern of ethics is the professional world, “medical ethics� or “business ethics.� Morality is a wider term, relating to the conduct of everyone. Ethics have an obvious place in the business realm, but morality is subject to the individual. “It is possible to act ethically, but not morally� (“The Financial Crisis� b). Large corporations practicing compromised business ethics in order to drive up profits, and relying on government funds, if unsuccessful, have many fingers pointing their way (“The Financial Crisis� b). And this, according to some, is at the heart of the current recession.

However, basic knowledge of the recent economic events in the U.S. (and their complexity) will reveal a myriad of conflicting opinions.

“What will happen next? Again, no one knows. Ignorance is one of the principal causes of the crisis. The complex financial instruments that have come to dominate investment banking - particularly derivatives - involve so much uncertainty that it is impossible to form an accurate idea of the liabilities they bequeath to those who trade them� (“The Financial Crisis� a).

All of us are searching for an answer due to the massive amounts of misfortune created, the millions of foreclosures, thousands of lost jobs, and one floundering economy. It is only natural to seek someone or something that is culpable. However, in a corporate world of speculation and extreme risk taking blame is not appropriate to attribute. The forces that drive capitalism – profit gain and personal success are not new ideas. Large corporations do not benefit from a satisfied customer in any other way besides capital gain. The public’s general demeanor towards Corporation A or Corporation B depends mainly upon the media’s portrayal, despite the actions of A and B behind closed doors. For example, a lack of honesty and open discussion in the corporate world may be accredited to a lack of morality if it were portrayed this way in the media. However, our vision is predominantly a product of corporate ownership and manipulation of the media. There is no adequate public forum, and no requirement for open access to facts and information. Hence, large corporations can control the disposition of the public despite their obvious self-seeking motives.

If big business were chiefly concerned with the well being of the general public, and not the corporation itself, a lack of morality would be the cause of the current financial crisis. Since corporations do not act in this way (and most would fail if they did), it cannot be said that morality is the root cause of the economy’s present situation. The United States has survived many years upon the foundations of capitalism and the free market, and nothing is different today in respect to entrepreneurial morality.

That leaves us with two options in uncovering the origin of today’s recession. A lack of ethics, as shown in unfair and abusive lending practices, a disincentive for a corporate to remain honest in a media controlled culture, and excessive profit driving. On the other side lies complete recklessness, risk taking, and financial derivatives. A change must be made to remedy the misfortune created. Whether or not an introduction of morals, deontological or utilitarian (which is another important discourse), a more rigorous regulation of risk taking and ethics, or a return to laissez-faire ideology are the main ideas for the next steps to be taken.

Works Cited:

1. Francis, David R. Economic Slump: Ethics Loom Large. The Christian Science Monitor. 21 Sept 2008. http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0915/p16s03-wmgn.html.

2 (a).The Financial Crisis: Build a Better Capitalism. Telegraph. 21 Sept 2008.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/09/21/dl2101.xml

3(b).The Financial Crisis: Deficit of Decency. Constitutional Conservatism. 21 Sept2008.
http://constitutionalconservative.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/the-financial-crisis-deficit-of-decency/

Posted by olso4759 at 12:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

When I think of Wall Street I think of money and power. But lately that is not the case because the financial giants of Wall Street are flat broke and the government is stepping in to bail them out. Which raises the question why are such large financial companies going broke and is it right for the federal government to bail out these private sector companies?

An article published in the Christian Science monitor on Sept. 15, 2008 points to the “bad behavior� of the mortgage and financial industry on Wall Street for their current crisis. This bad behavior was fueled by nothing more than pure greed. The bad behaviors they are referring to are predatory lending practices. Starting around 1996 interest rates started to fall making the interest rates on home buying mortgages to be at an all time low. Banks and investment companies took advantage of this by offering variable rate mortgages to first time homebuyers with extremely low interest rates. For the period that the interest rates were low the borrowers could make their payments and be on their way to owning a home. When the housing bubble burst and the interest rates rose dramatically. With the higher interest rates borrowers could no longer make their payments and had to default on their loans. Nearly one of every twenty home mortgages is in default or has been foreclosed. That number translates to Wall Street lenders losing 500 billion thus far according to CNN Money. What is even worse than offering “too good to be true� mortgages many companies targeted low income and minority families. According to the department of Housing and Urban Development fifty one percent of predatory loans dispersed were to minorities in low-income neighborhoods, compared in nine percent in white areas.
With the burst of the housing bubble financial institutions have lost their shorts in their bad investments and the government has decided to step in. In March the government facilitated 30 billion dollars for JP Morgan and Co to buy Bear Stearns Cos. On September sixth the government took control of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and promised to spend 100 billion on each according Times Online. Then on September 16 the government spent 85 billion dollars to bail out insurance giant AIG. Most recently Treasury Secretary proposed a 700 billion federal bank and mortgage bailout. This bailout would assist foreign banks with U.S. assets, smaller and regional U.S. banks and Wall Street financial firms according the Phoenix Business Journal and CNN Money. Now all of that adds up to 1.015 trillion dollars of taxpayer’s money that has been spent in the private sector to bailout greedy financial giants.
This is not the first time the government has stepped in to heavily bolster the economy. When the stock market crashed in 1929 current president Herbert Hoover decided not to step into to fix the economy but to let the free market regulate and “fix� the economy. Nothing of that sort happened, the economy got worse until Franklin Roosevelt was elected president in 1932 and instituted the New Deal. The New Deal did not immediately have much of an impact it took until 1935 for the economy to have some measure of recovery and the economy did not fully recover until World War II and the years following. The New Deal greatly increases the size and power of our government and lawmakers have been careful to us such measure in new economic crisis’s. In 1970’s we has a recession due to an oil embargo and the largely expanding Asian market. The government gave little direct help to the private sector but instituted new legislation on energy and tried to help our market with tax incentives and regulating interest rates. In 2001 when we had our most recent recession the government did not directly help the private sector.
So why now is the government cutting billion dollar checks to private sector companies? According to an article in the Chicago Sun Times the bailout is essential to keep cash flowing and prevent a run on the bank, which happened during the great depression. The companies and banks that are getting bailed out control trillions of dollars of the U.S. economy and if all of these companies went bankrupt the cash flow in American would be down to a trickle.
The next few months and actions of our leaders in Washington will be crucial to keep our economy healthy and competitive. In my opinion I do not believe the government should be bailing out private sector companies but needs to as to prevent another large recession or worse another depression. The government is now in control of a large portion of Wall Street and possibly soon will control much more. I hope the ever-growing hand of Washington will guide us to economic security but then release it’s grip on our economy and let the free market work as it is intended.

