Public Opinions

In an article posted on The York Time’s website, Michael Pollan writes a letter to our future president. He begins by pointing out that one of the main issues the upcoming president will be dealing with is one that all the candidates seldom mention in their campaign: food. After an in depth discussion of the problem, Pollan provides the three step solution. While I agree with the overall premise of his solution, some specific aspects seem overly dramatic and somewhat unfeasible.

For the last few decades, Americans have had the luxury of extremely inexpensive and profuse food sources. Government policies have supported the mass production of commodity crops, such as corn, soybeans, wheat, and rice, and these crops are the basis of the vast majority of our daily foods. However, According to Pollan, this “era of cheap and abundant food� is about to come to an end.

Pollan also discusses the importance of restructuring the entire food system in order to deal with other important issues, such as the health care crisis, our dependency upon fossil fuels, and the environment (specifically climate change). According to Pollan, the matter in which we presently “grow, process, and eat food in America� is at the heart of such problems.

Our current food system accounts for about 19% of fossil fuel usage. Aside from vehicles, this is more than any other division in the economy. The farm machinery and processing techniques contribute to much of this fossil fuel usage. Furthermore, most fertilizers come from natural gas and most pesticides are derived from petroleum. The usage of such mass amounts of fossil fuels leads to major greenhouse gas emissions, and these emissions are the primary cause of global warming. As Pollan puts it, “When we eat from the industrial-food system, we are eating oil and spewing greenhouse gases.�

The cost of health care is also out of control. Pollan attributes this crisis to many preventable diseases that are associated with a poor diet. With high production and low costs being the number one priority, the quality of food has seen a drastic decrease. This factor, paired with the immense abundance of food, has led to an obesity epidemic in America. Some of America’s top killers, such as heart disease and stroke, are closely linked to cases of obesity.

A “simple solution� to the problem is not foreseeable. Merely increasing agricultural production will not work because the process is so dependent upon a cheap energy source, which we no longer have. In response to the food crisis, Pollan proposed three methods towards a solution. His goals are somewhat “lofty,� but if they were achieved, I believe the state of our country would be much better off.

His first goal is “resolarizing the American farm.� Pollan sees a major problem with monocultures (growing a single crop over a large area of space) corn and soy. Instead, Pollan wants to promote the diversity of crops in a practice known as polyculture. In his letter, Pollan cites many successful forms of polycultures that basically require soil, water, and sunlight. I, too, feel that polycultures have many benefits. Polycultures include tactics such as crop rotation, intercropping, and companion cropping (1). These tactics make the crops much more sustainable against diseases than monocultures, which results in using less pesticides and fertilizers. One study conducted in China involved planting a variety of species of rice in the same field. They saw an 89% increase in yield, and this was chiefly due to a 94% decrease in diseases (1). Pollan pictures a cycle in which “sunlight nourishes the grasses and grains, the plants nourish the animals, the animals then nourish the soil, which in turn nourishes the next season’s grasses and grains.� He feels that all of this can be done without the assistance of fossil fuels.

His next proposition involves “reregionalizing the food system.� America has seen a major increase in demand for local and regional food (such as Farmer’s Markets). Pollan states that we must construct an infrastructure for a regional food economy in order to decentralize it. Localizing food production will allow for fresher and less processed food, which makes if more nutritious. He also proposes several steps that the government should take to further encourage the already occurring local-food movement. I felt some of these were overly drastic, such as banning the use of food stamps on foods considered “junk foods,� but many of the ideas seems promising. Pollan proposed giving grants to towns that provide year-round farmers’ markets. He also proposed lowering the food-safety restrictions placed on small-scale producers, since any problems with local food are not disastrous and can be easily traced. I too feel that locally grown food is much more nutritious. My Grandfather grew up on a family farm and ate the food that came directly from it, and he is currently 92 years old. Furthermore, his older sister is also still alive and healthy.

Pollan’s last goal involves “rebuilding America’s food culture.� Pollan believes we need to do more than merely make healthful and “more sustainable� food available because we cannot guarantee that people will actually eat this food. He proposes using “edible education,� comparable to physical education, to guide today’s children on the importance of eating right. While I agree with this idea, Pollan also argues for planting gardens in all elementary level school, building more proficient kitchens, and having highly trained cafeteria workers. I feel that some of these seem a little “over the top� and unfeasible for lower-income schools. He also feels that the surgeon general should warn the public about the dangers of obesity just as avidly as the dangers of smoking. Furthermore, he feels every food label should specify the calories of fossil fuels that went in to the product’s making. Most importantly, Pollan urges the future president to set an example himself in the White house.

While his solution is thorough, I was left wondering about the advantages and disadvantages of genetically modified crops. Genetically modified crops are plants that have had their DNA changed through combining genes from different organisms (recombinant DNA technology) (2). Scientists can locate genes of importance then transfer favorable characteristics into different organisms. Some of these favorable characteristics may be resistance to an insect, the ability to survive in a harsher climate, or desirable nutrients (3). Some anticipated projects are banana that produce human vaccines to Hepatitis B, rice with increased vitamins and iron, and fruit and nut trees that can produce yields years earlier (4). If Pollan wants to localize the food industry, wouldn’t technology that would allow for plants to live in climates they normally wouldn’t be beneficial? And if he wants to have healthier food, wouldn’t food genetically modified to increase nutrients be advantageous? Could GM crops be otherwise incorporated into his plan? These are all possibilities that merit further discussion.

Pollan is correct in saying that a food crisis is about to occur. Furthermore, he provides ample evidence to link the food problem to other seemingly more important current issues in the US. The solution he discussed would yield positive results, but attaining such an entirely new and complex solution could be difficult. Regardless, as the article stated, “Food is about to demand attention.�

Sources:
1. “Polycultures.� Wikipedia.
2. “Genetically Modified Food.� Wikipedia.
3. “Genetically Modified Foods and Organisms.� Genomics.
4. “Genetically Modified Food – Pros and Cons.� Genetics and Health.

Posted by harpe174 at 9:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Society has deemed certain vocabulary words inappropriate, due to the way they have evolved over the years. As a student in today’s society, I come in contact, and regularly use some of these words. The question arises; are these words really bad, or have they just been deemed bad in the past? The answer lies deep within each person’s values, beliefs, and morals. Everyone will have the opportunity to speak how they want, and face the positive and negative repercussions that come along with the way they speak.

Early Europeans used words such as bitch, fuck, and shit as appropriate and scientific words. The earliest known meaning of the word fuck is to have sexual intercourse. The word fuck has changed but little. Reason for the word becoming derogatory in our everyday life, is due to humans themselves. Sex is not an irregular subject; in fact, it is a subject that should be thoroughly discussed in every household to prevent teen pregnancy and sexual transmitted diseases. The word bitch is defined as a female dog, and until later years was not deemed vulgar. Fecal matter defines the word shit. All of these words can be substituted with other words of less profanity. Origins of most words deemed bad, have a specific scientific meaning, which is not vulgar. Although this is true, in society these words are only specific to their meanings part of the time.

The real meanings of a large portion of vulgar words are never meant in their original state. Living in the resident halls gives me a broad array of vulgar words each day. Phrases like “Oh, Shit,� and “You’re a bitch,� can hardly be translated into sentences that make any sense. This common talk that we hear everyday in our homes and social life is hardly of any sense at all. Furthermore, the tendency of these words has come to be more of a way to expression, rather than a way of sophisticated talking. I find myself at times saying words like these in expression. These words have become ways of expression because they have formed to be “bad� words. Therefore, when something bad happens, the last resort is to shout out a bad phrase.

Leaders in today’s society need to have their values and beliefs congruent with their actions. Arguments may be made that it is okay to swear in the presence of your peers and friends, but not okay to swear in church, or in front of your family. I do live my life like this. When I feel it is okay to use vulgar words I will. I will use these words to fit in and to express myself. In reality, I should never use these words if I want to be true to myself. One of my core values is integrity. In other words, I want to do what I say I’ll do. It is unlikely for me to tell my boss that “I have to shit.� Furthermore, I want my actions to be followed by someone else. If I want to make a difference in this world, it is my opportunity to do what I do best, and lead by example.

A few California boys made up a word, zango! Now zango has not been deemed bad by society at all. Zango is not in the dictionary, as many other made up words are not. Elephant, talk, do, lead, cracker, substitute, open, anal, and fake, are all words. These are all words with different meanings. Although we know the meanings of these words, it is at our discretion to decide if these words are acceptable or not. Using these words in our everyday vocabulary is our choice. I choose to use the word the California boys made up. Zango means to celebrate others. Zango is a word that I will always keep with me; a word I will pass on to my children, grandchildren, church congregations, and peers.

Life is full of choices. I love the word zango, but not so much fuck. I will choose to live my life with what I hope others will use someday also. The question is not whether we believe these words are good or bad, but how we will portray the meaning of the words to society. Every word has value, but the value is dependant upon what the reader makes it. By living our lives in congruence between our actions and our values, we will change the world, one step at a time.

Posted by mulhe020 at 4:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

First of all I thought I should mention that I found the video of George Carlin was quite amusing. Why is it that some words are so powerful and at the same time so wrong to say? When you look at words like the F word and then a word like “frick,� which is a popular substitute and really the only difference is a couple letters in the spelling. Like it says in the article by Steven Pinker “People believe, contrary to logic, that certain words can corrupt the moral order—that piss and Shit! and fucking are dangerous in a way that pee and Shoot! and freakin’ are not.� This is just the way our culture is.

First of all I thought I should mention that I found the video of George Carlin was quite amusing. Why is it that some words are so powerful and at the same time so wrong to say? When you look at words like the F word and then a word like “frick,� which is a popular substitute and really the only difference is a couple letters in the spelling. Like it says in the article by Steven Pinker “People believe, contrary to logic, that certain words can corrupt the moral order—that piss and Shit! and fucking are dangerous in a way that pee and Shoot! and freakin’ are not.� This is just the way our culture is. If you think about these words (swear words or inappropriate words) that are not acceptable, they all mean the same thing as other words, but for some reason certain words are dirty and bad. One example is piss and pee, they mean the same thing, one is dirtier and more dangerous in a way. I don’t feel it’s necessary to name off all swear words and what the mean because everyone else can figure it out and knows what I’m saying, plus it’s quite inappropriate. When you’re raised, or most children that is, if you swear and your mother hears it you get in trouble, at least that’s how it was for me. The older you get the more appropriate it is to swear. There are certain places where swearing is forbidden like church, but if you’re having a drink in a bar not one person would care if you threw a swear word out there. Along with that there are people you don’t want to swear in front of. I swear all the time, but never in church, not in front of my grandparents, little kids, boss’s and so on. When I’m just with my friends those naughty words get tossed around like they are perfectly normal. It’s not against the law to swear or anything, which shows even more so that our society and culture have shaped the affect certain words can have on us. If you look at alcohol, you cannot legally drink until you are 21, if you break the law and get caught there is a consequence you have to face. The law deals with alcohol because it can be very dangerous. If swearing and saying dirty words were dangerous to us then wouldn’t there be some law to help protect us. That’s exactly it, swearing isn’t dangerous they are just words…also that thing about free speech.

People choose to see words as bad or they are taught to see them as bad, but its not like it influences people to break the law. If swearing did influence people to break the law, like stated before, there would probably be laws about swearing to help protect us. If we just made up new words that were meant to be offensive they wouldn’t be offensive because our society wouldn’t see them as bad, they wouldn’t have been taught throughout their life that the new made up word is bad. What it comes down to is that for generations and generations its been taught that certain words are inappropriate and bad to say. That’s how we have shaped our society to believe, two words can have the same meaning, just different spellings and one can be totally inappropriate while the other can be just fine. And its because the way our society feels about those naughty words that the FCC has banned certain words from being said on TV.

I read a different article about swearing and it said that swearing “fulfills an emotional need to communicate how we feel, and to affect other people,� and if swearing were appropriate and everyone said those dirty words normally all the time, they would lose their emphasis and ability to show emotion. When I’m angry I will probably yell out the F word, people will then get the picture that I’m upset. If I’m upset at someone specifically I might say F-you or call him or her an A-hole, then they know I don’t like them at that moment. Those words add that emphasis to my emotion. Also that article talked about how shoot, shucks, gee, and jeepers were all at one point in history words that you weren’t supposed to say. That shows how our society has adjusted because all those words are now fine to say. So does that mean that one day fuck, shit, bitch, and ass will be appropriate? Probably not anytime soon if at all, but crazier things have happened and you never know.

Sources
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/23/sunday/main1826883_page2.shtml

Posted by crowe079 at 7:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

People look at swearing different. For the most part it depends on religion, how you were raised, and if you heard the words at home or at school. It does not bug me to hear the occasional swear word. Although if someone is over doing the swearing by saying fuck or shit after every word for in every sentence; then it gets to me and I usually just tell them to knock it off. Censorship on TV and the radio is important for little kids. When I grow up and have kids I do not want my kids to be watching Barney and he is swearing. Then kids would think it is what they should do.
On the flip side I think it is ok to have the occasional curse in shows that adults watch such as soap operas and the general TV shows that adults watch. These days there are many shows that swear nonstop or refer to sex all the time. I do not think that this will corrupt our society. Teenagers are the ones that watch most of these shows and by this time they are already cursing and talking referring to sexual things. Just because someone watches Family Guy or South Park it doesn’t mean that they are going to walk around talking exactly like they do on the show or doing the stuff they do, because they know that they are cartoons and that you cannot do what they do. For instance you can’t kill your friend Kenny everyday and he reappears the next day.
To this day censoring the airways is a topic of discussion. Television companies are finding ways around the bans so they can use foul language. After companies started finding ways around the ban people started to complain to the FCC and TV companies. Once this started happening the manufacturers of TV’s put the smart chip in the TV so the parents can decide what TV rating can be shown on their TV for example TV14 or PG. This is how I feel the censoring should be done. Some shows and movies just are not the same without the cursing, like in The Ringer, the punch line of when the guy says, “When the fuck did we get ice cream?� would just not be the same without the work fuck. They didn’t mean it sexually so that’s why they could use it.
Another thing that I feel is happening to the U.S. is that our rights are being taken away slowly. I feel the freedom of speech is being limited by this banning and censoring the language. In the past people could speak their mind and not get in trouble. Now days if you speak your mind you can get a fine. On the show Mind of Mencia he had a segment on the freedom of speech and how it has changed throughout the history of the U.S. He talked to people of all different races asking why they can’t say certain things and helps explain to them that words have no power unless you give them power. At the end of the clip he ends it be saying, Thousands of troops have died and are still dying to this day so we can keep our rights and keep our country the way it is. To watch the clip go to http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=85997&title=freedom-of-speech.
If the world just can out and made a law against swearing the entertainment world would be hurting. Comedians use curse words all of the time to get the point across or to help aid the punch line. Also some comedians are just for adults, talking about sex and other topics that are inappropriate for children. It would be hard for them to take about those topics if they could not use words like fuck to help describe what they are talking about. Also the music industry would take a huge hit, mostly in the rap and hip hop area. Since their songs are mostly about sex, crime, and other obscene things. This industry would lose thousands of dollars if not millions of dollars if this happened.
Getting to the youtube.com video the seven words not allowed on TV is so true. Those words cannot be said because they can have sexual meaning or they are demoralizing. For example you can’t say tit but you can say boob when they mean the same thing. Also you can’t say fuck but you can refer to fucking as he stated. In this video he brings up many topics that are true and I feel they should be addressed. One that should be changed is fart. Everyone has heard fart and has been using that word since they were five. All in all I think that censoring is good and bad. There should be censoring but it should towards using words to be racist on TV not just every time someone says a bad word.

