Public Opinions

As time goes by, ways of living, and working, and providing for basic needs are modified to adapt to the technological advancements of the day. As technology has advanced, methods of acquiring necessities such as food are revolutionized as well. One such instance in which this is apparent is through the use of food shipping. Prior to the modernization of farming and transportation, food had to be grown, for the most part locally- people were raised eating local food and that is what they grew up to feed their own families as well. It wasn’t until much later did farming begin to be revolutionized to adapt to the demand of the population and improve productivity, and shipping processes were used to transport food from one area of the globe to be sold in markets in another. The modernization of farming has supplied people around the world with exotic foods from faraway places, and has made the economy all the more strong.
However, while the process of growing food in areas that they develop most prominently and shipping it to different regions to be sold was once a revolutionary concept and economic staple, it has recently become the object of conviction by many activists and environmentalists. The gasses and waste products emitted by the vessels of transportation necessary for the process of food transport are seen as a threat to the ozone layer, and thusly contributors to global warming. Although transport by boat or ship is a slower process, more food can be transported by this method and less gasses are emitted into the atmosphere than those coming from air transport. Regardless, activists and environmentalists insist that the answer is localized food consumption. Eating local eliminates the need for food transport entirely.
Although this is the case, eating local does not simply eliminate food transport without a cost. Perhaps there is less pollution emitted by airplanes and ships as they would have come from the mobilization of internationally grown food products, however it will not eliminate waste from such forms of transportation altogether. As long as people need to get from one place to another, at least until an alternate, reliable fuel source is discovered or developed, there will be waste products released into the atmosphere by vehicles. Simply stopping the need for food transportation will not stop the need for transportation of all other sorts, and therefore is not a simple fix for global warming. Perhaps it is a step in the right direction from the point of view of environmental activists, but much more would need to follow in step for this to be a truly effective movement.
Not only are there other drives for transportation that would need to be considered before any real steps can be taken towards preventing global warming beyond that of food transport, but other food development issues arise as well. Producing foods locally often requires specialized processes and equipment that in themselves can emit just as much greenhouse gasses as would have been released during the transfer process. Not to mention that it is much more productive to grow plants in regions that they are most prosperous. Environmentally, the idea of eliminating food transport as means of preventing global warming leaves much to be desired, and its de-modernization of farming and transportation would pose as a technological step backwards.

Posted by lamp0125 at 11:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The N-word has been used for decades, and always brings some controversy or discussion with it. Using the N-word usually comes with a price, and depending on what race you are, the price you pay is very different. Raquel Cepeda discusses the rising use of the N-word among Latinos of the hip hop generation.

Hip hop artists, members of a league traditionally and mostly inhabited by black people, have been using the N-word in their recordings since the beginning. Latinos have been gaining ground in the hip hop industry, with artists like Fat Joe, Immortal Technique, and Big Pun all using the N-word. Now the word can be heard on any street in the Latin areas of New York City. Questions arise about who is allowed to use the word, who is black, white, Latino? What does the word mean: insult, joke, or as Fat Joe would call it, term of endearment?

The use of the N-word by black people is said to be a reminder of their oppression, and how they were once slaves. Juan Flores, Professor at New York University says that the use of the N-word by Latinos is a reminder that they too went through oppression. The N-word has also grown to be a part of hip hop culture. If black hip hop artists are using the word, why can’ Latino hip hop artists?

Professor Flores brings up two basic viewpoints on the usage of the N-word. Some think that anyone can use it whenever they want because through time and usage it has acquired a different meaning. The opposite are those who thing that the word can never be used under any circumstances because it has negative connotations in every context.

The women of The View weighed in on the topic when it came in the news that Jesse Jackson has used the N-word. An exchange between a white and black woman came up that has probably occurred thousands of times, and, to me, illustrates the core conversation and problem of the use of the N-word by white and black people:
White: “It’s not a word that should be used.�
Black: “Don’t tell me I can’t use that word, ‘cause I use it.�
White: “So you’re telling me that I can’t use the word?�
Black: “It’s not the same as when I use it.�
This classic conversation creates the underlying question of why black people, and increasingly Latinos, “can� use the N-word and white people “cannot.�

“It means something way different to me than it does to you,� says black woman, Sherri Shepard. Whoopi Goldberg agrees, “This is a word that has meaning when you give it meaning.� Elizabeth Hasselbeck, a conservative white woman disagrees with the use of the N-word by anyone. “I would never go into my own heritage and use a word that is used against me [...] I think that it perpetuates stereotypes and hate.� This feeling of stereotype and hatred no doubt comes from when white people would use the N-word in a hateful way, as some still do. It was a way to promote the dominance of white people.