Sources:
Christian Science Monitor
CNN Money
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Phoenix Business Journal
Chicago Sun Times
www.whitehouse.gov
Forbes

Posted by suess015 at 6:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Stalker
In the video “The Stalker� by Errol Morris, we are introduced to a former Royal Oaks Postmaster, William Kinsley. He was accused of causing a horrific shooting at The Royal Oaks Post Office, which was done by Tom McIlvane. McIlvane was a former employee who was previously fired for assaulting a customer while on his route. McIlvane had a history of having a violent temper with a short fuse. I feel that William Kinsley did everything in his power to stop this tragedy that ruined his life and many others.
Tom McIlvane had many instances that showed just how violent his temper really was. There was talk that while in the Marines, McIlvane got mad at an officer and ran over his jeep with a tank. Later, this was proven true. Many of the employees at the Royal Oaks Post Office complained about his violent temper. His violent temper showed through and cost him his job when he assaulted his customer while on his route. This is when Kinsley had to fire him. This caused McIlvane to finally snap, and he started out on his rampage by making death threats to Kinsley. Kinsley went to the Royal Oaks Police Department and filed a complaint against McIlvane for death threats. This was later taken to court and McIlvane was found innocent because of the lack of physical evidence such as audio recordings. Tom McIlvane continued to make death threats against William Kinsley.
William Kinsley was blamed for the shooting as he was accused of mistreating McIlvane in the work place. Even if it were to be true, Kinsley did not pull the trigger. William Kinsley was just doing his job to ensure the safety of his fellow employees by telling McIlvane to calm down, or he would be fired. After firing McIlvane and the death threats for him started, he added new features to the security of the post office and made sure what was there was working properly. Kinsley called his supervisors, and they said it was the police department’s job to take care of the threats. William Kinsley had exhausted all of his sources of protection against Tom McIlvane and his death threats. As Kinsley explained in the movie, he felt like he was being “stalked�. He was afraid to go to his car in the morning and to sleep at night. After the shooting, the post office told Kinsley not to talk to the press. Later that day, there was information given out that made Kinsley into a scapegoat, which ruined his life. He was put into a job where he wasn’t qualified to do anything besides sit in his office. I feel that William Kinsley was just as much of a victim as those who lost their lives because in a sense he lost his “life� as he said, “The devil has a name, I have nothing.�
Fingers should also be pointed at the Royal Oaks Police Department for not doing anything after Tom McIlvane walked in and said he was going to commit homicide against William Kinsley. He also stated that he was going to apply for a gun permit, and it was later found that he already had one. So why didn’t the police department do anything about it? They had evidence that he was going to do something, and yet they let him walk right back onto the street. Also at one point the police picked up McIlvane and arrested him and called Kinsley and told him that McIlvane was a dangerous man and that Kinsley’s life was in danger. After he was found innocent and let free, why didn’t the police put surveillance on McIlvane? Many families lost their loved ones because the police department failed to their job to protect the citizens of the town.
Tom McIlvane was an unstable and dangerous man who had a violent temper. His fellow employees could have agreed to this, and there were many background stories that could prove this, such as the tank incident. Getting fired from his job was the straw that broke the camel’s back, and his violent temper caused many deaths including his own. Blaming William Kinsley for this tragedy ruined his and his family’s life still to this day. He was once told that it would only hurt for a minute, but he says it’s still hurting. I feel that William Kinsley is a victim from both sides. He is a victim of Tom McIlvane’s rampage and from the postal union for using him as a scapegoat. This is why I feel he is not to blame for this tragic shooting.

Posted by davi1518 at 11:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

While watching the “6 Billion Others� testimonials about nature, I found it interesting that almost every person viewed nature as a beautiful thing that should be preserved. The man from Hong Kong said he felt fear towards nature, but this was more specifically directed at the jungle around him. And though he doesn't share the more conservationist viewpoints of the others, his position does show a type of respect for nature, albeit a more fearful than grateful one. Even the woman from India, who pointed out that humans are equally important (reflecting India's current struggle with rapid population growth and unregulated pollution problems) still stated that nature is something we should value and use only within our needs. Personally, I was very impressed with the testimonial from the Reunion Islands, in which the man described humans and trees as being completely interconnected as well as symbolically similar.

I think this is a perfect way to think about nature: It is not just something beautiful to be preserved or used, it is also something that we are an integral and inseparable part of. Without trees, or other large segments of the natural world, we would not survive as a species. With a philosophy of unity with nature, growing up with it instead of against it, humans would be able to balance out their effects on nature, and eventually create a fully sustainable society. The biggest detriment to making our industries sustainable is the idea that nature is a resource for our use, protection, or domination. A general conservationist policy would certainly work to balance our population growth with the preservation of nature, but simply using less resources is not quite enough.
From a more philosophical standpoint, seeing ourselves as only one part of nature would be more effective than holding the leash on nature and using it as we see fit, even if we work to conserve parts of it. If we are a part of nature instead of its owner or conservator, we will both respect it more and put deeper, broader thought into our impacts. For example, instead of thinking about how many trees are used for a notebook as we would with a conservationist philosophy, we would think about the full life cycle of the notebook, from production to use to disposal, and go beyond conserving resources to minimizing our entire impact on the environment (pertaining to waste management, recycling, production techniques, etc). If we're going to mold our current society into one that can persist without destroying large segments of nature, we need to realize that we are a segment of nature itself, and think holistically about our existence.

Posted by fergu229 at 7:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Throughout our everyday lives, we are confronted with millions of photographs and pictures whether it’s on the cover of a daily news paper or on the inside of a magazine. In a conversation with Hany Farid, Errol Morris attempts to explain the editing in a recent photo that took the center stage of several news organizations. The photo was taken of four Iranian missiles being fired from the ground. The controversy arose when an online blog named Little Green Footballs provided evidence that the photo had been faked. The original photo taken contained only three missiles. By closely analyzing the photo using computer software it was confirmed that the photo containing four missiles was digitally edited. Errol’s purpose in speaking with Hany Farid, an expert on digital photography, was to help answer the issue of whether or not photos can be trusted.