Posted by davi1518 at 5:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I fully acknowledge that we censor words for a reason- I used to cringe when hearing a person who normally didn't swear say one of those words you can't say on TV (with the exception of fart, which is used by people of all ages). And it just feels strange, if not wrong, to hear a younger child swear. Most people don't want to see kids emulating what they see on South Park to say the least, but all this still isn't a logical argument for censorship. The problem as I see it is that the reason for censorship that I mentioned earlier isn't a logical one. It's just a gut-level reaction based on the culture we ourselves created. A full day's lineup of the Disney Channel could be dubbed over with a 24-hour string of swears, and nothing really substantial would result of it. Parents would definitely be mad, but only because they choose to see those words as bad. It wouldn't influence kids to steal or fight, society wouldn't collapse, and the Antichrist wouldn't rise to conquer the earth. Words just don't have the kind of affect on society that most people seem to think they do.

When you step back and look at what swearing really is and what it does to society, you see that censorship of words is a more useless endeavor than the War on Drugs. Granted, it has been a fairly successful campaign. After all, we almost never hear taboo words on TV, and likewise very few young children swear either. But we're not getting anything substantial out of that campaign against profanity. Those words are only bad because we, as members of our own culture and speakers of our own language, say that they are. As the author pointed out, words lose their shock value over time. If the FCC immediately revoked their codes of linguistic censorship, those words would eventually not be offensive anymore. Maybe they would be replaced by new words, or maybe America would lose the idea of swearing altogether. But either way, would it be that bad? I don't think anything truly negative would come from halting all linguistic censorship. Sure, there would be a period where you'd hear people throwing f-bombs around like water, and it would be uncomfortable for most of us. But that would soon pass and we'd emerge with newly liberated FCC funds, one less thing for parents to worry about, and we'd be one step closer to a truly free press.

As Pinker states, the taboo of swearing is just part of our psychology and out culture. But I'd say it doesn't have to be. There's just no legitimate reason why certain words should be considered "bad". Even if we just make up 7 more words to offend people with, they still won't do any true harm to society. And if swearing doesn't really affect the citizenry, then what gives the FCC the right to tell us what we can't hear on TV? And why is our government spending time and money regulating it? Maybe the FCC's anti-profanity funding can go towards the deficit, public education, or the recession- those things are probably important too.

EDIT: Replaced Byer's name with Pinker, the author of the article. Thanks to Reid Olson for pointing out the error.

Posted by fergu229 at 8:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

        Recently with much controversy over the presidential candidates’ planned economic policies, the agricultural side seems to be ignored. In an attempt to shed light upon this topic, Michael Pollan in his article “Farmer in Chiefâ€?, writes about the changes needed to be made by the president in order to create sustainable agriculture.

        With fossil fuel prices on the rise and supply decreasing, the era of cheap and abundant food is coming to an end. Historically, farmers relied on crop diversity and natural growth operations such as photosynthesis to maintain plant health as well as replenish their soil and combat pests. Cheap energy in the form of fossil fuels enabled farmers to create monocultures of grain which vastly increased the productivity and yield of the farm land.

       The introduction of fossil fuels began after World War II when the government encouraged the conversion of remaining munitions into fertilizer. Nitrogen based chemicals found in bombs were used as fertilizer. Nerve gas research was converted for use in developing pesticides. The government began subsidizing commodity crops by the bushel. Secretaries of agriculture encouraged farmers to “get big or get outâ€? resulting in grain that was sold for substantially less then it cost to grow.

       Just as monocultures of grain arose, so did monocultures of animals. Factories bought grain cheaper than the cost farms took to grow it. The cheap supply of food resulted in meat and dairy animals moving from farms to feedlots thus driving down the costs of animal protein. The decreases in prices came at a cost to the environment. Instead of being used as fertilizer, the waste from factory farm animals became a pollutant due to the antibiotics fed to the animals.

       I agree with Pollan’s primary suggestion for the administration’s food policy. He states that food systems need to be redesigned to rely on energy from the sun as opposed to stimulated growth from fossil fuels. Animals need to be moved off the feedlots and back onto farms. Although this will raise the cost of meat, it’s something that needs to be done. It would result in paying the real price of the meat and the real cost of its effect on the environment.

       In order to make this change in energy usage, the government must change its goals and methods of distributing subsidies. Currently it discourages the farmers it subsidizes from growing healthy fresh food. Farmers receiving subsidies are prohibited from growing “specialty cropsâ€? consisting of fruits and vegetables. Commodity farmers should be encouraged to grow as many different crops and animals as possible. In a research project by Randal Anderson, studies show that “corn yielded the highest following pea, even when compared with soybean as a preceding crop.â€? In contrast, “corn following corn yielded much less.â€?(5) A greater diversity of crops and animals on the farm would lead to less dependence on fertilizers and pesticides while still producing high yields.

       Poland’s second major point deals with the total yield of solar based crops. The argument often brought up against natural agriculture is that the sun-food agriculture will generally yield less food than fossil-fuel agriculture. A study conducted by Christos Vasilikiotis, Ph.D., U.C. Berkeley, on organic farming concluded “From an increasing body of case studies, it is becoming evident that organic farming does not result in neither catastrophic crop losses due to pests nor in dramatically reduced yieldsâ€?(1) In addition to this, the publication of Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems by Perfecto et al found that “Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food on individual farms in developing countries, as [conventional] methods on the same landâ€?(2) This defeats the arguments that fossil fuel based chemicals are required for high yields.

       Pollan illustrates that yield isn’t everything and that “growing high-yield commodities is not quite the same thing as growing food.â€? A food system that produces less food of higher quality will produce healthier populations, something needed in the present times of record high obesity and diet related chronic disease. In 2003, a report by Dr Richard H. Carmona, Surgeon General of the United States, stated “Nearly two out of every three Americans are overweight or obese.â€?(4). With the health of the American population in such a dismal state, focus should be placed upon growing a variety of healthy foods as opposed to specialized corn used for fattening sweeteners such as high-fructose corn syrup.

       The third major point Pollan brings up deals with the usage of the world’s grain output. He states that “40 percent of the world’s grain output is fed to animals;11 percent of the world’s corn and soybean crop is fed to cars and trucks, in the form of biofuel.â€? A recent article by Eric Reguly analyzes the effect of biofuel production on inflating food prices. He states “Various estimates have blamed biofuels for pushing up food prices from 30 percent to 60 percentâ€? (3) “In the first three months of this year alone, the FAO food-price index rose 53 percent“ (3) By switching over to natural solar based farming, cutting back on grain based animal protein, and ending subsidies for corn based ethanol, the effect that biofuel has on food prices will decrease due to a sufficient supply of usable grain.

       In order to make the switch over to solar farming, many new farmers will be needed. Pollan states “Performing complex rotations of plants and animals and managing pests without petro chemicals is labor intensiveâ€?. I agree with Pollan’s statement that we need to begin thinking of skilled solar farming as a vital sector of the post-fossil-fuel economy. We need to “stop flattering nutritionally worthless food like substances by calling them junkfoodâ€?. There needs to be established a definition of food based on a “minimum ratio of micronutrients per calorie of energyâ€?. Incentives should be provided to encourage to consumption of healthy food. Providing such incentives would help solve the problems America faces in dealing with obesity.

       Although it’s a good start, some of the points made by Pollan were rather unreasonable in the short term. He states that we should start from scratch, grow, cook, and eat from “plant gardens in every primary schoolâ€? and train lunchroom staff to both cook and teach cooking to children. Although it’s a healthier option, for schools already on a shoe string budget, it’s a difficult proposition due to money and time constraints.

       Pollan also talks about the implementation of technology to show where food is coming from for each particular item. He states ideas such as “The F.D.A. should require that every packaged-food product include a second calorie countâ€? and a second bar code which when scanned either in the store or at home (or with a cellphone), brings up on a screen the whole story and pictures of how that product was produced. The money and resources required to establish such technologies would be very costly. While in the long run this seems plausible and potentially useful, in the short run, it seems excessive and a waste of money.

       The current state of the American farming system is unsustainable. In order to deal with problems such as climate change and the energy crisis, the methods of farming must be changed. Reliance on cheap energy such as fossil fuels to fertilize the ground and to use as pesticides must be stopped. The focus should be on utilizing solar based energy with the graduate removal of monoculture based subsidies. Such changes will result in equally high yields of grain, fruits, and vegetables as well as healthier diets among farm animals and Americans. Such change is necessary for a sustainable future.

Works Cited:
1. Christos Vasilikiotis, Can Organic Farming Feed the World? http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~christos/articles/cv_organic_farming.html

2.Richard Heinberg, What Will We Eat as the Oil Runs Out?, http://globalpublicmedia.com/richard_heinbergs_museletter_what_will_we_eat_as_the_oil_runs_out

3. Reguly, Eric. "Biofuels Come Under Fire at UN Food Summit; Growing Movement Threatens to Fracture Food Agencies as World Leaders Blame Biofuel Production for Inflating Food Prices." The Globe and Mail (Canada) June 4 2008, sec. INTERNATIONAL NEWS; AGRICULTURE : EGYPTIAN PRESIDENT CALLS FOR GLOBAL 'CODE OF CONDUCT': A13.

4. Richard H. Carmona, http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/news/testimony/obesity07162003.htm

5. Anderson, Randal http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=211651

Posted by dsaxx005 at 5:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Unlike other responses I have seen thus far, I found some merit to Marty Nemko’s opinion post “America’s Most Overrated Product: the Bachelor’s Degree� though I still have some serious reservations about his ultimate conclusion. The first point I noticed was that he chose his words very carefully: “Among high-school students…whose first institutions were four-year colleges…� and “Yet four-year colleges admit and take money from hundreds of thousands of such students each year!� In both situations he is very careful to explicitly state that the statistic is only for four-year colleges and universities; do his statistics remain the same if we consider students who chose to begin their college careers at local two-year community colleges and then transfer to a four-year institution to complete their degrees? He does, near the end of the article, mention that community colleges, apprenticeships, and military service may be a better option for some students, but I don’t think he discussed the advantages of a community college enough. He is only advocating community colleges as a resource for attaining an associate’s degree, but the ability to complete liberal education requirements at a community college and finish the technical courses of a major at a four-year school are not mentioned at all.

Second, I would argue that employers are dealing with more students who are unprepared for the modern workplace because the workplace is changing at a pace faster than schools can keep up with. Professor Marshak during one of the first days of class explained to us the challenge of developing a curriculum which would meet the needs of the job market we will be entering in four years when some of the jobs and skills we need to be prepared for haven’t been invented yet. The task is made even harder by the fact that the rate at which technology is changing is increasing. Nemko’s assertion that colleges need to better prepare graduating students for their jobs may be true, but by glossing over this caveat does not help remedy the situation.

Next, I want to question his argument that most students are bored during class; my counter-question is what percentage of students feel frequently bored in high school? From personal experience, I think most college students would agree that high school was more boring than college. The “boringness� of college classes comes from the same place as it does in high school: fulfilling class requirements. It’s good to become a well-rounded student with the knowledge gained from a liberal education core, but it doesn’t mean a student is not going to end up feeling bored frequently in class. On this basis, I would consider Nemko’s argument using “boringness� as a pretty weak one.

Nemko does raise two interesting points. The first is that the “collegebound [would] still go on to earn more than the pool of non-collegebound� (Nemko) even if they were denied a traditional college education. Many famous and successful people have had little formal education: Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Edison, Walt Disney, Samuel Clemens, Frederick Douglas, and the list continues (Zundel). Personal experience also leads me to believe that the stereotypically college-bound student (motivated, active, and academically strong) is more likely to be successful no matter what the situation. I have friends with a wide variety of interests, and all of them have learned to excel on their own without formal instruction. I have personally taught myself a great deal about computers just because I wanted to: I’ve never taken a class on computer programming or web design, but I currently operate three website and I can write computer programs in several programming languages. Comparatively, you can also find students in every class you take who may do well in material taught in class, but when asked to complete a task using knowledge which has not been covered in class (but is still very similar so the concepts shouldn’t be too hard to master), they cannot. Being able to teach one’s self is a significant indicator of success, and I agree with Nemko that individually motivated college-bound students could succeed even without college educations.

Finally, Nemko’s cynical point of view raises an interesting question of ethics. Taking his arguments a bit selfishly, if we were to discourage more students from attempting an expensive four-year college experience, we would have more money to help students who will actually succeed in college. Denying a person an education because they are not expected to do well in college is undeniably wrong; they may prove that they can overcome the hurdles placed in their way, but from a financial view point, providing aid for students for one, two, or three years just to have them drop out is not a very efficient use of student aid. Lowering the number of students who receive student aid could help reduce the cost of attendance for schools too; if institutions are less of their budget as student aid, more money will remain for other expenses, and consequently, they could charge incoming students less.