Now Hasselbeck poses a final question: “How are we supposed to move forward if we keep using terms that bring back that pain?� While Hasselbeck sees the word as a potential means of separation and pain, Goldberg sees the word as a sort of symbol of progress. She explains, “Basically we took it out of the hands of the people who were using it and put it into our hands and we use it the way that we want to use it.�

So when is the word acceptable to use the N-word and when is it not? As a white person, I avoid using it. To me, it is a cultural term that poses a double standard: it is ok for black people to use it, but not for white people. Of course it is not as simple as that. Underneath the black/white label, there is the issue of context. When the N-word is used mutually, as a term of endearment, from the inside, it is ok. When used from the outside, it is considered an insult and should not be used. Society, for now, needs to accept the way things are with the N-word. So how do you know if you can use it? Black? Yes. White? No. Latino? Only if you have enough street cred.

Posted by nold0020 at 8:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

During the November election proposition eight, rescinding the vote on same sex marriage, was passed. In the special edition by Keith Olbermann he adamantly explains why the passage of this proposition is “horrible, just horrible.� Furthermore, he states that this is not “a question of right or wrong, gay or straight, it is a question of love.� This is not a position defending whether same sex marriage should be allowed or not, but more a position on whether a person wants to take away another’s right to love unconditionally.

The special edition news feed by Olbermann was well put together. Olbermann conveyed a realistic message with real statistics. His discussion overall intrigued me because this was the first time I had heard the discussion about same sex marriage put on a pedestal about love, not right or wrong. My thoughts on same sex marriage have always been in favor. The thought of discrimination against a certain group of people by taking their rights away, to me, is uncalled for. By posing this as a question of love, I am even more steadfast in my feeling that same sex marriage should be legalized across the United States.

It is unfair that a person can have a view of something, like same sex marriage, to the point where they will vote against the rights of that person to show their expression of love for another. Olbermann stated it best when he said “all you need to do now is stand and let the little ember of love meet it’s own fate, you don’t have to help it, you don’t have to applaud it, you don’t have to fight for it, just don’t put it out.� Because some people don’t feel that same sex marriage is appropriate, or the fact that it is against how they feel, they have no right to say that others should not be granted the same right to marriage as they themselves. Love is the same wherever a person goes. Whoever love is between, it is still the same love that a man and woman share, the same love a man and man share, the same love two women share, love of a couple.

Another statistic that struck me as interesting is the fact that only fifty percent of all marriages will survive no matter how hard they try. The excitement that those who cannot get married get from the thought of having a fifty percent marriage compared to that of those who are just excited to know that they can get married strikes me as an excellent example. Why strip someone of their undeniable right to love who they want to, and express that love just like we have the right to do. Even if there is only a fifty percent chance that a gay persons relationship may survive, I’m sure they would snatch that up. Furthermore, I’m sure if they had a marriage that had a twenty percent chance of lasting, it would excite them just the same.

The love that God has for his children is considered an agápe. Agápe means unconditional love. Without conditions God will always love us. Love is something that without asking for forgiveness God will give to each and every one of us. So why must we stop others from loving who they want. We are going against our own book by saying that same sex marriage is wrong because of what a book says, because no matter what book from what God you read, I am sure that it states that “your neighbor shall be treated like yourself,� and that you should “love one another.� Do not take away these undeniable rights that God has set forth for us. These are not rights that are in our constitution or rights that are stated somewhere, they are rights that each and every living person has due to life.

Same sex marriage should be allowed. Not because I believe that it is unlawful by our constitution, but because this goes against all that every person on this earth stands for. Clarence Darrow defended young men in a murder case, pledging for their life because of the unconditional love we shall have for people. He didn’t necessarily agree with what the boys did; yet he didn’t think that their lives should end because of it. The boys had the right to love, as do every one of us. In an old parable by Omar Khayyam he states the following: “So I be written in the book of love, I don’t care about that book above, erase my name or write it as you will, so I be written in the book of love.� Simply, love overrides anything, including thoughts of right or wrong.