In the process of describing the validity of photos, Errol takes a step back from looking at the advanced photo manipulation software and Photoshop tools, and looks at the components of a photograph. In order to trick someone with a photograph the image doesn’t need to change, “All you need to do is change the caption� (Errol 1). I agree Errol’s statement that by changing the caption, the photo’s claims changes. He gives an example of this using a satellite photo. Two identical images of the building are displayed, one with the caption of “Chemical munitions bunker� and the other with the caption “International House of Pancakes�. Although humorous in some respects, it leads to a very important point. As the detail of image decreases, our ability to recognize objects and form conjectures decrease. As this takes place, the amount of emphasis placed on the caption increases. The example of the satellite photo is this concept taken to its limit. The satellite photo is of such poor quality that anything could be said about the black and white rectangular looking building. There is no discernible characteristic that dignifies the building as a chemical munitions bunker rather than a fast food restaurant. Had the satellite photo been of high resolution and vivid detail, the viewer would look more at the picture and question the truth of the caption. By using the satellite image example, Errol shows that the image doesn’t need to be changed in order for the viewer to be tricked. This leads to the caption and explanation of the missiles.

The number of missiles seen in the Iranian photograph may not be the sole reason for the public’s outrage. By definition, a photograph is a representation of a person or scene in the form of a print or transparent slide (wordnet.princeton). This means that from the very second patterns of light are recorded onto film, the photo has some sort of bias to its meaning. Photographs are used to present what someone saw. In the case of the Iranian missiles the public was lied to, tricked into believing something that didn’t exist. In a prior article Will the real hooded man please stand up, Errol Morris states “We see not what is there, but rather what we want to see or expect to see� (Errol 2). People are angry at the doctored photo of Iranian missiles because they feel they have “been victims of fraud� (Errol 1). Their expectations about the missiles were wrong because the caption was wrong. The photo itself cannot be blamed for the lack of truth. If the photo with 4 missiles had been published in all the newspapers with the caption “Photoshopped Iranian missile test�, there would be no dispute about the truthfulness of the photo.

Given all the scandals Photoshop has caused, many news organizations have banned the usage of photo manipulation programs including Adobe’s Photoshop. Although news organizations believe that such actions will prevent the publication of false images, they are attacking the wrong component of the problem. The restriction of Photoshop leads to a false sense of truth. By stating Photoshop was never used, one may make the false assumption that photos never edited with Photoshop must be true. As shown in the chemical munitions building example, the only thing needed to change the meaning of the photo is the caption.

In some situations, photos are presented without a caption. This was the case in the book Let Us Now Praise Us Famous Men by Walker Evans and James Agee. During the first 63 pages, pictures of sharecropper families taken by Walker Evans are displaced. One of the unique characteristics about these pictures is that they lacked any captions or description. One possible explanation for this is that by excluding any form of context, Walker Evans hopes to display the unmitigated truth. Combining this concept with Errol Morris’s idea of captions and truth, I think that by leaving out captions, the reader is offered the freedom to apply his or her own beliefs and expectations to the pictures. This freedom establishes the perception of truth in the pictures among all audiences as they represent whatever the audience desires.

I think that in order to determine whether or not a photo is truthful, one must think of the circumstances and context associated with the photo. It’s impossible to determine whether or not a photo alone is truthful as it is merely film on paper. In order to determine its truthfulness, one must look at the caption. The caption is what the photo claims to be and is the only component of a photographic presentation that can be evaluated.

Citation:
wordnet.princeton-http://wordnet.princeton.edu

Errol 1-http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/11/photography-as-a-weapon/

Errol 2-http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/15/will-the-real-hooded-man-please-stand-up/

Posted by dsaxx005 at 6:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Social classes exist, and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. Michael S. Gibbons in his paper “White Trash: A Class Relevant Scapegoat for the Cultural Elite� (2004) writes about the separation of the upper and lower classes. Throughout the paper he discusses the reasons for the separation between the classes, which primarily rests upon the reasons for the upper class (“elite�) including or excluding certain social groups. In the past, the elite excluded anyone who was a non-elite, but in the past twenty years has become a class marked by their inclusiveness rather than their exclusiveness: “[m]odern elites are well-educated participants in the global economy� and “success in [the global] economy requires an individual to be open to dealing with people of other races and nationalities openly and respectfully� (Gibbons).He then proceeds to show how although the elites have come to include minority cultures, the lower white class specifically is almost universally excluded from the elites’ inclusive ideal. I do not argue with Gibbons’ conclusion that the elite class has come to accept minority groups because, by accepting them and their culture, they gain a certain political or status advantage but exclude poor whites because accepting them has no advantage. What I call into question is one specific argument he used to reach this conclusion; he partly based the inclusion and exclusion of each class on the music tastes of each group, but he does not discuss how individuals within each group come to appreciate certain genres of music.

The concept of habitus is an old idea, dating back to Aristotle (then called hexis), but Pierre Bourdieu has most recently refined habitus to mean the “system of durable and transposable dispositions through which we perceive, judge, and act in the world� (Wacquant, 2006, p. 6). In layman’s terms, this means that every day we are exposed to innumerable events which shape how we perceive the world. Over time, all of these events condition us to be more receptive to certain events, actions, or beliefs than others because our disposition towards them makes them more accessible to us; at the same time, though, it is important to note that this is not an ultimatum. It is possible for an individual to disregard his conventional ideas and make an active and conscious decision to change. Now consider the case of a child being raised in a low-class family. He is obviously born into the same social class as his parents, and he is then raised in conditions which reflect the parents’ beliefs and ideas, or habitus. Specifically in the case of music tastes, if the parents listen to country, gospel, or heavy metal music, as Gibbons explains in his paper are genres which are typical of the low class, then the child would have been exposed to country, gospel, or heavy metal all his life. Years of exposure to the music would then make that style of music much more compatible with his disposition than another style would. Similarly, the upper class is in a similar situation: “refined� parents would insist that their children listen to “suitable� music for their status. How, then, does the recent move of the elite to inclusiveness fit into this model? Remembering that including minority groups’ cultures is a necessary part of being a global citizen, one could argue that the elite have been making conscious decisions to include minority groups and other cultures in order to maintain the appearance of being a global citizen. A second idea which Bourdieu pioneered that has relevance here is the idea of a field; a field is the “force…that imposes its specific determinations upon all those who enter it� (Wacquant, p. 7). In the case of social classes, each class is the field which pushes against the individual wants and desires of people, and in order to fit in, one must submit to the field to a certain degree. Music tastes within each group were forged in the past, have continued to the present through tradition, and maintain their hold by being a strong part of the identity of each group.