The lesson to take from this is that graduating seniors need to be given realistic advice by their counselors, parents, and college admissions representatives. More emphasis should be placed on the value of community colleges as both an excellent career preparation resources and as a stepping stone to four-year institutions. Doing so would lead to better results for everyone: less wasted money and time for some and smaller class sizes and lower cost of attendance for four-year college students.

References

Zundel, I. (2002) “Make Your Kid A Genius!� Retrieved October 26, 2008 from http://www.irenehelenzundel.com/newsletter11.htm

Nemko, M. (2008) “America’s Most Overrated Product: the Bachelor’s Degree� The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved October 26, 2008 from http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i34/34b01701.htm

Posted by will2560 at 2:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I was somewhat startled by the Nemko's statistics, and it did make me start thinking about our society's view of the college degree. However, it was quickly apparent that these statistics simply don't apply to me or most people at the University of Minnesota. Due to the admission standards at this and many other Universities, people in the bottom 40% of their class simply won't be admitted unless they show truly exemplary ability in other important areas. Either way, most students accepted to the U of M have already formed habits of achievement to the point that they will likely graduate in 4-6 years. Personally, I went to a public high school strongly focused on College prep, and my grades here directly reflect the amount of effort I put in. And since I was admitted to CFANS but denied admittance to IT, I know that UMN is not relaxing its standards to squeeze money out of the bottom 40% of students....

However, these statistics do still apply to other schools. This is an issue, and it seems that some colleges are admitting students who are not prepared. Still, the statistic, "Only 23 percent of the 1.3 million high-school graduates of 2007 who took the ACT examination were ready for college-level work" is just not proof that colleges are admitting unprepared students as the author claims. The minority of students attend college, so the fact that the minority of students are prepared for college isn't surprising or indicative of a problem. Furthermore, the statistic about large classes and professors who aren't good at teaching is far from universal. My smallest class is taught by an Associate Professor with a doctorate from Harvard, not a low-wage graduate student. And my largest class is taught by a helpful and capable Chemistry professor- not someone who seems overly focused on research. Granted, these statistics still apply to other schools, likely the ones that admit students in the lower 40%. This could definitely be seen as a problem, but it's so heavily rooted in the fact that lower-achieving students typically don't put in the same effort as more accomplished ones that it's hard to blame colleges for students not graduating in four years. So, overall, I just don't think that this article adequately shows that colleges are to blame for these problems- it's mostly dependent on the student's effort and choice to attend a 4-year college rather than an alternative place of education (as the author later concedes).

Finally, to comment on the author's suggestions for how to improve the situation- I agree with some of them, but this is also where the Nemko seems to be a very distant observer who doesn't remember much about his own college application process. The more statistics colleges publish, the better- more information for applicants can only help their decisions. The Value Added Test, however, I'm skeptical about. Adding another test to the lineup of ACT, SAT, and applications themselves is not something any senior would look forward to. If it was only used for statistics/applicant information and didn't affect college acceptance or hiring, I'd support it. However, distributing it to employers would not only not indicate much about the student himself (more the institution than the student) but would also be an unnecessary barrier to outgoing graduates looking for a job. Employers have enough info and students take enough tests- keep it simple. What made me feel most distant from Nemko, though, was his suggestion that (in addiction to taking his Value Added Test) students should apply to a dozen schools. Very few students have the time to fill out a dozen applications and write the 4-12 essays likely necessary (depending on how much each application varied as far as essay questions). They could certainly do it, but the quality of applications and writing would dwindle as they wrote more and more, and time is precious when you're finishing up your High School education. I took 2 standardized tests and applied to 4 universities, and that was enough for me. Before legislating for American students, Nemko should take a close look at the costs of additional regulation for students.

Posted by fergu229 at 4:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

After reading “America’s Most Overrated Product: the Bachelor’s Degree,� by Marty Nemko, I started to think to myself, “why am I here, why did I choose to go to college.� The first reason that came to my mind was, well, everyone in my family had gone, I thought it was expected of me. However then I realized the true reason I am here.

When I grow up, I want to be an architect. It would be impossible for me to be an architect if I do not go to college, and even graduate school. Therefore, even though the facts presented by Nemko are startling, I began to think whether the facts were there to scare me. Because, most of the time it is the counselor who is the driving force in helping you get into college and help you get prepared for which colleges you will do well in. In addition, when Nemko blames the colleges for the poor graduating numbers, the high number of dropouts, and the cost burden placed on the student, was he right about blaming the colleges.
I think not, I feel the only people you can truly blame for not graduating are the students themselves. When one enters college they are eighteen years old, they are legally adults, and are now responsible for their own actions. So if a student is struggling in class, is it not their obligation if they wish to succeed to go to office hours, or to find help somewhere. When one is attending a university, the only thing that person is really supposed to be focusing on his/her schoolwork. At the University of Minnesota, one is considered at full-time student if he/she is taking thirteen or more credits in one semester, and the definition of a full-time student is self-explanatory; it is someone who is using their time to learn.
If that student wishes to spend their weekends getting smashed and hanging with their friends instead of writing that final paper, and studying for the midterm they have next week, that is their decision. However, one cannot blame a college for an adult’s poor judgment, and the student should be expected to know what their role is at the college. It is just like a job, when one is working, they are not supposed to take breaks to hang with their friends, and spend their weekends partying out of control, and rushing to finish all of their work on Sunday before the beginning of the next week.
To often do I hear the stories of a family friend who dropped out of college or got kicked out and had to enter a less prestigious college simply because they partied too much. It seems that during the school year nothing is the students fault, however, once it is over, and they failed more classes they pass, then, one will find out if the student was truly ready for college. They are truly ready, and fully matured if they make suggestions such as they could have gotten more help, or they could have partied less, otherwise if they claim that grading was too harsh, and the professors did not like them, one can say they were not ready.
I find that possible solutions for this problem are to toughen up high schools. Preparation for college starts in high school, and that is where the solution needs to start. Grading and expectations need to be similar to college, so the jump from high school is more like a step. Since college is almost a requirement to get any sort of respectable job now in days, it is not okay to allow students to be failing out for poor judgment. High school is a walk in the park compared to college, and I feel that somehow we need to make sure the maturity level required to succeed in college is reached in high school. This should be as important as making sure the student is ready for the rigorous classes and the intelligence they need.
I feel that this article is falsely blaming colleges for dropouts and the debt they place on students. Colleges are in no way overrated, and are essential to live a life that one wishes to live. Never does one hear that a kid wants to grow up and be a bartender, and yet somehow it is a colleges fault for some students dropping out and being left with immense debt that they cannot pay. A person goes to college, because they are hoping to achieve a higher level of education, and get a degree for a better job. In the original article, Nemko states that colleges should be held to rules and regulations just like Firestone Tires. However, I present the fact that when someone gets into a car crash because they were drunk driving, do we blame the car manufacturer, or the tires, no rather we blame the driver for poor judgment. Same with universities, when someone drops out, we should blame the class sizes are too large because one on one lesson and help are readily available, but the student needs to seek it out, they cannot expect the problem to fix itself. Blaming the college is simply the same thing an immature, unprepared teenager would do, the only answer is to make sure our youth is mature enough to understand why they are in college, and what is expected of them while they are there.

Posted by koski120 at 2:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Over the past few decades the common swear words have changed drastically. As their use increases the shock value they retain lessens and we move on to new words to get the shock factor. Mike Byres points out that many people think of swear words as magic words that can corrupt our society. When swearing reaches the media the question of whether or not we should censor it on public broadcasts will become one of the major topics of discussion.

After the airways started to be regulated in 1978 swear words were censored based on their context not the words themselves. This I think is the right thing to do since a swear words are not always meant to be a negative comment. In many scenarios a person can use it to say something is good, such as fucking awesome. Though many critics didn't agree with this view and simply wanted to take the words out altogether. After a few years the critics accomplished this by making the words themselves censored, during times when children were believed to be watching or listening to public broadcasts. This censoring was meant to protect children from swear words that could influence their thoughts and behavior in a negative way. Most of the negative influence comes from how we use the word and not the actual definition. Words like fuck for example, now are usually used to signify that you hate something, although we have molded it into many places where it is not grammatically correct. These different meanings and ways of using the words can make it difficult to identify the connotation of the word which has lead to the number of words being censored to increase.

Another one of the major questions is what exactly we are censoring in the media. The youtube.com video also pointed out that the word fart is censored on television. One instance of the word fart being censored on television was on the show Mythbusters where they were testing flatus myths and they couldn't use the word fart. I found that I didn’t know why the word was censored since many of us heard the word when we were still in kindergarten. I have come to find out it is censored for the reason that it can be used as an insult for an old person and also it is not acceptable in proper modern day society. I think this brings up the point that we may be censoring too much and we may need to rethink our censor choices, and also that we should censor through context and not the words themselves.

This constriction of the media I think hurts as almost as much as it helps. The reasoning for this is that the taboo words become more of a focus for children. When we identify the words that we label as bad it shows them what not to say which only makes them want to say it more in order to gain attention. Not only that, but the children will most likely hear the words no matter what is done about it since if one child hears a swear word then he will share it with the rest. The cause of children hearing it is one leak in the censor system that cannot be fixed, the home life. No matter how influential school and media censoring is, if the parents of the children don't take responsibility to help protect their children from swear word influence then it's all for nothing. The video on youtube.com brings up another good point hat with the media today it is far easier to encounter swear words. By simply going on the internet a person can find anything from movies to porn with swearing in almost all of it. The only way to counter this vile web surfing would either to keep them from the internet or try and put blocks on the computer. It would be much better if the parents taught their children why they shouldn't use those words then just pretending that they don't exist as the media tries to do.

Censoring the media is important so that children are not exposed to specific material that may hinder or change their development. However, I think it is important to have a more open perspective on what is censored and not to over exert our power on the media.

Posted by lage0062 at 7:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The article entitled, “America’s Most Overrated Product; The Bachelor’s Degree,� analyzes how students who attend a four-year college are often spending an extreme amount of money, and not receiving a valid education. Nemko, the author, uses his experiences from his past profession, as a counselor, to support his claim. However, he fails to analyze the difference between average income earned between a person who holds a college degree and a person who doesn’t hold a college degree.

Nemko first degrades large universities for being too interested in research and less interested in students. Because of this, Nemko feels as if students do not receive a very good education. He explains that too often students dropout with a load full of debt. In addition to this, he states that even those who manage to graduate don’t end up with professional position as their job.
I would agree with him in aspect that many students graduate and don’t find a professional job to use their degree in. More and more students are graduating with a degree in something that limited jobs exist for. However, if you go into college planning out your future and thinking about finding employment after graduation, it enables a student to select a beneficial path.

Throughout the article, Nemko fails to use statistics about average income that college grad earns over just a high school grad. Here are those facts: Throughout a high school graduate’s lifetime, he or she will accumulate on average about 1.2 million dollars, while a person who has a bachelor’s degree will earn on average 2.1 million dollars. With a college degree on average a difference of .9 million dollars more will be earned (Porter). In order to analyze whether or not a college degree is useless, it’s important to look as these statistics.

I disagree with the statement Nemko makes a little bit before halfway through the article. He explains,

“Even worse, most of those college dropouts leave the campus having learned little of value, and with a mountain of debt and devastated self-esteem from their unsuccessful struggles.�

College dropouts do not necessarily leave a university having gained nothing. There are many instances students simply cannot afford to continue their education. College is expensive, and the cost to attend a four-year institution is rising as well. I disagree with this statement, because students who are paying for their education are more apt to try harder in the classroom. When a student is handing over large sums of his or her hard earned money, they’re more likely to succeed. As I looked around online, many sources agreed that if students pay with their own money, they are likely to try harder.

In addition to this many students who drop out of a large four-year institution may attend a smaller school or a community college that doesn’t cost nearly as much. Even if they were to graduate with an associates degree they would still make about .5 million dollars more than they otherwise would earn (Porter).

Average income analysis is so important to analyze when discussing whether or not a bachelor’s degree is worthwhile. Nemko fails to do this throughout his entire document. Ultimately the reason that students seek a higher education is to make more money in the long run. The only way to accomplish this is to get through a four-year institution.

I would agree that a bachelor’s degree is overrated, in the sense that it’s becoming more and more popular. In years past, fewer students made it through college. As the times have changed, everyone goes to college and most people will graduate with some sort of a degree. In this day, a student may need more education to again set him higher than another person with just a bachelor’s degree.
However, the bachelor’s degree is not useless, because it’s necessary to earn a higher degree. Again the main reasoning behind earning a higher degree is to set us apart to earn more money.

I also disagree with the area of the article where Nemko claims that employers are saying that recent graduates are not prepared to work. Colleges are not changing their instruction patterns, in years past research has been equally important to professors as it is in this day and age.

Poor preparation comes from the changing of the workplace. As newer methods and newer technology is introduced into the workplace, more education is necessary to learn how everything works. The bachelor’s degree is necessary to take that next step into further learning how everything works.

The bachelor degree is not useless based on many reasons. The first major cause is the average income facts. A student who earned a bachelor degree on average will make about a million dollars more throughout his or her lifetime. Also, bachelor degrees are necessary to earn a higher degree (i.e. master’s, Ph.d.). As times change earning these higher degrees will become more popular. Students who drop out because of cost related issues still get valid education for the duration they attended school. It’s based on these reasons that I feel the bachelor’s degree is not useless, but rather very important.

Sources:

http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i34/34b01701.htm

http://www.freemoneyfinance.com/2006/07/should_kids_pay.html

http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-3/value.htm

Posted by muell484 at 3:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Swearing is a big part of some American’s vocabulary and some wonder whether or not it is ok for this trend of swearing to continue for generations to come. One of the biggest instigators of “bad vocabulary� entering the mind of today’s children is television, along with the use of this language by adults. As television has evolved with time, so have the rules and restriction of what can be said while on air and an audience is listening. As I read this article titled “Freedom’s Curse�, which is about swearing on television and radio, and whether it is right to expose young children to it. I start to wonder about how swearing has influenced my live, and the lives of people around me.

This article has made several severe cases of swearing on television apparent and many views and actions have been made about each. For instance, when Bono said in a televised acceptance speech, “This is really, really fucking brilliant,� the federal communications commission, ruled this phrase to be appropriate for television and did not penalize Bono. I believe that the right decision was made here, because just as the article stated, he used the word “fuck� as an adjective and did not use it in an offensive context. When swear words become offensive to some people, this when swearing becomes a problem and can be interpreted incorrectly by a young audience. Some may argue that no matter how the word is used, it is still inappropriate for children and should stay out of television. So really in the case of how words can be said, the argument could go back and forth and one side is always going to have rebuttal.