The next question may be, “How does this differ from what Gibbons was arguing? It appears as if you have not refuted what Gibbons has said.� My point is to show that although the results are the same, the points I have made should have been discussed. Gibbons using music genres as a data point with which to compare the social classes is a valid option as long as the caveats of the method are described. He failed to show why the low-class listens to country, gospel, and heavy metal most often. Instead, he stated the fact without proof and continued his discussion of the details of social stratification. Realizing that taste in music is an indirect observation of the underlying dynamics within and amongst the classes is an important distinction to make.

“[T]o explain any social event or pattern, one must inseparably dissect both the social constitution of the agent and the makeup of the particular social universe within which she operates as well as the particular conditions under which they come to encounter and impinge upon each other.� (Wacquant, p. 8)

Works Cited

Gibbons, M. S. (2004). White Trash: A Class Relevant Scapegoat for the Cultural Elite. Retrieved September 19, 2008, from Journal of Mundane Behavior: http://mundanebehavior.org/issues/v5n1/gibbons.htm

Wacquant, L. (2006, May). Pierre Bordieu. Retrieved September 19, 2008, from http://sociology.berkeley.edu/faculty/wacquant/wacquant_pdf/PIERREBOURDIEU-KEYTHINK-REV2006.pdf

Posted by will2560 at 3:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

The article on daydreaming in the Boston Globe by Jonah Lehrer, although an entertaining collection of easy-to-understand facts, might be seen as a simple and vague depiction of the actual topic of neuroscience by specialists in the field. The article focuses on the area of neuroscience that studies the brain functions behind the process of daydreaming, and it does so in a very simplified language that can be understood by the average reader with little to no prior knowledge on the subject. It aims the readers’ attention towards the potential benefits of daydreaming and its affects on a person’s ability to think creatively and make original associations. Arthur Fry, the inventor of the post-it note and the holder of many various other patents, came up with his inventions, post-it note included, while daydreaming about solutions to his everyday problems. This simple story illustrates for the reader an example of a positive outcome of an average, everyday daydream. Lehrer’s article goes on to explain the importance of daydreams in the development of a child’s creativity skills and his or her abilities to make original associations between seemingly unlike object and ideas. It seems that children in the present day are lacking in a certain “empty time� in which he or she is not entertained by outside stimuli, such as a television set, during which the imagination is the only form of entertainment, leading to daydreams and along with them streams of creative thoughts. Although the article is based on legitimate scientific evidence, it lacks the extensive explanations and extrapolations of an article written merely for scientific purposes, and the scientific terminology that makes the meaning of such articles inaccessible to the average reader.
As a reader with some knowledge on the subject of neuroscience, however limited, I found the popular science piece by Lehrer to be interesting and informative. I have not had much background in the subject, although I have taken a few psychology classes that were connected to the field of neuroscience, and I feel that this article, despite its relaxed format and lack of scientific lingo, enriched my previous knowledge on daydreaming. A popular science piece, such as this one on daydreaming, is not written with the intent to give the reader a free lesson and make him or her an expert on the given topic; it is simply to entertain the reader and perhaps advance his or her interest on the subject, whatever it may be.
On the contrary, the linked article by Mark Price that goes more in depth to the actual scientific background of the study of neuroscience and brain functions related to the process of daydreaming is a long, tedious article full of information which is neither interesting nor easy to comprehend for the casual reader. This is perhaps the reason that hard scientific fact doesn’t make for a very good magazine article, as do popular science bits such as the piece by Lehrer. However, the experts in the field of neuroscience would most likely acclaim the latter article, despite the fact that it is simply a review of a larger piece of scientific literature, as the better reflection of their area of expertise. It contains more scientific fact, and the terminology and format used reinforce the fact that such an article was not written with the anticipation that it would be read by the casual reader. Intense scientific essays and reviews such as the piece that I read today by Mark Price are meant to be viewed by a narrow audience, whereas popular science articles such as the one by Lehrer in the Boston Globe are directed toward the average man or woman.
One may ask, then, which type of literature is in fact of superior quality? The answer is obvious. It simply depends on the audience. It would be inappropriate and most likely a waste of paper to include an article full of hard scientific fact written in technical language in a casual reading magazine- people simply wont put the time or energy into reading it, much less trying to understand it. Scientific essays aren’t usually the first things a person thinks of when looking for a piece of literature for leisure reading. Similarly, an article on popular science would be entirely out of place in an academic textbook. Personally, I found the popular science article by Lehrer, although perhaps less technically informative than the more in depth review by Price, to be much more interesting, entertaining, and even more intellectually stimulating, perhaps simply for these reasons.

Posted by lamp0125 at 10:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

In 1951 an interview was conducted by a professor of Harvard University with the widow of Robert Flaherty. In the interview the man asks the widow questions about Flaherty and his work. The woman responds always in kind and how she must have thought her late husband would have responded. She talks about how Robert developed through his years of film-making his skill with the camera and what he called capturing the true essence of a person. But the question I ask during all of this is, how can a man hope to capture the “true essence� of a person and present it to us if his definition of truth is what you might say up for interpretation? When Flaherty was filming his second film, his first success, Nanook of the North he wanted to capture moments that would be able to bring the audience closer to the heart of the story. He wanted us to be captured by these moments and to see these people, Eskimos, that were trying to survive in conditions that appeared dire in the simplest of explanations. Flaherty lived among these people for almost two years and had what I supposed he felt to be a connection that he made him accountable to show the rest of the world who these people were. In his own earnest to produce a film that would bring empathy to a reachable height for the audience Flaherty “staged� certain events during the film to add to the experience (Wikipedia: Nanook of the North,2004). He had the man Nanook hunt with a spear like his ancestors instead of the gun he usually used when hunting walruses and seals that were usually the target of these peoples. Nanook’s wife in the film also wasn’t his wife at all. The result of Flaherty’s work was a groundbreaking film that is considered the first documentary film. The film was seen and praised all over the world. People found empathy for the struggle between man and his environment, so much so even that when Nanook died two years after the film’s airing the news aired all over the world and felt.
Documentary films have changed over the times, but still hold to trying to relate real facts using real life events. The films still try to inform you on a subject and rid you of any ignorance about the topic. One major thing that does separate the then and now is the how the filmmakers accomplish this. Flaherty used facts but also his own twists on the story were made to draw the audience to heart of the subject to the essence of it. Flaherty set out for people to achieve a complete understanding of the people in his films. The true direction of documentary isn’t to relate facts about a topic, but to convince the audience in a way that drives them to act. His films were powerful and dug at people to do something about what they saw or at least think about it. The truths of facts were not important or even a consideration. What Flaherty found important was essence of people. By that I think he meant the thing that binds us all. Documentary films were made to connect us all together and to give us evidence of these connections through the emotions we felt from watching films like Flaherty’s. Flaherty staged events because they were necessary to give us a more vivid connection to those people. The events were there to absorb us into the subject and mold us to become part of the topic. Documentaries are just like anything else we use to bend people to our own convictions. We use information and our imagination to show people that our views are the ones they want to hold as well.

Posted by micha315 at 7:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I read the article of the lady with the little hand-made trinkets and what not and I thought what she was doing was pretty cool, but that was just about all of it. That is until I read an insightful position statement on the Uthink blog. It made me take a look at the article again, and I realized that what this lady and all of the people that were part of the “handmade� world were doing something that hadn’t been done in a while. They were trying to put the power of industry back into the hands of the “little man.� And yes professor I know its cliché but that is exactly what it is. This “handmade nation is giving hope to those people who still wish to make things that they can be proud of and, if it is wrong to hope so somebody stop me, to make a living doing so. This lady with her slightly eccentric taste is part of a brave movement that should be recognized as a hope. A hope that the way of life that many thought was gone and lost to the sands is still within reach. I think it is in most people of our nation to rather serve themselves rather than the vested interest of some board of directors that they have probably never seen, much less met. I also may have gone off on a romantic limb and seen only that, the end which would be portrayed in the movies to tear at the emotion, but I do believe that is the part of that article that I like to ponder.

Posted by micha315 at 7:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Apple has just released the new version of iTunes, iTunes 8.0. This program features all the usual upgrades, but there is one in particular that caught my attention. Apple released a new upgrade to iTunes entitled, “Genius.�

“Genius,� has the ability to access the music files that are currently in anyone’s iTunes folder and recommend music for the particular person. It makes these recommendations by comparing artists, song titles, and genres. But the question becomes, is it right for Apple to access our music files on our computer and recommend new songs? By Apple accessing our computer files and folders, do they gain a marketing advantage that violates our privacy?

Before I explain my stand on the issue, there are many other websites that use this same method. Here are a few of them: Facebook, Myspace, and Wal-Mart.com. They use a tracking method that allows them to post advertisements on your page that appeal to you. Wal-Mart online tracks every product you look at in a particular day. The company uses this information to post similar products that may interest you. Facebook and Myspace use this technique as well. These particular sites track the other websites that a person’s computer visits and from that information posts the advertisements that are most like the sites visited.

ITunes “Genius,� sets up a side panel in your iTunes and every time that a user clicks onto a song the “Genius Bar� recommends popular songs by the artist and popular artists. When you first install the program, iTunes uploads all of the information within your iTunes and uses that information to make new suggestions.

One argument on this topic would say that what iTunes and companies like it are doing is wrong. These companies should not be able to view files on a person’s computer. Information on a personal computer should be confidential and protected.

In the example of iTunes, “Genius,� uses an unfair means of marketing. With this new software, it is as if iTunes has a sales representative luring you into make purchases for every second you’re using iTunes. With the new software their advertising schemes have been brought to a new level. Because of this, their profits will most likely increase.

The other side of the argument is that by having a computer select songs for a particular person, the user can save time and effort in finding enjoyable music. By giving iTunes access to your music library, it’s not handing out any personal information that’s crucial to your life. It is necessary for iTunes to have this access to help you find music.

“Genius,� is not a mandatory program. After installing the new iTunes software on my computer, I realized that this was something that had to be signed up for. Therefore, iTunes needs user discretion before it can upload your library.

Facebook and Myspace are awesome networking programs, they give us the ability to keep in touch with so many other people that we might not otherwise talk to. Facebook and Myspace do not charge users anything. They cover costs by advertising for companies. Facebook advertises for companies on every page within the site. This is what pays for the site to be up and running.

My opinion on this topic is allowing these companies to access a minimal amount of the information on our computer is good. These sites all contain disclaimers that explain what each company has access to. When we rush and click through the license agreement statement, “I agree.� We agree to everything these sites can do. Within in those statements it explains the actions that the website can take.

Facebook tells its users that whatever material is posted, (wall posts, photos, videos, etc.) Facebook owns. As a user it’s his or her responsibility to make sure that he or she understands all that website can do. That’s the reason it is not recommended to fly through licensing agreement pages. One should carefully read each statement as best, but at least make sure to skim the main points.

Apple is not looking to rip valuable information out of everybody’s computer, but rather to help their users be satisfied with their products. By suggesting music that may appeal to a customer helps them to gain a better image of customer service. Apple wants people to use their products so that they have a profit increase. By inventing new applications and updating their software, it helps to for this image.

By coming up with this new style of software, Apple may create a trend. Companies accessing our information and buying trends may be something that we, as consumers, may have to view as normal. As the world becomes more reliant on computers these types of programs will start to grow. It’s because of this that programs like Apple’s “Genius,� are justified in what they can do.

Works Cited:

http://www.apple.com/itunes/whatsnew/

http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/09/09/a-look-at-itunes-gen.html

http://blogs.computerworld.com/review_itunes

Posted by muell484 at 7:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)

The postal service corporation is one of the last places a person would think of finding corruption or even violence, in my opinion, but after viewing the testimony of William Kinsley in The Stalker, reading the introduction to Charlie Wither’s book, and articles pertaining to the Royal Oaks post office tragedy, my opinion no longer applies. The issues at hand that have arose now is if the event could have been prevented, if one should believe William Kinsley’s overview and thoughts of the tragedy, have sympathy towards him, or completely disregard anything he had to say about the situation being that he may be to blame for the shooter’s, Thomas McIlvane’s, actions, and also if William Kinsley is the only one to blame for the incident.

Thomas McIlvane was an unstable, dangerous man according to newspaper articles and fellow employees of the mail carrier; his background stories of violent behavior such as running over a vehicle with a tank supported his reputation. He had a very short fuse and just about anyone could probably light it. Because of inappropriate behavior in the workplace and while on his route, he was fired from his job at the Royal oaks post office by William Kinsley. This is apparently the incident which lit his fuse for the last time. Over the course of time from the firing leading up to the shootings, William Kinsley stated in The Stalker that he was receiving threats from McIlvane, but there wasn’t enough proof to support his accusations, letting McIlvane continue to stalk Kinsley and eventually kill former fellow employees. Obviously he could have been stopped at that point, but there were not enough precautions taken to protect anyone. What is hard to understand is why further investigation and actions were not taken to prevent McIlvane from being able to wander the streets and continue to harass Kinsley. The lack of judgment and authoritative decisions by the police force in Royal Oaks made matters worse by allowing a killer to walk amongst the citizens of the city without very little surveillance. For as little as I know about the precautions that can be taken, more could have been done.