Many other arguments about whether swearing while publically broadcasting are discussed in this article. The Nicole Richie case for instance really grabbed my attention. This one appealed to me because this show has a rating on it, and whether or not children watch can be up to the parents, and if people do not like to watch television with this language on it, they could get a hint by the rating as well. If parents believe that it is wrong for the children to watch shows like this, they have the option of just explaining to their children that it is not okay to watch shows with this rating or it is also possible block shows of this rating on individual television sets. This case should not raise any argument at all because really the television network has done his part in explain to the public that “inappropriate language� could be said on their show.

If swearing were to be cut out of all music and television, what would happen? Some believe that it would be impossible to market music such as rap because sometime, the person who is interested in it thinks that swearing is big part of the music and it is what draws an attraction to it. I believe that this is true as well, I thought about rap music for moment as well, and started to wonder what it would sound like without swearing. It just would not be the same. Another music industry that could potential suffer is the “heavy metal� or “rock� industry. Swearing is a large part of all three of these three musical styles and I think that swearing adds to the lyrics, and without swearing, I wonder if they would have any lyrics at all.

After analyzing several cases found in “Freedom’s Curse�, as well as other articles I have found about public swearing, my final opinion comes back to the first point I raised about Bono’s on air incident. I think that swearing is completely acceptable as long as it is not used in any offensive contexts. The fact that so much controversy is brought up about these instances, baffles me because no one is forced to listen to such language and no is one is expected to repeat it, if not desired. We all have self control in our own minds and we can make decisions ourselves. Swearing is always going to be there and if you don’t hear it on television or on the radio you are bound to hear it somewhere. As stated as the beginning of this position, swearing is a big part of Americans, life and American’s do have freedom of speech, for someone to tell somebody else that they are not allowed to say certain words goes against that right and will only lead to more problems. So my final position is that swearing is going to be there no matter what, no one is forcing you to listen.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811/swear-words
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/swearingtv

Posted by donne099 at 3:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Steven Pinker’s book called The Blank Slate discusses one of the hottest topics in Psychology which is nature-versus-nurture. For those who do not know exactly what that is, nature-versus-nurture is the argument that human behavior is controlled by either our genes or our environment. Some scientists think that our behaviors are based on either all nature or all nurture. Then there are some scientists who think both come into play, but are not sure on how much of each. When Pinker released his book, he was a little nervous because previous scientists who publish information that does not agree with everyone else are usually exiled, banned, and etc. For example when Galileo Galilei published that the Sun was the center of our universe, not Earth, he was attacked and argued by other scientists. In his book, he uses the idea of nature and nurture to argue the ideas of: the blank slate, the noble savage, and the ghost in the machine. The noble savage is the belief that people are born good and are corrupted by society. The ghost in the machine is that we have a soul that makes choices free from biology. Nature-versus-nurture plays a role in all of these topics and by now people have developed belief perseverance and will not accept new information. They will either accept this book or rebel against it.

I believe instead of nature-versus-nurture that it is nature and nurture. Here is some evidence that backs my position up on nature and nurture. Our biggest behavioral hallmark is our enormous ability to adapt. For example, everyone eats food, but depending on where we live, some of us may like to eat fish eyes and others may like to eat chicken legs. Same thing goes for not wearing shoes, our feet will become very tough and callused but our friend who always wears shoes will be a tenderfoot. These differences of course are environment but also the product of a biological mechanism (103).
Humans are not the only species that is affected by nature and nurture. A rabbit that is grey in the fall will turn white in the winter thanks to a temperature-controlled genetic switch. The genes are not telling it what to do, they are simply saying if you are in this situation you can do this, or if you are in this situation you can do that (103).
Studying fraternal and identical twins has helped many scientists to discover how much of our behavior is affected by nature and how much is affected by nurture. Just as Pinker said, identical twins that were raised apart end up just as similar as identical twins reared together. Many people would think that if they were identical and raised together they would be more similar. That is not the case because our genes predispose our behavior here, not parenting as stated by Pinker.
Natural selection also proves that nature and nurture are working together. An environmental influence will change our genes over time to survive better. For example before sterilizing was ever thought of, hospitals were crawling with bacteria. Once this was discovered, hospitals started to sterilize, but the bacterial evolved and multiplied. Bacteria and every other species out there will evolve to better survive and reproduce (108).
Pinker also talks about language which is extremely controlled by both nature and nurture. The ability to speak is what sets us above all other species and language is also called “the jewel in the crown or cognition (410).� After we are born there is a certain critical period where we need to be exposed to language. This can be any language out there. Our brain will rewire itself and we will soon be saying simple words and after a while basic sentences. If we are not exposed to language during this critical period, we will never be able to learn a language to our full potential. The language we hear is the nurture part, it is the outside force. The nature is our brains ability to be ready for this. We are born ready for language. The left hemisphere of our brain is mostly devoted to language (416).
Nature and nurture are like two clapping hands, we need both hands to clap. Although I believe that both nature and nurture sculpt us, this heated topic will continue for many years. There is an enormous amount of research and evidence that we are shaped by both nature and nurture. Pinker has made a bold move and published his book against the blank slate theory, which is being born with no innate functions. This book is a best-selling book for 2002 which concludes that people are interested in what he is saying. These steps will help eliminate the notion that we are shaped by only one factor. Moreover, as we grow older we also select environments that suit our natures. To me, I forget the concept of nature-versus-nurture but think rather, nurture via nature.

Meyers, David G. Psychology. 8th ed. (2007):
Steven Pinker: Chalking it up to the blank slate. Dir. Steven Pinker. 2003. .

Posted by mill3982 at 10:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Everyone in this country is talking about the presidential election and with good reason; this is by far the most important election in the past three decades. The severity of the outcome of this election is clearly known because people are doing what needs to be done to get the right person in office, photo shopping pictures of candidates, trying to create controversy of photos and creating presidential chocolates.
An article posted on Photo District News has a conversation about noted photographer Jill Greenberg and her photos of presidential nominee John McCain. But first some background on Jill Greenberg “the manipulator�. Jill graduated the Rhode Island School of Design and pursued her photography career in New York until 2000 when she moved with her family to Los Angeles. Some of her clients include Target, Bacardi, Coca Cola and Proctor and Gamble. She is a very accomplished and well-known photographer especially in advertising. Viewing Jill’s work simply mesmerizes me. The emotion, complexity, situation and genius that are in every photograph in her online portfolio are amazing. She is truly a gifted photographer and also a master in Photoshop. Almost every photo in the portfolio has been manipulated to emphasize certain features or characteristics in the photo. Some of her recently acclaimed work is of “shiny� babies in temper tantrums. And her manipulated/photoshopped photos from a recent shoot with John McCain are no different. She depicts McCain with lighting from the bottom so he looks like a classic villain or character from a horror movie and then inserts shark teeth and blood in his mouth, as to show him as a “blood thirsty war monger�. McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, has also been a victim of bad photography but this time it was a lack of Photoshop. On Sarah Palin’s Newsweek cover début she was shown very close up so the world could see all of her flaws, or lack of them. Fox news had a story about the cover and explained of how people on magazine covers are almost always touched up even supermodels but Sarah Palin was not. They ran the story and gave their two cents to the world without researching Newsweek’s photograph policy. According to PDN Newsweek has a policy of not printing photoshopped images, which applies to touched up photos of people. From what I was able to find on the Internet Fox news was the only major news source to find the Palin cover inappropriate, or have a story on it. On the sweeter side a food blog, epicurious.com, has a story of a California chocolate company, L.A. Burdick, that has produced presidential chocolate packages. The chocolates are created by the candidates’ history. Barack Obama has Kenyan Coffee as one of his flavors because of his Kenyan roots. John McCain has Arizona Citrus because he is a senator from Arizona. Of course the company keeps a running toll of how many Obama and McCain boxes are sold, as an alternative to a CNN poll of polls.
It is in my opinion that America has gone crazy about this election in a negative way. Jill Greenberg could have taken nice quality appealing pictures of Obama and used her influence ad skills to help him receive more votes, or just not wasted her time portraying McCain in a totally negative mostly untrue light. Fox news also tried to make a controversy out of nothing. Because Sarah Palin is a women Fox news seems to think that she needs to look flawless on a magazine cover. They could have better spent their airtime talking about Palin and what maverick things she would do in the White House if elected. As for the chocolate company, they are just trying to cash in on what is hot right now, and they can’t be blamed for that. But overall too many Americans are being caught up in everything that doesn’t matter about the election. Instead of worrying about which candidates health care plan would be better for them they are more worried about sinking their shark teeth into Kenyan Coffee chocolates.

Posted by suess015 at 7:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The topic of factory farming is very controversial. On one hand, concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) allow us to mass produce meat, and, as the article stated, Americans consume more meat than any other country in the world. Furthermore, the facilities and animals are held to a strict standard and go through intense screening to ensure that humans do not get sick. However, it is a proven fact that commercial farms are harmful to our already fragile environment, and many of these farms are connected to extreme cases of animal cruelty, such as the factory farm that distributes to Hormel food products. While there are some benefits to factory farming, the disadvantages, both on an environmental and moral standard, outweigh any advantages that exist.

I especially resonated with this topic for multiple reasons. First, we are discussing the adverse effects on the environment caused by pollution and factory farming both in my Animals and Society course as well as my Human Impact on the Environment seminar. Second, my sister, who plays a very influential role in my life, works at a boar stud and has witnessed first-hand what goes on in large factory farms. Most importantly, I personally do not eat meat from pigs or chickens because I think they are subject to especially cruel treatment, particularly when they are raised on commercial farms. The environment and animals are my two passions in life, and I have no doubt that I will devote the rest of my life doing something in those fields.

Commercial farming has become a major growing industry in the United States, and the number of such factory farms has tripled over the last 20 years (3). While this growing industry is good for the economy and helps keep consumer prices at a minimum, it has very detrimental effects on the water and air quality across America. As the article states, a single farm can produce over 1.6 million tons of manure yearly, which is more than many of the largest cities in country (3). This waste then seeps into water systems, which adversely affects both humans and wildlife (3). The process also puts gaseous wastes and fine particles in the air that can lead to many respiratory and other health problems (3). While these are all major issues, I feel the link between commercial farms and global warming is the primary source of concern.

Global warming is happening – there is no denying it. The temperatures and sea levels are rising, the icecaps and glaciers are melting, and the weather patterns and ocean currents are shifting. The current climate change should be one of America’s top concerns. The livestock sector is responsible for about 18% percent of greenhouse gas emissions. Changing your eating habits could have just as much of an affect as changing your driving habits (1).

While I think pollution created by factory farms is an extremely important issue, I also think it is important to address the conditions these animals are placed in. Both of the other articles on the link were predominantly discussed the welfare of intensely kept animals. In many cultures, animals are seen as “sentient beings with interests of their own� (4). This is where the ethical issue comes in.

In traditional farming, animals were generally kept outdoors and tasks such as feeding and removing waste were done with hard labor. After WWII, traditional farming evolved to a system in which animals were kept predominantly inside in “confinements,� and routine tasks were done with machines. Around the same time, the Western culture began to sympathize more with animals, and institutions that used animals used for science and entertainment were subject to critical inspection. However, because people had the perception that family farmers lived in harmony with nature and that the Bible endorsed using animals for farming, many animals used for agriculture were “shielded from such scrutiny� (4).

The FAO report then goes on to describe the “standard critique� of commercial farming. The basic foundations of the critique include: factory farms are replacing the family-owned farm; “corporate greed" is replacing animal care values, and industrial confinement methods are replacing traditional farming methods (4). After describing the standard critique, the author goes on to refute the argument saying it lacks merit an “actual investigation.� I disagree - I feel that the problems under the standard critique are very real problems, although they do not fully do justice to all of the problems associated with factory farming. Furthermore, I invite all of you to watch an “actual investigation� posted on the website for the People of the Ethical Treatment of Animals (http://getactive.peta.org/campaign/iowa_pigfarm_abuse2 ).

Farms these days are not like what we picture from Old MacDonald. The link posted above is a video titled “Undercover Investigation Reveals Hormel Supplier’s Abuse of Mother Pigs and Piglets.� The video is quite graphic, and I was honestly in tears by the end of watching it. Even though I had already decided against eating pigs, this video alone would be enough to do it for me. The video depicts workers who repeatedly take out their frustrations on these innocent animals. One worker states, “When I get pissed, or get hurt, I grab one of these metal rods and jam it in her asshole.� Workers also shove these rods up the sows’ vaginas. Supervisors and workers alike were seen kicking pigs and jabbing clothespins into their faces and eyes. One worker sprayed toxic paint up a pig’s nose. The piglets are castrated and have their tails cut off with no anesthetics. Throughout the video, workers say things like: “You gotta beat the b*tch. Make her cry,� and “Don’t be afraid to hurt ‘em.� During this time, the pigs are either screaming in agony or trying desperately to escape. In addition, the workers seem to be getting enjoyment. Is this not cruel? Is this something you want to take part in? And if you recognize the cruelty, isn’t a little selfish to continue eating pigs, not because it is a dietary essential, but simply because “it tastes good�?

While I personally do not eat any pigs, I understand that this cruelty does not go on everywhere. I understand that organizations like PETA are only going to post the most horrible videos, and I understand that it comes down to the people. As previously stated, my sister works on a hog farm. She too graduated from the University of Minnesota with a degree in Animal Science, and she is still applying to get into vet school. As my sister, I know she is a good person who truly cares about animals.

She had heard about the video on the news and was the first person to inform me about its existence, although she had never viewed it. I came to her house, and we decided to watch it. We were both appalled by what we saw. The video depicted workers bashing the “runts� against the concrete floor, and joking about their brains flying everywhere. Some of the piglets did not die and were shown suffering and struggling to live. This is a common practice at the farm that employs my sister, and her ignorant boyfriend was quick to point that out. My sister could not finish the watching the video.