On the matter of William Kinsey, it appears that he had nothing to do with the shootings that took place and he would like us all to believe that. He presumed himself as the victim in The Stalker for being blamed and mistreated after the event, and also making it seem as though he is being blamed more than the actual shooter himself who committed the homicidal crimes. It is true that McIlvane was not a wonderful human being, but Kinsley is neither a wonderful human being nor a victim. According to Charlie Withers, a chief steward at the time of the killings, William Kinsley came from a line of supervisors and employees who created hostile environments in the postal workplace for many years before the incident at Royal Oaks had even occurred. He states in the introduction of his book that Kinsley “had a reputation of being a bully and having a wide range of managers who were loyal to him.� Managers under Kinsley may have mistreated not only McIlvane, but other employees too. Kinsley may have misused the loyalty of his managers to push McIlvane to his limit, knowing that McIlvane should be gone if he was causing problems. Charlie Withers also states that these managers, like their supervisor, liked to “rule by fear.� Ruling by fear would include using harassment and strict orders to get what they want. This is what creates the hostile working environment. From this information, it can be assumed that there may be more behind the story leading up to the time of McIlvane being fired that William Kinsley decides not to share with anyone in The Stalker. This also shows that Kinsley is not the only one to blame.

The event which occurred at the Royal Oaks post office was unfortunate for many and left citizens of the community hurt and confused. Thomas McIlvane is definitely not innocent, but neither is William Kinsley. I believe there is more behind the story than what the public eye can see, which intrigues me to investigate farther into the story. In my opinion, William Kinsley puts on an excellent act in The Stalker, trying to make viewers sympathize with him that he is mistreated and does not deserve to have the finger pointed at him, but unfortunately, Charlie Withers points out that Kinsley was corrupted himself. He was a supervisor worth getting rid of in order to make the work environment a better place. If the United States Postal Service has complicated problems such as this one, it’s hard to imagine what bigger corporations have to deal with.

Posted by jone1394 at 5:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)

What started as a project to film the world’s difference from the sky’s point of view turned into a documentary of the people that occupy this diverse earth. Yann Arthus-Bertrand decided that the beauty of the cultural differences across the world would be more beneficial for the world to be aware of. These differences have been around for ages. Why would the world be able to accept the differences between the varieties of traditions now? The “ruling� countries have moved into a way of living that is even more extremely opposite too the lives being lived by those in third world countries. The gap continues to grow while means of communication within our own individual countries are growing stronger. We are approaching a state of seclusion from the advanced countries and the laboring countries. Although this concept is honorable and in theory seems necessary, it is in fact pointless and ineffective to bridge the gap between the stubborn natives of all the worldly countries.

Pride in one’s accomplishments, beliefs, values, and nationality can be found easily in just about any individual. Some become so wrapped up in the fact that their country, way of thinking, or religion is the superior one that they break out into arguments. The two stubborn natives could go back and forth in an attempt to back their opinions with facts written by professionals of their same nationality. Those on the outside of these arguments looking in will take sides based on which individual’s nationality they identify with most closely. It is a never-ending conflict of opinions. Jeff Barwall from Humanities Studies at the University of Indiana states that it is an individual’s instinct to find connections to a group of people. It is almost a survival tactic when they will defend their associations to ensure security. Will some internet sight be able to over come this security by just showing the faces of those form another country?
As an American, a member of a very diverse and random mix of orientations, individuals seem to defend their thoughts and beliefs as if being an American was their nationality. The founders of America intended it to be a country for freedom and therefore draw a variety of different cultures and ideas together into one. However, over time the ancestors of those founders have made a new way of thinking associated to America as a whole. This has created yet another side to take. 6 Billion Others attempts to give another perspective for those with the mentality that their own ideas are the best.
Unfortunately, there are so many reasons as to why this documentary could be overlooked. People are so absorbed in their won way of doing things they do not care to look or even pay attention when it is obvious. Today’s day in age is also so busy. It could be hard to run across this site even if someone knew that it existed. Distractions are many, as well. As an individual operates a computer, thousands of messages and advertisements with links and pop-ups flash in their face. One would think that in a world like this it would be a relief to sit back and take in some relaxing worldly culture. However, pride in our way of life makes us feel superior and therefore would not be able to learn anything from “lower class� countries.
Besides the fact that this information is difficult to catch people’s attention, the media that does catch their attention often has already corrupted them to think in a specific manner. These previously formed opinions are difficult to break. Although Yann Arthus-Bertrand’s documentary of individual’s personal experiences from all over the world, they won’t be taken to heart in the context.
Seeing the faces of a few individuals from the same country almost created a stronger stereotype. Their similarities in stories and looks lead to a conclusion that all individuals from that country live their lives as these examples.
Is there a method to break down these stereotypes? Are people able to be convinced of a perspective other than the ones they have formed from their childhoods? Could the media be persuaded to deliver less influential information? Do these vary individuals included in this documentary have bias for their own country? Is the world destined to be divided by pride and segregation of groups forever? This idea is touching and inspirational, but when broken down in the context of today’s day and age it is almost impossible to accomplish it’s goal. Bringing the world together would take separation of all individuals from their associations and than rejoining them as a whole. At the moment the internet is not the best medium to accomplish this task.

Posted by reger019 at 10:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Paul Koski
When I initially read this, I thought it was about some hippie type person who managed to start her own art gallery consisting of handmade arts and crafts. And for the most part I think I am right on that part, because the article was talking about art pieces and a gallery, nothing really useful like a table or a garage. So I thought well what is the big deal. Many people make handmade arts and crafts all the time, why is she so special. Why does she get to go on all these talk shows, concerts, and travel the country to talk about handmade art? I do not think I will ever get why she is so special, but I read a position paper by Nate Miller, which made me look at everything a different way. He did not talk about arts and crafts, but useful stuff, such as, cabinets and garages. Even though there was some art and craft type stuff like model cars, I found a deeper meaning in it all. He had been raised with traditions, the model car was a tradition, something his dad did, and now something he does, and will continue to pass down to his kids.

He told stories of how his dad was a do it yourself type of person, building garages, cabinets, etc. That is when I realized something I would have never thought of before. When we do stuff ourselves, we preserve our culture, our values, and our ideals. I immediately began to think about my cabin in northern Minnesota. It is not you fancy cabin with all the modern electronics and a second home feeling. No, it is more of a preservation of my dad's culture, and family history. The cabin was handed down to us as it had been for a couple of generations; it was originally built in 1940, by my great grandfather. It was a simple log cabin with only two rooms, a storage shed, and a sauna, which was the typical cabin for a Finnish family such as mine. However, of course, times have changed, and we have made some renovations to the cabin, such as we rebuilt the sauna and have put in updated essentials such as a stove and refrigerator; but the idea stay the same. It will always be a log cabin, with a sauna and a small storage shed. It will never be too fancy, and it will always blend in with nature because as I have learned in my architecture class, Finland culture is deeply centered on nature. In addition, since our family has built this, it is unique to our culture and us and that is something you cannot mass-produce in countries thousands of miles away like Miller said.
So then I had to think, is it such a bad thing that D.I.Y. is becoming a trend all over again, I mean the world did go through an industrial revolution for a reason. And my answer is no, I believe that we as people should express our individuality, and preserve our culture. Because for the longest time I have felt that people trying to be popular, and trying to blend in with society is wrong; America as a nation is unique because it is made up by people from around the world. However, if we all blend in and follow what is, "in" well then we are no longer unique. In addition, I believe that our freedoms and individuality defines us as a nation.
Well now, you are probably thinking that I am totally against corporations and mass production, because I am so for individuality. And the fact is I am not, mass production is needed for the fast pass our world is moving in. It helps us stay on our feet and keep up with the world, but too often does this lead to us losing our traditions; because you cannot mass-produce thousands of years of tradition and culture. Nevertheless, it does give us the time to do stuff ourselves, because think if you had to make everything you needed and I mean everything. And you would need a job to pay for all of the goods and materials you would need. There would not be enough time in the day, and we would still be in the Stone Age.
Although I am saying do it yourself, express yourself in what you do, that does not necessarily mean you have to do everything the way your culture would. For example, my family makes sure our cabin resembles our values and culture; our tradition and our history. But if you don't have a cabin or are looking for something a little more close to home or an everyday type of thing; try cooking traditional meals, using recipes your great grandparents used. Just try to find something in your life that you can make unique, your own, something that resembles you as a person, your values and your history.
So basically it took two stories to help me come to my final position that, do it yourself ideals do fit in with modern society, and that they should have a bigger part of it; because now in days, many people are losing their traditions because of busy work schedules and never stopping world. We need to start doing stuff ourselves and really turn it into an art of tradition and culture, something the shows our unique individual identities and values.

Posted by koski120 at 7:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Liberty, it is word that can have many different connotations or meanings depending on who it is who is defining it. Some people consider liberty as any man for him self, the ability to do what you want when you want. Others might say that there is no liberty unless it is shared by all.

6 Billion Others is a website that conducts interviews on different subjects with people all over the world. Ranging from some thing as simple as laughter to more complicated and deep questions like the meaning of life, the website covers it all. However, I thought that the most interesting and thought provoking question of all was "What is Liberty?"

The dictionary states that Liberty is: the power of choice, free from physical restraint, the power to do what one chooses (Webster). I think that if most people were asked the same question then their answer would most likely be pretty similar to this definition. After watching the interviews and thinking about it for a while I think that the real meaning of liberty is deeper and more palpable then that. For example the prostitute from Thailand said that she had no liberty because she had become overweight in jail and now that she is out she cannot find any work. Now she has no money and she can't find another job.

My question is did she ever have any liberty in the first place, when she was working as a prostitute. The answer is no, she was not free from physical restraint; most likely she did not have the power of choice. This problem brings us to an even deeper issue. Whose fault is it that she has no liberty? I think that it is the fault of society and government in Thailand where a young woman has to sell her body and her dignity as the only way to get by.

There are anywhere from 800,000 to 2 million prostitutes in Thailand, with most of them being under the age of 18 (Sciaga). Many of these kids were taken from their homes at an early age and forced into the prostitution ring. If this is not a blatant robbery of one's personal liberty then I do not know what is. Looking at that fact makes me frustrated as to how ridiculous it is that people would let this happen in their country. Forced Prostitution is just one of 1,000 issues that one could bring up when talking about this issue of liberty. All over the world people’s rights are being violated.

People who disagree with the point that I am trying to make might say that it is one’s own responsibility to make sure that their liberties and freedoms are upheld at whatever cost. Now to some extent this is a true statement, and there are places in the world where people need to take control of a the situation for themselves. However I think that more often then not people don’t have the ability to step in on behalf of themselves. This is where we must step in for them.

Martin Luther King Jr. said that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice every where.� I think that this quote directly applies to the topic that we are discussing. When there is a violation of liberty, my belief is that it is not an isolated experience. There is a chain of responsibility that always comes back to us. Yes I mean people like you and me who are lucky enough to be in a position where we have the ability to help those who cannot help them selves. Now I might be being naïve when I say this but if you really look deep into the issue then you might be able to tell where I am coming from. For example, I am sure that there are people in Thailand who are against prostitution trafficking, this is pretty obvious. How ever many of these people don’t have the resources to do anything about the problem. The responsibility then falls to those who do have the power to a make a change for the better. Which makes me wonder if the real definition of liberty is not just a personal freedom of choice, but a collective right for everyone to be able to obtain the basic needs to live a happy life.

Merriam-Webster. 11 September 2008
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberty
"Modern Day Slavery." Sciaga 11 September 2008
http://www.sciaga.pl/tekst/16435-17-modern_day_slavery_prostitution_in_thailand

Posted by tipp0013 at 2:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

We live in a world that is obsessed with manufacturing and mass producing. Everything we buy is made in a factory; paying the workers almost nothing, in some country thousands of miles away from us. We, as people, have lost an old art of Do-It-Yourself or also stated as D.I.Y, but we have not lost the ability, we have just lost the interest. Who can you blame? It is so easy to visit the nearest Wal-Mart and find exactly what you need, for a reasonable price. All of the manufactures as a whole can be considered a monopoly. Everyone has to rely on them to get their products; until the citizens of Handmade Nation emerged. These are just ordinary people, like you and me, who discovered they have a talent and put it to use. Some of them do this for a career, and some do it for a hobby. But no matter the case, they are very passionate about their work. As Erin Weckerle, a D.I.Y. artist, states, “If you are taking the time to make something, it seems natural to take the time and make it well, beginning to end.� (1)
Artists who are apart of D.I.Y. also call themselves indie artists. “They grew up being very creative and imaginative and they somehow want to incorporate that into their everyday, grown-up lives,� (1) is how Lleana Rodriguez interprets them. When my father was a teenager, he was constantly making something, if it were a table or a toy car. He has never lost that ability. He has made my mom countless things including a spool cabinet, quilt hangers, and desks. He has also built two of our garages, a log cabin, and a shuffle-board table. Whenever my mom sees something in a gardening store and wants it, my dad always says, “I can make that for you.� She usually laughs and agrees. A couple of days later, he will have made it and people cannot even tell that he did. We know, as a family, because it now has a certain sentimental value to us.