After we turned the video off, her boyfriend continued to prod about how she could be so upset about something that she participates in on a daily basis. She refuted his argument by pointing out that, while the practice may seem inhumane, it all comes down to the workers. No one at the farm she works at gets enjoyment out of killing the runts; they simply understand that they are likely to die anyway and it has to be done. They do the job with respect for the animal and a respect for the way the world works.

This brings me to another point. While I understand this cruelty to animals does not go on at all farms, I think the people who get enjoyment are truly sick people. There is widely proven connection between animal abusers and serial killers. In an article titled “Animal Cruelty: The Key to Serial Minds,� the author points out that many serial killers, such as Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Albert “The Boston Strangler� DeSalvo, were all cruel to animals as children (2). People who abuse animals seek targets they can easily overpower, which is a common trait of serial killers - it is all about control. Furthermore, these people are not behaviorally or mentally stable, and numerous studies have shown that their actions often escalate into more serious crimes (2).

Overall, I understand that the intensification of animal production leads to a more efficient system of producing meat. However, the detrimental effects on the environment and the lack of animal care that goes on at such facilities are major conflicting interests. For me, these conflicting interests are enough to push me to the point where I refuse to participate. While I understand I am not going to turn any of you into vegetarians, I invite you to think about this: while half the dogs in America will get Christmas presents this year, no one stops twice to think about the Christmas ham – even though pigs are much more intelligent animals than dogs.

1. FAO of the United Nations. “Livestock’s Long Shadow.� 2006. (TinyURL.com/z5kad)
2. Bailey-Lloyd, CarolAnn. “Animal Cruelty: The Key to Serial Minds.� http://ezinearticles.com/?Animal-Cruelty:--The-Key-to-Serial-Minds&id=35856
3. Shapley, Dan. “One Farm. More Pollution than Houston, Texas.� Sept 24 2008. http://www.thedailygreen.com/healthy-eating/eat-safe/factory-farms-47092401?src=syn&dom=yah_buzz&mag=tdg&ha=1&kw=ist
4. FAO of the United Nations. “Animal Welfare and the Intensification of Animal Production.� 2005.
5. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. “Undercover Investigation Reveals Hormel Supplier’s Abuse of Mother Pigs and Piglets.� http://getactive.peta.org/campaign/iowa_pigfarm_abuse2

Posted by harpe174 at 11:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

“Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know whatcha gonna get.� Not only is life like a box of chocolates, so is the 2008 political race between Barack Obama and John McCain. L.A. Burdick, has created two very different boxes of chocolate that represent the history of each of the two candidates for the presidential race. Furthermore, the company is tracking the popularity of the boxes, therefore, potentially polling the voting public. This presidential campaign has been taken in a new direction with the possibilities of advertisement all across America. These boxes of chocolate are neither bad, nor do they overstep the boundaries of advertisement in this election. In the end, chocolate is chocolate. In this case, there is much more interesting chocolate.

Over the past eighteen years, I have been bombarded with election hoopla, senator races, simple school referendums, and my favorite, presidential elections. These advertisements have neither made me formulate my opinions, nor swayed me to vote directly in any way. The advertisements that strike Barack Obama for not having experience have filled their way into every radio advertisement, T.V. commercial, and other places. These advertisements have had no affect on the fact that I am a die hard Barack Obama supporter. I will still have the same values and beliefs that drive what I do everyday. It is my stance on certain issues that will not change due to commercials that are put out to plot candidates against each other. The boxes of candy cannot and will not change a person’s stance on what they believe.

More often we find that our voters are less and less informed. The voters place their votes on appearance, previous biases, and commentary from friends. With a box of chocolates that gives more information about the candidates, our population should be thrilled be learning more information about the candidates. Furthermore, with the interest that this election has had on the public, it is obvious that they must become more informed. The chocolates are a creative and fun way to involve people to learn more about candidate. Just as commercials, I am triggered to find out more information by learning simple facts. In this article alone I was interested to learn more about the background of each of the candidates. Not only will these boxes of chocolates help people to learn more about the candidates, the voter turn out will increase due to the publicity of the election.

Every four years the political campaigns take one step further. The Kennedy campaign was the first ever to have live debates on T.V. It is said that because Kennedy’s campaign team was to make him look good, he easily won. Television was a huge turning point in elections, as we know it. Could small things such as chocolates be a large part of elections of the future? On L.A. Burdicks website Obama has sold over 200% more boxes than has John McCain. When test testers tested the chocolates they found that, by a small margin, the John McCain chocolates were more popular. It makes the public wonder if these are in correlation with each other. Using food may be a way to get consumers to buy more of a product, therefore building our countries economy. Political parties could even start charity funds for certain advertisements as labels on foods, and products. The future is endless in political campaigns and elections in future years.

The way a person votes in an election should be based on intense research of the candidates. We should also vote based upon our values and beliefs of what each candidate can offer for us, and who we are. The future is here and we must not let our minds be altered by commercials, advertisements, and false hopes of reality from poor candidates, but rather be confidant in the check that we mark on our ballot. Only then can we be sure that we have done all we can to help select the right candidate for the job. The chocolates are a mere way to be creative and see what happens. People will not have their view altered because of a box of chocolates that shows history of presidential candidates, they can only benefit from this for of advertisement. Just as we never know what we are going to get in a box of chocolates, we never know what we are going to get in a president. A presidential campaign is like a box of chocolates, as well as life.

Posted by mulhe020 at 11:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

From a student’s view, having a teacher as a contact on online spaces such as Facebook or MySpace would be awkward in the sense that there would be no privacy and separation between the student, the schoolwork, and the superior figure. This idea is most popular amongst students, but teachers are feeling quite the opposite. These places provide a student somewhere to escape from their academics. After reading articles on the subject such as “‘Creepy Treehouse’ effect: Twitter and Facebook suck when they’re required by your professor� and “Students tell universities: Get out of MySpace,� I feel that using online spaces for academics may be a positive answer in learning and not as awkward as I first assumed. Facebook and MySpace would still be cutting it close, but having an online connection of communicating between students and teachers other than interaction sites which are not geared towards academics may improve the learning environment and relationships for everyone. This can make communication much easier and not make this online interaction between teachers and students a “Creepy Treehouse� if it relates more towards academics.

Being that colleges have so many students and faculty on campus, it is a challenge to become familiar with classmates and especially the professor depending on the class size. If there are students who have a hard time socializing with others, that situation can become even worse as time goes by. Even though students should accept that they must step out of their comfort zone, networking online for classes can potentially increase students’ confidence to be open, express their opinions, and not be afraid to ask for help. Since everyone seems to be using online networking constantly, people are becoming more familiar with online interaction than person to person interaction. Many students don’t bother to join in during discussions, and each student may have different reasons for not participating. It could be anywhere from being too scared of having his or her opinion rejected by others, not understanding what is being discussed, socially incapable, or just too lazy to say anything. There are many students who also have trouble asking for help from a teacher or student face to face, which causes them to struggle in their classes. The blogs in this class as well as others help students understand what others are thinking about on the same subjects and open their mind to something more than what their mind was offering. Discussions and lectures should provide the same understanding, but sometimes reading things people write make it easier to comprehend; writing can also be easier when trying to express an opinion. Teachers may be reviewing the discussions being posted online as well as being able to respond with their thoughts, but this doesn’t appear to make the learning process worse; they are trying to know and understand their students and offer help if necessary. Students and teachers are able to know one another through less awkward terms than Facebook or MySpace.

Some downsides to depending on online interaction for school, though, is that students and teachers may never place a face to a name through the course of the year. Interaction skills probably won’t improve which will not help in the business world when finding a job. A person cannot have an interview with a possible employer over online chatting and blogging. Obviously a person should learn to be more social and talkative in class, but it may not come as easily to some as it does to others.

Besides online spaces being helpful for the social side of academics, it also makes communication more convenient during the school year. Teachers and teaching assistants are not always accessible during every moment of every day and when they are, students’ schedules create conflicts which prevent speaking to them. Because of this, online connections make it easier to communicate between teacher and student when help is needed. A person can post something on a blog or by email, and most likely get an answer later in the day. There are many teachers who also only show homework assignments online and other important announcements which were not mentioned in class. Of course if announcements were mentioned in class and a student happened to miss for a certain reason, he or she may be lucky enough to still obtain the necessary information via the internet.

According to an article(1) by Dave Nagel, a survey was done to see how many students actually are using online sources for schoolwork. They found that 50% of students who spend their time online are discussing homework, and 59% of students are talking about other education-related topics. Surveyors also found that 96% of students use the internet for social networking. Since students spend most of their time online and are familiar with online communication, it makes sense to be used in academics. Students on their own are talking about school while online. As long as teachers are using online networking for school, they should use it mostly for school related subjects; students will find this way of communication beneficial and feel less awkward. Facebook and MySpace would not be acceptional candidates because they are more personal, private, and separate from the stress of school. The blogs used in class are definitely a better choice. A “Creepy Treehouse� may be no more.

References:

1. Nagel, Dave. “Research: Students Actually Use the Internet for Education.� August 2007. .

Posted by jone1394 at 3:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Well when I first read the title of the webpage I was a little skeptical if it was going anywhere serious, but it turned out to be kind of stimulating. In the web post the creator, Lila Hanft, talks about her attempts to incorporate networking sites and blog sites into her classes. Her motive behind her experiments where to catch the overspill of any conversation about the class that didn’t make it into the classroom and that might provoke some quality academic conversation. In her attempts she ran into problems involving students being scared off by the idea that their instructors were trying to invade their personal or social domain. Lila called her students reaction as being a “creepy treehouse.� She was trying to convey the idea that the students were getting the feeling of being invited into a socially uncomfortable place that was potentially unsafe. So as you might guess this didn’t help stimulate the conversations that Lila was trying to achieve. Lila received lots of feedback from her students and the overall resonation was that they didn’t feel like this was the right way to accomplish easy outside of class conversation about class topics. What she found was similar to a research study conducted that came to the conclusion that students wanted their professors to “stay out of MySpace.� Lila also referred to Jared Stein, an online resources researcher, about her topic. He suggested that Lila should try to focus on other media approaches that seemed less invasive and designed for educators. After her published article there were several comments on the short article. Some of them just agreeing and disagreeing or giving Lila some other tips. The last one was from a recently graduated student who thought that her idea was good it just needed to be regulated a little bit better and that she needed to take a farther away control of the situation.
I thought that this webpage was interesting mostly because it is so relevant to the way we do the majority of our writing in our class. It seems to me that our instructor has avoided creating the creepy treehouse and managed to set up a fairly effective for us to converse with each other in an academically stimulating manner. I think Lila ran into the so many problem because she wanted to play a role in the conversations or maybe rather a role that was too large for the students to be accepting. Well, that and the fact that she wanted to host these conversations as we pointed out in her article amongst the students conversations about their social and personal lives. Obviously these things should be kept separate, but I think also that she could have effectively ran a blog on Facebook or Twitter if she had just taken a larger step back from the situation. In my opinion she really wanted to much to do with her students academic conversations. Because that is just what it was supposed to be about, a place for the students to comment in a way relevant to class that expressed their ideas and also allowed them to analyze comments of others. There was really no place for her in that situation. Also as another person pointed out that after the instructor of a class it may not have been so uncomfortable to have a conversation with them about a topic because they may not have felt so pressured into the situation. All these things I think help explain why what Lila did didn’t work for her and why the way our class is run works pretty smooth. I believe that this way of teaching writing and journalism is a fine way to emphasize the way the future of writing is going to look and is a good way to give us the skills to live in the world which we are being given. Not only to live but to be able also to think and to have conversation in an academic and critical manner.

Posted by micha315 at 9:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Technology governs the changes made in the world and thus alters the way daily tasks are preformed. The ways things are practiced at school are changing at the same rate as technological advances are being installed in large businesses. However, the improvements are questionable when technological advances lead to ethical dilemmas and a social divides. These are conflicting factors in the transitional stages from in-class participation to on-line participation for educational purposes. Ethically it could be argued that professors could be stepping outside their boundaries of teacher student interaction. The argument then leads to predominantly opposing views as to whether these concerns are valid, creating a battle. An unnecessary amount of attention is spent on an issue that is irreversible. Education has already spread to the Internet, its aids are beneficial, and there is not stopping it.

Online blogs, facebook, and video chats are the future. The blog is more than just a convenient paper saver. It creates the ability for the student to compare their work with their classmates as well as receive peer reviews. A personal or peer based review is more influentially motivating than thoughts from a professor. Where a professor has the ability to give scholarly advice, students can relate their fellow student’s mental ability. With the ever more competitive corporate world, a blog opens the door for often much needed public exposure. Outlets for student resources, such as immediate responses from the professor or classmates, are made possible through webpages such as facebook. Instead of recording the lecture in class or making up for a missed session, online video and audio of in-class discussion makes for a less hassle recovery of missed information.
With the new innovations put to work in the educational setting, new precautions need to be developed. A few generations earlier, students were warned to watch for the stranger offering them candy to get into the car. Now, students need to be warned about online predators. The same concept of awareness needs to be translated to the online classrooms. Just as students are told that their teachers have boundaries in the classroom, they need to be told that teachers have boundaries in the online setting as well. Class ethics do not need to change, but rather be stretched to fit the evolution. Participation can be mandatory but there needs to be limits as to what is appropriate and what steps over the line. Fear of “creepy teachers� is all due to the context. Jared Stien points out the fact that when referred to as “creepy treehouse� the on-line classroom sounds threatening, but when labeled Personal Learning Environments, their original intentions are honored instead of opposed. Opening up the Internet for educational use is not going to increase the number of threatening school staff. As long as awareness is enforced, teacher student abuse could potentially be reduced due to the distance put between the person of authority and the vulnerable student.
Exposure to the ways of the online world is now becoming just as imperative as street smarts. Just as an individual learns how to recognize the good and the bad in the real world, they have to learn through living in the online world. The two are difficult to teach with any instrument, however, the skills can be guided by a mentor, or in the case of the online classroom, the teacher. These mentors can answer any questions that may arise, instead of concocting scenarios for the student to memorize the answer for future reference. Knowledge of the online world and the many means of allow for thousands more job opportunities. As mentioned earlier corporate America is indulging into blogs and other resources that will allow for a more global market. Just as other technologically advanced resources have replaced the old, soon the old ways of business will become obsolete and those without experience will be left behind.
The argument that online resources are leading to creepy treehouses is an absurdly pessimistic viewing of the potential influence on student learning. Not only are these resources unthreatening, but unavoidably necessary for student learning. It is essential for the youth of the digital age to be exposed to the online world, giving them the awareness needed to surf it alone in the future. The way that University Writing 1301 is organized is acceptable when it comes to following ethical boundaries. Privacy is kept, while classroom relevant requirements are put into place. There are also bumpers put into place to assure that no one steps out of bounds. Should a student post an unacceptable entry, the fellow students and the professor could reprehend the foul. The same goes for teacher requirements, should the line be crossed, the students are capable of influencing a change as well. With the appropriate use and knowledge of the online world, blog, video, and other Internet agencies will become the standard for classroom teaching.

Posted by reger019 at 8:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The hyperlink is the central concept of the World Wide Web which spurred and supported its widespread adoption and use; without it, the Internet (as it is commonly referred to) would be a vastly different place. In his essay, Hargittai examines how the placement of hyperlinks affects individuals of differing skill levels, and whether individuals can make informed decisions as to whether the information which they are led to is accurate or safe (2008). He very carefully examines the static-form of hyperlinks, but in recent years, there has been an enormous move toward dynamic generation of content. I question whether some of his arguments will be valid in a truly dynamic Internet.

To begin, I should define what I mean by a dynamic Internet. In the early days of the World Wide Web, the content was static: it did not change. An author would create a document, publish it to their website, and the content would remain unchanged until the author revised the work by hand. Soon, though, computer engineers created methods for the web servers to create content “on the fly�. Authors of pages would create the basic structure and layout of the page, but the content would be filled in by the web server when a user requested the page, usually by querying a database. This method of content generation is called server-side dynamic content because web servers are generating the content dynamically, but the user (and the user’s web browser) is still presented with what appears to be a static page: at the client-side, the server-side dynamic page looks indistinguishable from the static pages written by hand. Finally, the third type, on which I will focus, is a relatively new method where the client-side webpage is also dynamic. The page sent to the client has instructions for the user’s computer to request certain pieces of information from web servers upon specific user actions and to generate the page based on the information it receives.

First, I believe his analysis of user experience with link traversal will continue to be valid in a client-side dynamic Internet. To a user, the Internet has not changed (in concept) much among static, server-side dynamic, and client-side dynamic pages; pages change more often, and content has become richer in multimedia, but the hyperlink is still the core to providing a user with information. When a user blindly follows links believing them to be benign paths to the information they are seeking, they invite various forms of attacks, and Hartittai’s research into what elements cause the most confusion is valuable information.

I disagree, though, with his statement that “[t]echnically speaking, all hyperlinks are created equal.� His example only concerns the HTML hyperlink, the language used to build static web pages. There are two other popular methods of creating links, both of which I’m sure every modern user has come across and probably never realized it: the client-side dynamic hyperlink written in Javascript, and the hyperlink created by Flash content. HTML hyperlinks are simple to implement and understand; a special “tag� (as it’s called in web design lingo) tells the browser that this certain text (historically and by convention indicated by underlined words or phrases), when clicked, takes the user to a specific web address. Internet browsers display the link address in the status area of the browser (the lower-left corner) when the user hovers the mouse over the link, and therefore it is relatively simple (yet, unknown as Hargittai’s research has shown) for a user to verify that the link will take them to where they believe they are being directed. The second type, the Javascript hyperlink, is a modification of the HTML hyperlink, but it uses client-side dynamic capabilities. The browser also displays the link in the in the status area, but to nearly all users, it is an indecipherable phrase; this is because the link is commands for the computer to follow which may or may not lead the user to a new web page. For example, the Blackboard system we use for classes uses Javascript hyperlinks extensively: if you hover over the link which directs you to this blog, rather than seeing the address of the blog (“http://blog.lib.umn.edu/wardx278/1301_03/�), you will “javascript:submitLoad(‘87512492031’, ’URL_TYPE’, true)�. This doesn’t help describe where you will be taken upon clicking the link. Although this may seem like a truly bad idea, there are major technical advantages to this approach, many of which you appreciate; for example, most web-based email services like Gmail, Hotmail, and Yahoo utilize Javascript links (among other technologies) to allow you to load new emails, delete messages, and much more without reloading the entire page thanks. The adoption of dynamic links such as these has been popularized under the terms “AJAX� and “Web 2.0�. Finally, there is the Flash hyperlink. These links are much harder to investigate, even for a technically savvy person. You utilize a Flash hyperlink every time you load a new suggested video after completing a Youtube video; upon clicking the suggestion, you are directed to a new video, but the move was a result of a Flash hyperlink. Browsers cannot give users indications to what clicking these links will do (except what they show on the screen, which could easily be falsified), and even savvy users cannot investigate the destinations without actually following the link.

Finally, I wanted to raise concerns about Hargittai’s analysis in regard to his discussion of search results. I cannot provide any definite suggestions, though: I can only elucidate the situation. Just as dynamic hyperlinks are hard for a human to follow, they are equally as hard for current indexing programs to understand. Static links are concrete destinations that web crawlers (the program which browses the Internet analyzing, categorizing, and indexing web pages for search providers) can easily handle when presented; very sophisticated methods are required, though, to analyze dynamic hyperlinks. Recently, Adobe, Google, and Yahoo have announced that they will be working together in order to develop technologies which allow Flash content and Flash hyperlinks to be better indexed by search engines (Taft, 2008), but, one, the technology has not yet been created, and two, it is not being designed to help users verify the Flash hyperlinks they are presented. The question in relation to Hargittai’s purpose then becomes, as large, reputable content providers upgrade to dynamic hyperlink technologies but search providers are unable to index the content, how is the reliability of search results going to be affected? He describes how search engines list results in order of how “popular� or “reputable� a page is based on the number and quality of hyperlinks leading to it, but if most hyperlinks become kinds which search providers cannot index, search results will not show the true state of the Internet. I would assume that this question has been posed and is the focus of research in the large search provider firms, but what happens during the transition phase as search providers implement new technologies is anybody’s guess.

In summary, Hartittai’s essay accurately identified which groups of people are at greatest risk of being victimized online, but the problems which they face could have been updated. Using older technologies may have aided his study by simplifying it, but in order to accurately describe people’s knowledge of the Internet, more complex analysis needs to be performed which take into account the many other forms of hyperlink used in the Internet today. That should not eclipse the ultimate goal of his research, though: no matter what technology is being used, people of all ages need to be educated in safe computing. The Internet is a rapidly changing landscape, and we need to develop a permanent system of teaching and informing both the young and old about what they face when they go online.

Hargittai, E., Turow, J., & Tsui, L. (Eds.) (2008). Hyperlinks and the Organization of Attention. In The Hyperlinked Society: Questioning Connections in the Digital Age (Part 1), 85-103 [Electronic Version]. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=nmw;idno=5680986.0001.001;rgn=div2;view=text;cc=nmw;node=5680986.0001.001%3A3.6

Taft, D.K. (2008, August 1). Adobe, Google, Yahoo Team for Flash Search. Retrieved October 12, 2008, from http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Enterprise-Applications/Adobe-Teams-with-Google-Yahoo-for-Flash-Search/

Posted by will2560 at 3:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

With the internet and other new technologies taking precedence over other sources of information and methods of communication in our world today, it is important for today’s youth to familiarize themselves with such technologies. However, is mandating participation in online networking sites and other blogging sites the proper way to enforce familiarity with such resources? As stated in the article “Creepy Treehouses,� many students find the mandating of participation in these sites to be intrusive rather than helpful. I agree that it is necessary for today’s youth to become familiar with the internet and its many uses, however I am not sure that school mandated blogs and networking sites are the appropriate means for accomplishing such an end.
Blog sites, as created for the distinct purpose of the class, on which the students are instructed to post different types of papers written for said class are not intrusive. This concept is no different than simply turning a paper into a teacher with the added bonus of gaining experience in using the online tool. These sites require no personal information from the student, and have no connection to the student’s life outside of the class. They do not require the student to create an account on a public site, or to permit an academic instructor to view a personal profile originally created for non-curricular purposes, which may contain photos or information that the student may not be comfortable with them viewing. Overall, class blogs are not harmful to a student’s privacy, while they still allow for experience in use of online resources. The problem lies when the professor logs into networking sites such as facebook, and decides to require his or her students to share their opinions and other forms of academic materials for the class through these sites.
Perhaps the professors instructing the courses in which these internet activities are required genuinely intend to teach the students about the internet’s resources and their intentions are straightforward and honorable. This could be the case, however, no matter what reason a professor gives for becoming a part of a networking site and requiring his or her students to do the same, there is something to be said for the reaction of the students. According to this article, many students are finding the participation of their professors in online networking sites to be like a “creepy treehouse.� They find the presence of their professor on such sites to be intrusive and repelling. For security purposes, at least the prevailing majority of these sites allow a member to block other users from viewing his or her personal information, and many have security settings that block all users from viewing a given member’s personal information without first receiving the consent of said member. However, in the case of the professor making membership to the site mandatory for class credit, that same professor is also making it mandatory to, using facebook as an example, become “friends� with him or her online, thus giving him or her permission to view the entire extent of the student’s personal information. Such a concept does seem intrusive, and it is quite understandable why a student may feel uncomfortable with this idea.
Many cases have arisen where members of online networking sites have run into issues in their professional and academic lives due to postings on their profiles either by themselves or by their peers. For instance, high school students posting pictures of themselves with alcohol on the internet, and faculty members from their school finding these pictures and reporting them, has occurred more than once at different levels of severity. There have been cases of people losing their jobs or not getting jobs that they are otherwise qualified to receive, simply due to postings on such sites. This is directly relative to a students feelings of intrusion by an instructor’s mandated ability of viewing the student’s personal profile on a networking website. Regardless of whether or not you believe that the student should be accountable for using his or her own discretion when posting potentially incriminating photos or statements on their own webpage, such mandatory online “friendship� is an invasion of privacy. One may argue that if a person is careless enough to post incriminating information about his or herself online, then he or she should be prepared to accept the consequences that go with them, but that is beside the point. On networking websites that offer its members privacy features to control who can and cannot view their material it is not intended that an academic authority require a student make his or her own personal content viewable to their professors, or anyone else for that matter. This is simply an invasion of privacy and should not have a place within an academic environment. Professors should stick to class blogs and other sites that do not potentially intrude into areas of students’ lives that are separate from academics.

Posted by lamp0125 at 4:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Internet postings for school work is a relatively new idea when one looks at writing assignments through out the history of schooling. Ancient Greeks were definitely not going on the internet once a week to post a blog for class. However, just because bloging has really just reached the scene, does that mean it is not affective in its ability to help students to become better writers.
When my parents were in college, the term blog would be as alien to them as the term 8 track is to us. In talking with my mom, she said that when she was in college, the idea of a class having a communal writing station would have been unheard of. She was an English major and she said that sometimes students would have to read their work in front of the class, but other then that, writing was mostly between the individual student and the teacher. When I told her that sometimes I didn’t like having to post my work online for every one to read, she said that she would probably feel the same way. For a lot of people writing is a very personal thing, and sometimes it just doesn’t feel right for it to be shared with people other then your instructor; especially if you don’t know the other people on the system.
I thought, however, that the writer did make a good point about using public writing spaces in journalism classes. If a journalist has a problem with other people reading their work, then they are probably in the wrong field. Succsesful journalist’s work is read by everyone, some times every day. These people need to be okay with the fact that their work is going to be judged and critiqued by people that they have never met and probably never will. In this case, having journalists practice their trade on public writing station, but on smaller scale is a great way to prepare them for what they will have to deal with in the future.
The first time that I ever had a class that required the use of a public writing space was my sophmore English class in high school. I hated this way of posting my writing, not only because I wasn’t comfortable with other people reading my work, but also because the teacher could tell when I had written what I posted. At that time I very much liked the more traditional way of handing in the paper to the teacher and having them grade it on their own. This way I didn’t have to be embarrassed by knowing that other students in my class had been reading my writing.
In high school like most others, I was a insecure about my writing and wanted as little people reading it as possible. Now that I am in college, I have matured and don’t care as much about other people reading my work. I have also realized that having other people from different backgrounds and experiences critiqueing my work is not a bad thing at all. In fact I am beginning to realize that this is a great way to practice writing for a broader more wordly audience. If you think about it this way, everyone in Writ 1301 comes from a different place and has a different way of looking at things. So when we read each others’ position statements we all think differently and then react accordingly.
Most jobs that we go in to, will require us to be able to write and write well. Whether we are to become lawyers or park rangers, we will need to be able to get our point across so that it understood by our readers. We do not know who or what kind of people will be reading our work at this point in our life, so it will be beneficial to us if we are able to connect with all different types of people. In this way, our communal writing space is a scale version of what the real world will be like for many us. To be able to make a successful argument in this class we must convey our points so that they can be understood by all.
Event though public writing spaces can make for uncomfortable situations, I think that they are an effective tool in helping students to become better writers, because they give us practice in writing about a broad collection of different topics to a broad and diverse collection readers.

Posted by tipp0013 at 10:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The new type of livestock production, known as factory farms, has multiplied rapidly over the last two decades. Over three times the number of farms have opened in the last 20 years for every species of domesticated animal. The question of the pollution they cause has spread even faster than the farms themselves. The new found concern for the environment has raised awareness to these types of issues and their effects which is the number one concern on many peoples' minds.

The principle behind factory farms is one of the most basic principles of economics, maximizing output with limited resources. The resource in question is the amount of land that is required to produce the animals for market. Factory farms hope to minimize this cost by putting many more animals into a smaller space than is usually customary in order to save money. It also makes the livestock economy much more efficient since only the most skills farmers keep producing livestock and the small time farmers move on to other trades. Though it may cause initial unemployment, overall it will increase our economies productivity. With this form of farming beef, pork, and poultry become much more affordable for families and businesses. This has led to Americans having the largest meat diet of and country on Earth. Another benefit is the concentration of land opens up much more to be used for commercial and recreational use. More natural environments can now be preserved since the land is not used to raise livestock. Many researchers are trying to develop new ways to use the manure, one of which includes the Utah project which is turning swine manure into bio-diesel energy.