I am not saying that everyone has to go out and make everything on their own from scratch, but just look around at some of the things you buy and ask yourself; could I have made that? Many indie artists do not make everything from scratch. They are masters of scavenging and will use odds-and-ends to make their products. Jennifer Perkins, who you can find at naughtysecretaryclub.com, rips-up old, forgotten jewelry and makes new jewelry from that. (1) This shows that another man’s junk is another man’s treasure.
Now I am sure you are asking yourself, if I am a D.I.Y. type of guy. The truth is yes, yes I am. When I was younger my dad always encouraged me to go out and build something instead of staying inside and watching T.V. I made my own soap-box car, which I still have. It has a steering system and resembled an early Ford Model A. Of course I had my dad help me on it, but I was the only kid on the block to have something like that. I have also made wooden toy cars, tables, and chairs. Although the tables and chairs may have been a little wobbly, I was still proud of them. I also assisted my dad on countless projects, including building the garages and restoring cars. I learned basic construction and my dad even taught me how to wire the garage. When I am older, I will pass on what I know to my kids and hopefully they will do the same to theirs.
The New York Times did a wonderful article on Faythe Levine who has her own handmade shop in Milwaukee (Green 1). The article talks about her getting started and how she was really into the underground punk rock scene. She could see all of these bands making signs, apparel, and records by hand. Faythe said to herself, “Here were these people doing things the hard way, making these amazing things. It was the incredibly awesome idea that people were taking the time to do this, and that I could do it, too.� (Green 2) She started making sock monkeys about six years ago and the market went crazy for them and she has been making other products since (Green 1).
Before reading and watching countless articles, I had never heard of Handmade Nation, or for that matter even heard of people making products themselves and selling them. It is a great idea that is just worth reading about. Also, if you are ever in Milwaukee, stop by Fayth Levine’s store and take a look around. I plan to do the same someday, when I am in the area. Even if you are not interested in the products, just look at them and appreciate what each artist put into the item to make it what it is. Also, ask yourself, could I make something like this or is there another product out that people could find useful that I could make?

(1) Handmade Nation Trailer. Dir. Fayth Levine. Prod. Fayth Levine. 2006
handmadenationmovie.com

Green, Penelope. “At Home With The Ambassador of Handmade.� The New York
Times 3 Sept. 2008. 8 Sept. 2008

Posted by mill3982 at 11:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

What is this unravel 2 thing. Is it required that we set an appointment up. but what is it? I was going to ask today but i el forgoto. I am about ready to start reading how to make your students cry then maybe read some more in Let Us Now Praise Famous Men.

Posted by mill3982 at 8:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This (Study: white rooftops could curb climate change) is an interesting article I stumbled upon today. I've wondered in the past whether all the roads and parking lots in the world made a difference in weather with the heat they release (walking across a parking lot in the middle of summer makes that point obvious), but this article suggests that it's having a greater impact than most people realized.

While this may sound like greenwashing (but with whitewash), the potential savings here are huge. The LA Times walks us through the numbers:

Globally, roofs account for 25% of the surface of most cities, and pavement accounts for about 35%. If all were switched to reflective material in 100 major urban areas, it would offset 44 metric gigatons of greenhouse gases, which have been trapping heat in the atmosphere and altering the climate on a potentially dangerous scale.

That is more than all the countries on Earth emit in a single year. And, with global climate negotiators focused on limiting a rapid increase in emissions, installing cool roofs and pavements would offset more than 10 years of emissions growth, even without slashing industrial pollution.

Posted by will2560 at 7:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I can't seem to find where he posted the topics for our position papers. I want to get one done by Friday, and also, do we just post them like this, as an entry that is? If you can help me with either of these questions you can comment or email me at koski120@umn.edu or just comment

Posted by koski120 at 12:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I found myself looking for other resources on the web for our book. I was confused and this helped me further understand where the story is going and it's foundation.

http://www.ralphmag.org/AU/famous-men.html

http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/hhr93_6.html

Hope this helps out.

Derek

Posted by mulhe020 at 1:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Hello WRIT 1301 class. My name is Nathan Miller and this is just a test to make sure I know how to use this for when I post my position paper sometime this week. They are due Friday right? Is there a certain due time meaning do they have to be posted by a certain time? Anyway, I'll see everyone in class tomorrow in room B26. Bye

Posted by mill3982 at 9:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Watching this episode of Rocketboom, I was intrigued by one of the news items. It's actually from an academic journal. Ideas for research projects can come from many different places:

We demonstrate by means of simple, noninvasive methods (analysis of satellite images, field observations, and measuring “deer beds� in snow) that domestic cattle (n = 8,510 in 308 pastures) across the globe, and grazing and resting red and roe deer (n = 2,974 at 241 localities), align their body axes in roughly a north–south direction. Direct observations of roe deer revealed that animals orient their heads northward when grazing or resting. Amazingly, this ubiquitous phenomenon does not seem to have been noticed by herdsmen, ranchers, or hunters.

If you discover anything interesting, feel free to write about it here as "practice" for your position papers.

Posted by Jeff Ward at 2:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I was looking at the Longman's Writers Companion textbook (note that pages 1-44 are also assigned for next Monday) and noticed a web site listed about "Reading your textbooks effectively and efficiently." It's not bad at all. There are several word documents you can download that may help you get past some of the common myths about reading.

Poking around on the Dartmouth site, I also noticed a video that contains most of the same information as the handouts, so if you don't want more reading about reading, there's an alternative.

This general advice is a good start, but it won't necessarily be enough to really master an extremely difficult text like Let Us Now Praise Famous Men. It will, however, help you master textbooks (like the Writer's Companion) really quickly.

Posted by Jeff Ward at 7:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)