One main problem with this type of farming is that the manure output is very high when this many animals are placed in such a limited area. If the manure was properly disposed of this manure can be both helpful and profitable, however, in many cases the farmers just pile it somewhere to decompose. This crude and ineffective way of waste disposal can have devastating effects on the environment when the bacterium from the manure flows into the local water systems. This bacterium can contaminate the water so local wildlife can no longer drink from it, it also causes many fish to die or make them unhealthy to consume. There is also fear that the waste may affect the water systems in nearby cities and contaminating their water supplies as well. Another problem is that carbon dioxide is emitted by the waste which is furthering the effects of global warming. The final problem is the ethics behind holding animals in these conditions. The practices that are employed to operate these farms have entered the crosshairs of animal rights groups, the lawsuits that result take away much of the monetary benefits of the farms. Many ecologists now demand that this practice of factory farming should be stopped since the gains don't justify the means.

Many farmers state that it is the mismanagement of the factory farms is the problem. Normally the manure from the animals on a farm either goes to fertilize the farmers own crops of are sold to another company to sell it commercially. This can cut the costs drastically for everyday farmers by lowering production costs of crops or gaining income from other businesses. Many factory farms simply have too much waste to dispose of properly. This large quantity of waste can make it very costly to dispose of making the point of factory farming disappear. The growing number of factory farms in the United States is also making it harder to dispose of since there is only so much demand for fertilizer. This backup only increases the urge to simple dump the waste on the site.

With a plethora of costs and benefits the decision of whether or not to employ factory farms is a difficult question. With global warming increasing at an astonishing rate I believe we must place the environments health before our monetary needs. It's possible that with the added pollution there may be significant problems for future generations. We may even go so far as to say we may destroy many of our descendent through pollution of the air and water supplies.

Posted by lage0062 at 1:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

It is amazing how much politics affect everything that we do. The McCain – Obama presidential race is beginning to branch out into everything citizens of the United States use. Recently on the website www.epicurious.com there was a couple of articles that appealed to me on this topic. These articles also demonstrate how much politics are beginning to spread into new areas.

One article discussed how a company has begun to make presidential cookie boxes. Each box contains cookies that explain the roots of each candidate. These boxes are available for purchase for the general public, however the company keeps a running tally of each box bought. They use this tally as a kind of poll, to predict the outcome of the upcoming presidential race.

Another article discusses how the presidential candidate will have to deal with food related political decisions. Our next president will face many of these decisions, especially with the predicted food shortage in the next years. The article discussed the example of the farm bill that has just been proposed and the conflicting stances that are taken by both McCain and Obama.

The world is expected to grow larger and food shortage is a possibility that could occur. Food shortage is a scary thing, because right now in the United States, we waste so much of our food. This is expected to change.

In a New York Times article that I recently read, it discusses how world leaders failed to think about this food shortage in the years past. They ignored it and acted as if it would never come into existence. In a couple of years this will be in existence, and it’s something that needs to be dealt with by our next president.

Over the past couple of years, the cost of corn, wheat, and rice has more than doubled. In addition to this the cost of energy keeps going up, as we see daily within the soaring gas prices. Because of this more and more farmers and people that grow the food will slowly not be able to afford it. The price of food is all ready beginning to increase.

It’s important to take these issues into consideration when we discuss selecting a president. The articles I read on the epicurious.com website really provoked interest of this topic in me. We often forget about this issue and focus bigger issues of the time, like the economy. However, if this economic slump is like any other the market will come back. Food shortage has no immediate fix to it. The only fix is time, and if world leaders don’t act on it, it will take too much time to fix.

The New York Times article also makes a good point. Bio-fuels are taking a large part of our corn production towards the research of it. The government should work to find alternative fuel sources, but sacrificing what the citizens of the world eat is not worth putting into our gas tanks. We could look into many other alternative fuels, things that we don’t use on an everyday basis.

World leaders need to begin to take a stand on this. The President of United States could have a major impact on what will occur with the expected food shortage in the upcoming years. Having a President that cares about the environment and looks how to make changes that are positive on the environment are crucial. One major decision that the next candidate will have to face will be whether or not to give subsidies to the farmers. We need food to be grown, but in order for this food to be grown, it must be first bought. The cost to purchase the food to be grown is increasing. It is now becoming difficult for farmers to afford their crops to grow. The fewer crops they can buy, the less food is produced.

The presidential race really does extend into more areas than the typical citizen can think about. The next president will make many crucial decisions about food, because as time moves on the higher demand for food there will be. It will be important to a have a president willing to make sacrifices to produce enough food to support this country and the countries that trade food with the United States.

Sources That were Used:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1734834,00.html

http://www.epicurious.com/articlesguides/blogs/editor/2008/10/why-foodies-sho.html

http://www.epicurious.com/articlesguides/blogs/editor/2008/09/chocolate-gets.html

Posted by muell484 at 12:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

The documentary film called Born into Brothels is a unique piece. A woman by the name of Zana Briski went to Calcutta to photograph prostitution in The Red Light District. The Red Light District is a neighborhood where prostitution and other sexual business flourish. When she was unable to photograph the women, the children flocked to her to see who she was and what she was doing. She worked with the poverty-stricken children in order to be able to photograph the children’s mothers and grandmothers. After time, she grew close to the children and used her skills and talents of photography to teach the children how to use a camera. This way they could express their lives on a photo. After working with them for quite some time, the children became very good at taking pictures. Since Briski worked with them every day, she became very close to them and realized that the children’s future did not look like a positive one. She knew she had to get them out of The Red Light District. The children’s mothers and grandmothers were prostitutes and if their father was even living with them, he usually did not care about anything. Briski worked very hard on getting them into a boarding school because that was the only way for the children to get off the path to their lurking, horrible future of prostitution. After talking to everybody and anybody, Briski finally managed to get the kids into a boarding school. She even got Avijit a Passport because he was invited to World Press Photo, which is an organization that invites nine children to Amsterdam to look at photos shot by over 4,000 photographers all over the world. At the end of the movie, it says what each child is doing now. Only one remains in the boarding school. Some of the children dropped out on their own account and the remaining children were removed by their parents.

Roger Ebert reviewed this film and gave it three and a half out of four gold stars. He said the movie reminded him of The Five Obstructions which is about a Danish director and his mentor. The mentor will shoot a short film in five different ways and the director will come up with the obstructions. They decided to shoot in the most miserable place on Earth, which they decided was The Red Light District. Once they got there, they could not do it. The things they saw corrupted them and the director could not handle the assignment. Ebert is amazed at how Briski was able to get so much information from a society that vanishes when police or a camera come into view. Using the children was a productive idea that gets the job done, and gets it done well.
This type of documentary is similar to the type of documentary that James Agee and Walker Evans did. In the beginning of the film Briski says, “I knew she would not be able to photograph them as a visitor, I would have to stay with them and live with them to understand their lives.� Agee and Evans did the same thing. They lived with the tenant farmers until they thought that they themselves were tenant farmers. They lived with the families and got to know the Rickets, the Grudgers, and the Woods. They were able to photograph and take notes off them. This is where Briski differs with Agee and Evans. She let the children take the photos. It was their lives, their world, and through their own camera, they could take that instantaneous moment in time, and share it with the rest of the world. As John Berger says, “All photographs are of the past, yet in them an instant of the past is arrested so that, unlike a lived past, it can never lead to the present.� With these photographs, we will be able to better prepare for the future.
Briski did a wonderful thing here. She gave the children something to enjoy, something to believe in. She loved and cared for them like they were her own. But she pioneered the documentary style on letting the children do the photo shooting. This is an excellent idea and I am wondering why others have not thought of this. No one knows the lives better of a person than that actual person. The children know the people, the culture, the neighborhood, and the language. They are shooting unbiased photos to show the world what their lives are; what they have to live with and go through every day. Someone else is not taking the pictures based on their thinking or opinion. The children are a primary source. Briski also says in the beginning of the film that the people that live in The Red Light District are very afraid of getting their picture taken. They are afraid of being found out. With the children taking the pictures, they are able to get away with more because they are native, young, and innocent. If it were an outsider like Agee, Evans, Bourke-White, Caldwell, Lange, or Taylor, they may not be able to get all of the information that they need, or want.

1. Agee, James, and Walker Evans. Let Us Now Praise Famous Men. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1969.

2. Born into Brothels. 11 Feb. 2005. 7 Oct. 2008 .

3. Berger, John. Another Way Of Telling. United Kingdom: Vintage, 2005

4. Born into Brothels. Dir. Zana Briski and Ross Kauffman. 2005. .

Posted by mill3982 at 11:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The benefits of using an online space in education are numerous, however some students may have a negative reaction to the Internet invasion. While technology advances, and handwritten documents are no longer accepted - except for in class exercises - the amount of time students spend on the computer is ever increasing. It is an enormous market for advertisements, and in some cases, college professors, tutors and teaching assistants are attempting to utilize this space (Facebook, MySpace, Twitter) for educational purposes. These activities are relatively benign, depending on the individual intention of said education practitioner. However, the “creepy treehouse� issue does not lie in the intention of the teacher, but in the reception of the student.

In my own high school experience, the administration infiltrated Facebook and discovered pictures of students drinking alcohol, and the students were penalized. Such use of Facebook by a school’s administration is an assault on privacy. A photograph is not enough evidence to bring about legal charges (regarding underage drinking), which further emphasizes the behavior as rather equivocal. In a case in Eden Prairie, more than 100 students were reprimanded due to photos produced from Facebook (Star Tribune). These examples are more along the lines of a “peeping Tom� administration, than that of a creepy treehouse.

Blackboard, which you are familiar with, (because you are reading this now) is completely non-invasive. It relies on the teacher inviting, or requiring, the students to participate in online discussions. It is an interesting form of pedagogical technique, and I have never experienced anything like it before. My only previous experience (other than computer based courses) with online education has been research based, and on occasion interactive programs and web pages have been employed. It has not been a point of lengthy discussion between my friends, my classmates and myself. It has merely been accepted as the current methodology, and many other large universities use Blackboard or other similar sites.

My reaction to Blackboard in relation to this course has been somewhat apathetic, and also accepting up until this point. The term accepting is not very meaningful in this context, because I would not be able to pass the course without using Blackboard. After coming across the creepy treehouse article, I began to contemplate the use of Blackboard with more depth. I came to realize that I view it as a chore, and that it is merely a means to an end – the end being passing the course. I understand that this is a poor attitude in regards to education, but it is my position nevertheless. In opposition to my previous statements, I further acknowledged that Blackboard is more convenient than printing and turning in every written assignment. It also allows for rapid discussion and grading outside of the classroom.

I have occasionally posted a few remarks on the Internet, particularly on the notes’ of friends on Facebook, and the infrequent comment on a well-known blog. This current essay, and my previous post on Public Opinions are much more dutifully composed than other writing I have previously done on the Internet. Heavy online writing is a new realm for me, and I expect this also to be true for the majority of other students. I would imagine that many students would be more concerned with the clarity and intelligence inflected in their writing if it was understood that fellow students would be reading their writing. In this light, online educational writing is a very ample resource to be harnessed by today’s leading universities. It is effective, convenient, and productive.

It is possible that my assumptions of the creepy treehouse pedagogical techniques are entirely off base. I can only judge for myself, and my opinion is only one out of many. I see the benefits of these techniques, and I also see how students can be concerned considering the abuse of social networking sites by some school administrations. Perhaps I am one of few students who are almost utterly apathetic towards the employment of these types of faculties, but some other students may see it as an infantile attempt by teachers to become hip and trendy. Lastly, I would hope that the majority of students have a positive outlook towards the Internet and their education, it is a tool certainly worth using; and it will only become more widespread in the future. The fact still remains that certain portions of the Internet are subject to abuse by educational authority, but this is not a factor if the users entertain morally acceptable behavior. I will let you decide.

Works Cited:
1. Star Tribune. "Facebook Photos Land Eden Prairie Kids in Trouble." http://www.startribune.com/local/west/13549646.html

Posted by olso4759 at 11:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Its seems as if it has come to down to today’s farmers having two options: to go big, or go home. With this growing problem, many of the farmers in the United States have chosen the go big route and have started what is now called factory farming. There is no doubt that these large factory farms have help in feeding the worlds growing population. However with larger farms, come larger issues between the farmers and the public. These issues include harmful emissions into the atmosphere and pollution of nearby streams and water systems, but the most common issue that the public has with today’s farmers is the smell of these large units.

I have read the “Factory Pigs� article posted on the class website and had already gotten well into writing a position statement on it, however as I read the newspaper Wednesday afternoon a came across a similar article involving large farms and their impact on neighboring communities and the general public. I felt as though I could form a stronger position on this issue and as I read deeper and deeper into the article, it really sparked my interest and got me thinking about how farmers are continuously looked at as the “bad guys�.

The specific issue I found Wednesday in the Star Tribune was a dairy farmer who’s 1,525 cow operation has been declared a health hazard, by the state health official. Excel Dairy which is located north of Thief River Falls, was declared in violation of state air quality standards hundreds of times during the past three months, causing neighbors to leave their homes several times since the month of May. Some specific problems the neighbors had, included headaches, nausea, breathing problems, and sore throats from the horrible smelling hydrogen sulfide emissions. Rita Messing, of the Minnesota Department of Health stated “there needs to be immediate measures taken to stop these emissions.� Dairy officials responded to this problem stating, “odors may be a nuisance but do not constitute a health problem�, calling the report about the dairy “intellectually dishonest�. (Star Tribune)

This case in which the dairy has been deemed a health hazard, has been the first of its kind found in the state of Minnesota. Excel dairy has also believed to have found the reason for most of the smell and that is the fact that earlier on they were asked to clean out on the pit and tear it down to check for suspicion for manure leaking into the water system located nearby. This only goes to say that Excel is considerate of its community wants to make sure that nothing is going to harm the community’s environment. Something many communities overlook as they become angry at farmers.

In my opinion, it happens all to often that farmers are looked at as the “bad guys� in situation like this. As a dairy farmer myself, I have had to deal with unhappy neighbors complaining about the smell given off while spreading manure on the fields. Most recently we have been band from “spreading� in a particular field of ours because the neighbors took our case to city council and won. I start to wonder though, what will happen if instances like this keep occurring. What if we run out of land? Issues such as this, I feel are not looked in to that much, as the community starts to get angry because of a bad smell. I think that the citizens just need to get used to the smell and realize that there are something’s in life that they might just have to get used to. If farmers can get used to the smell most everyday of their career, I believe that the public could probably get used to the smell occurring once a week or in some cases once a month.

This opinion may seem one sided, but I do understand that it is hard for people who are not used to the smell of a farm, to get used to it, realizing that if the smell goes away it is quite possible that the food goes away as well. In cases such as the Excel dairy case, I think that it is perfectly acceptable the board of health step in if it does become a health problem, but if it is just the smell being a nuisance to the community then I believe that the citizens need to get used to it and let the area farmers do their jobs and continue supplying country with food.

Posted by donne099 at 4:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

As much as people think that appearances help, determine the paycheck in reporting the news I would have to differ. To me, appearances will get you the high paying job, but performance will let you keep it. I liked the quote from Bartiromo when she said, “It’s like comparing Michael Jordan to a Rookie.� This to me explains a lot. Michael Jordan was a talented rookie at one point in his career, but his hard work and effort let him keep the job. It also got him the raise, and the legacy of being the best basketball player to play the game.
However, before we get off track, we have to clear up some assumptions. First, being a news reporter on the busiest news channel and at the busiest time is not a job for a model; it is a job for a professional. Unlike reporting sports games from the sidelines or hosting a television game show, heading The Wallstreet Journal Report, takes a lot of skill and professionalism. Bartiromo has been up to the task with reporting the news to the nearly 800,000 people watching her show daily, and she does it without flinching.

Burnett however, is what Bartiromo called her, a talented rookie, hardly ever are you going to find a news channel take the best show, and give a big fat contract to a “talented rookie.� No, they would rather her develop her skills until they know she can lead, yes she is the youngest person to host her own show while the market is open. She is still the rookie who has barely been on cable for three years.
My prediction is that either CSNBC will resign Bartiromo to a similar contract in terms of payment and length, or they will shorten her contract but give her more money. Either way they are going to keep her as the anchor for The Wallstreet Journal Report. If they shorten her contract, which is, what I will put my money on between the two scenarios I provided, this will indicate to her that she is old news, and that CSNBC is looking for an heir to Bartiromo’s throne.
Then after Bartiromo has left the scene, Burnett will get to step in and start her career as the “street sweetie.� However, this will not be because she is the sweetie, rather it will be because she can do her job effectively. Very few jobs will take beauty before brains, and the jobs that will, have beauty be a requirement such as modeling. Other jobs, such as television anchors, take the brains, and do not require the beauty; they rather get it as a bonus.
It is often wondered why television hosts, are usually very beautiful, and why there are more woman than men. I think the answer is simple; as Americans we spend much of our time staring at the TV. We do not watch the channels that are not pleasing to us, and having an attractive anchor helps make that station pleasing to most people. Network leaders use attractive women to lure viewers into watching their stations, but you see this much more often in game shows, and talk shows. CSNBC is a news channel, and they are relaying important information to the public. If they cannot do this, well they will lose viewers.
Therefore, when it comes to news and other serious talk shows, the ability to relay information becomes more important than the looks of the anchor. However, this does not mean there is no middle ground. It is like affirmative action in a way, but instead of using race to get those extra points, they use the potential employee’s appearance.
Either way still, the looks have only affected whether or not the person will be getting the job, not how much they will be paid. The popularity of the television show and the success of the business will determine the anchors paycheck. If the business is successful, they will make more money, and they will pay the people who are responsible for them being successful more; so they will stay and help the company continue to be successful.
Basically, people say that the attractiveness of a person will get them a higher paycheck, and this may be true in some job fields, but when it comes to a job where a person’s ability to do the job is the most important factor, their performance will be the determining factor when it comes to their paychecks. The appearance will help them get the job over an equally qualified person, or maybe even a more qualified person, but after they get the job, they have to have a good performance, or they will lose their job faster than they got it.

Posted by koski120 at 9:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Concentrated animal feeding operations-CAFOs or factory farms are popping up all over the United States and all over the world. According to www.thedailygreen.com in 1982 there were 3,600 factory farms raising a total of 257 million animals and in 2002 there were 12,000 factory farms raising 890 million animals in the United States. This is due to the raising population in the world. Also the fact that the price of crops were down allowing the price of food to drop. Since the prices of meat were lower people began to eat more pork and the demand for pork increased so more people got into the pork industry to cash in on the booming industry.
With a growing industry come many problems. There are environmental issues and ethical issues. A big problem with these big farms is what do they do with all the waste the animals produce? A farm that is raising 140,000 head of cattle can produce 1.6 million tons of manure every year. This is more than the amount of human waste produced by Houston, Texas. If this waste is not handled correctly it could cause some environmental harm. If the waste makes its way to the nearby lakes and rivers it would make it unsuitable for the public to swim in, undrinkable and it would kill off all of the wildlife in the water. The waters would be full of bacteria and excessive nutrients such as phosphorus.
Another issue with all of this waste is that the waste also produces gases. The animals waste produces ammonia, fine dust and hydrogen sulfide. There materials in the air can cause health problems and respiratory issues for the local public. As of right now the Environmental Protection Agency does not have the data necessary to put the right kind of regulations on factory farms. There has even been talk of limiting or lifting the pollution requirements that apply to air pollutants, also there is talk about limiting the EPA’s ability to penalize factory farms that are polluting the water supply. Representative John Dingell commented on a similar issue by saying, “This GAO study confirms that the Bush Administration's plan to exempt industrial sized animal feeding operations from emissions reporting requirements is nothing more than a favor to Big Agribusiness at the expense of the public health and communities living near these facilities."
I feel that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. It will not be an easy fix and it will take a lot of time to fix. Growing up on a farm I know it is not easy to fix pollution problems and to keep up to date with the new regulations. The Biggest problem for the farmer is to be able to pay off the equipment needed to keep the farm up to date and within the regulations. For these farms that have no systems for the waste will have to pay millions to get the equipment and the correct facilities out in. The question I raise is who should pay for this equipment? Should the farmer have to pay for it or should the government or possibly split the cost.
One other issue that I have read about is that PETA says that the animals are not being treated ethically. According to PETA that farms are over crowding the pens with more animals than they should. As the UN article says the diligent care for animals came from the bible when the shepherds took care of their flock. They had to move their animals to grassy plains to graze and rest then they had to bring them to rivers and streams to drink. They also had to defend wildlife that may try to eat your animals. Now days you do not have to do this, since you raise the crops yourself and harvest them you do not have to be so close to your animals. With modern technology the pens have feed bunks and water cups for them they also get fresh bedding almost every day. Most farmers now days put limits on how many animals they can hold in a pen or how much room they have for feeding.
I know that from growing up on a farm and knowing many others that live on other farms that they take good care of their animals. I feel that every farmer knows his limits on how many animals he or she can hold on his farm to remain productive. Being that the farmers financial status depends on how his farm does therefore the farmer will do whatever that needs to be done to remain productive and remaining ethical to his animals and preventing environmental harm.

Posted by davi1518 at 3:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Imagine that if, while you’re walking down the street with your friends taking pictures, a police officer or security guard came up to you and attempted to take your camera or cell phone from you. What right does he have to do that? According to several articles found on the Internet (Bruch; Nelson), it appears that some security personnel believe that they have the authority to stop, question, and possibly even confiscate materials of people taking pictures in “sensitive� locations. Most of these discussions center around time leading up to and during the Republican National Convention in St. Paul. The articles only show photographers with professional cameras being stopped, but as cameras are placed in nearly everyone’s hands through cheap, compact digital cameras and camera phones, how are our civil rights going to be affected?

Of course, any photographer will be interested and shocked by these events. All of these events have taken place in public locations, and most American’s would see public areas as open to public use, in this case for photography. Security personnel argue that taking pictures of certain locations can be a security risk or give information to terrorists (in the case of the RNC), but according to Bert Krages II, an American lawyer who has written a book on the subject, photography has played a larger role in preventing abuse, crimes, and civil injustices than it has ever contributed to terrorism or acts of violence (“The Photographer’s Rights�). Krages hosts a pamphlet available for download and printing based on the works of the American Civil Liberties Union which gives a general overview of what a photographer’s rights are in public spaces. The most important part to remember is that the rights of photographers only apply in publicly owned areas and in sight from those public areas: when you step on private property, you are bound to obey the wishes of the owners.

The question then becomes what exactly constitutes a public location? In “City reviewing security policies of skyways� by Michelle Bruch, questions have arisen in the Minneapolis skyway system as to whether they are part of public or private property. The city has adopted the policies of the Ampco company which owns many of the parking ramps connected to the skyways, but the city attorney (with help from the state Homeland Security office and Attorney General) are currently reviewing the policies. The issue they aim to resolve is whether the skyways should be treated equivalent to sidewalks or whether they can be treated under special provisions. Currently the policies prohibit actions which impede traffic flow, and that statement is used to restrict “panhandling; craft or food sales; survey taking; running and jumping; skateboarding; photography; and loitering by musicians, students, and employees on lunch break� (Bruch), but local musician Larry Havluck, who was asked to leave his usual performance location in the skyways last year, objects that he never impeded the public’s ability to get around and that because the skyways are publically funded, he has a right to be playing his music in the high-traffic locations (Bruch).

The only way to know for sure what rights we have as photographers is to take the issue to court. Laws can be written and enforced, but a law’s legality can only be determined in court. Some of the most important court cases in American history challenged the established laws of the land: Roe v. Wade legalized abortions by upholding a women’s right to privacy; several court cases determined that all levels of government (not just federal) must abide by the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment; Brown v. Board of Education desegregated schools and led to the ultimate overturning of Plessy v. Ferguson which had deemed segregation legal in the late 19th century. The same fate ultimately applies to photographers. City and state (and maybe even federal) representatives may develop laws which abridge the rights of people to take photographs or perform music in publicly paid-for locations, but those laws can all be overturned if they are challenged. The past has shown that individuals’ rights need to be defended in the face of legislation; we just need to stand up for them, and raising awareness, as the authors of these articles have done, is the best way to make sure that happens.

References

Bruch, Michelle. “City reviewing security policies of skyways.� 2 Oct 2008. MPP Downtown Journal. 23 Sep, 2008. <http://www.downtownjournal.com/index.php?ecMonth=08&ecYear=2008&story=11886&page=65&category=54>

Krages II, Bert P. “The Photographer’s Rights.� 4 Oct 2008. Bert P. Krages Attorney at Law. 2006. <http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm>

Nelson, Time. “A choice of weapons.� 2 Oct 2008. Minnesota Public Radio. 21 Aug 2008. <http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/convention_beat/archive/2008/08/a_choice_of_weapons.shtml>

Riley, Duncan. “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men to do nothing.� 2 Oct 2008. The Inquisitr. 10 Aug 2008. <http://www.inquisitr.com/2281/all-that-is-necessary-for-the-triumph-of-evil-is-that-good-men-do-nothing/>

Posted by will2560 at 11:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Alright so here is a question for the avid problem solver or riddle master, “ What kind of line can save a man’s life and make him a hero at the same time, but can only be found on paper?� Time’s up. If you haven’t already guessed it’s a country’s borderline. A line that protects one man from being punished under penalty of death in one country because he is from another. This is what I believe happened in the Vitali Kaloyev case, but I will go deeper into what I think in a moment.
In February of 2004 the man in question Vitali Kaloyev stabbed a man to death with a five inch blade. The man’s autopsy reported multiple wounds to the face, abdomen, and chest. Vitali reportedly killed this man to avenge his wife and two kids who died in a very sad plane crash where the two planes collided in mid-air. The man Vitali killed was the air traffic controller on the night that the plane that Vitali’s wife and kids were on crashed. Because of this Vitali held the man responsible and wanted after, visiting a memorial to his family a year after their death, some sort of reparation. Vitali later said in court, �I only went to get an apology for him, but I don’t even remember anything about our meeting.� A panel of psychologists concluded that this wasn’t probable because after analyzing Vitali he had no mental problems and seemed absolutely fine based on tests they had run. Still Vitali persisted in court that he hadn’t intended on murdering this man while his victim’s children watched in horror! In the end though he was only sentenced to eight years of prison by the Russian courts on charges of unintentional manslaughter. After being in prison for two years Vitali was released on good behavior and returned to Ossetia (Russian Province) a hero. He was praised by his country and government and was even voted as Ossetian of the year. Even during his trial he had many government supporters and now that he was out his following had grown. Vitali received a government job as Deputy Building Minister of North Ossetia.
Now only a month ago Vitali again returned to “his country’s call� when Georgia reportedly attacked Ossetia soil. After hearing Vitali “got into his ministerial car and drove through the Caucasus mountains to join his fellow-Ossetians.�(Times Online, 2008) He only stayed a day but again made the news for his “valiant efforts� for his country. Vitali in an interview later said, “Whoever hits me, is hit back.�(Times Online, 2008)
So now I ask the question, how can it be that our societies of today can find a man that can murder another in front of the murdered man’s children be considered a hero instead of a man that should be in prison for life? To what extent do we owe our own devices to the current way our world society functions because this isn’t just a global issue? There exists a great deal of animosity between countries and this animosity seems to make up for any deed that is wicked to another country and increases the brutality when harm is done to your own country by another. This animosity also exists between states, provinces, and even sporting teams. Now I am not against a friendly rivalry but when it becomes an extreme such as is the case of Vitali Kaloyev I think action needs to be taken. Really how can we preach about ethnic diversity to our youth when now we persecute in a different way. We categorize by where another person lives and treat them accordingly. It has been this way for as long as history has been written, but in our world of today it grows as an increasing concern. Really I guess I am just repeating a question that has been repeated a million times throughout history a hundred different ways, but to me it certainly seems to be the issue in this case. What Vitali did was under no circumstances justifiable. The air traffic controller did what he could to prevent the crash with equipment that was malfunctioning unbeknown to him. This was not an act of an eye for an eye or anything that could make Vitali’s act seem justifiable to a small degree. He murdered a man because he felt grief and anger. His emotions were pointed to another person and he took it out on that person. But when the country saw Vitali they saw a man that was wronged by another country and took up for his cause.
In any case this is just how I viewed the case and sad story of Vitali Kayolev. What he did was something that a man should be punished for in a way unlike the events which have transpired, but again who are we to decide.

Posted by micha315 at 9:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)