Posted by mulhe020 at 8:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

The “N� word controversy is one that has no easy answer to it, to sound cliché and for lack of a better way to state the difficult of this discussion. The word started as a derogatory term to beat down the morale and mental health of those of African American who were enslaved in the Americas and other places in the world. Since then it has evolved through time into a word that is used to refer to a person that you are close to or have a well developed relationship with in African American culture. The controversy arose when it was introduced into pop culture and other ethnicities started finding the word okay to use without any knowledge of the repercussions.
For me this is a controversy that I can relate to and I have experienced as I am sure there are many other people who can. For seven years of my life I lived in almost exclusively black neighborhoods and most of my friends were African American. Can you guess how I felt about that as a kid? I didn’t care for me it was no different than any other place I had lived, there was people, there was houses, and there was nothing different from any place to another except the dialects changed from region to region. In this case the “N� word was used on occasion by people I knew and it was even directed at me by some friends that I had because that was just the way it was. Men used to talk to me like I was any other kid, but when that word came out one time they had a talk with me about how I should be discrete about whom I say it too, when, and where. They told me that it wasn’t a word I should use in any instance, but could get away with it with those that I knew were my best friends and saw it as a, well a form of endearment I guess.
I think the word should be eliminated from all languages in time, but right now no one can take that away from African American culture but those that belong to that culture because the pain from indecencies suffered and still suffered are still fresh and festering. This discussion isn’t going to end until there is a balance to be reached like there was talk of on the video clip and the pendulum will continue to swing, but it’s hard to say how these things really should be handled. For now as all I can say is that it truly does need to be removed from the media and pop culture or at the least an understanding driven into the hearts of those that would considering using that word without knowing how the word would be received by those that would hear it from certain lips. The word has no place in the public eyes or ears it is a word that is used by a culture to remind themselves of what they have been through together and to hopefully unify to struggle through till a balance of living is reached. The word though still is used in ways that it should not be in all cultures be it black or another. Because when it is used in anger there is only way for it to be received and that usage can only tear open old wounds to bleed anew. This is a challenge, a demographic and a linguistic challenge that society has never really had to come to grips with on such a scale, but it does need to be handled. The problem doesn’t end with outside cultures cease of using the word as that can clearly be seen. For the problem to finally come to a resolution it would seem that hate would have to be stricken from the hearts that fight to separate races. This discussion could go on forever and the things I have talked about don’t even scratch the surface, but are about as far as I can delve without embarrassing myself to a degree of shame.

Posted by micha315 at 6:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

New focus has been given, in England on the environmental aspects of growing food. Many environmental activists have begun a campaign to reduce the distance the food at supermarkets travel before sale. My studies have refuted the causes for the local foods movement. With new theories about greenhouse gas production from the farm industry being developed, programs are developed to reduce the environmental effects.

Global warming has brought focus onto all areas of countries' economies. With the food prices fluctuating in all western countries, attention has been diverted to the affects farming has had not global warming. One of the areas under attack it the shipping of foods from other countries. The shipping of foods from thousands of miles away causes significant greenhouse gases to be emitted, especially from air transport. A new food rating scale was invented to address the number of miles the food had traveled before reaching the store. In this was many local activists could choose to buy only local foods which created less gas from transport than other foods. Local foods also support many people in the local economies and make England less dependent on others for certain types of food. The new rating system led to a new craze of growing locally to minimize outside transportation of foods.

This trend of local foods has prompted many studies to be conducted on the environmental benefits of growing locally. However, the resulting information from the studies contradicts theory of environmental benefit from growing locally. One such study showed that food transportation only accounted for one percent of the greenhouse gas emissions of the country. This was far less gas production than if England grew all the foods locally due to the necessity of greenhouses to grow the foods year round. Other ways that make it advantageous to grow certain foods in other areas of the world are that plants grow more easily in certain areas due to soil and climate differences. An example of this advantageous growth is that it would cost nearly four times as much energy to grow bananas in England as it would be in Costa Rica, which makes the much smaller shipping cost more logical. Food miles do not include the increases gas production from growing the food in an unyielding climate.

Another critical aspect in food production is the economic repercussions of growing food locally. One of the rules of economics is that whatever a country can produce most efficiently is what they should produce. The best example for this relationship is the production possibilities cure which demonstrates the best ways for each country to produce goods. This makes sure that the maximum output is reached and laborers and wasted in producing less efficient goods. Without maximum efficiency capital is lost in the economy.

Global warming is one of the most threatening situations of the twenty-first century. This makes our reduction of greenhouse gases very important in order to secure the future of the next generation. However, flight miles of food cause much more greenhouse gases to be releases due to farming in harsh environments for certain plants. The drastic differences in energy costs to produce the food make it logical to ship food in and not to grow the food locally. The monetary benefits also support the practice of shipping food from other countries. Due to the principals of economics the only way we can maximize our resources is by making the crops that grow favorably in our country and other countries growing the crops the grow well in their climate. Therefore the stickers indicating the number of travel miles is a very poor estimate on the amount of greenhouse gases that were used to produce the food and should be removed in order to eliminate confusion by the consumer.

Instead of using stickers a consumer could reduce greenhouse gas production by buying foods that are in season. During a crops season is the time in which energy costs to produce it are at the lowest. Another way to reduce gases would be to preserve your own food to reduce refrigeration costs for your food.

The new information on global warming has lead to a focus on the contributions each industry gives to the output of greenhouse gases. The food industries shipping costs have lead to a buy local policy in England. This new view on foods has lead to an increase in greenhouse input due to the energy required to grow certain foods locally. The stickers should be removed on the grounds that the information they provide is an inexact estimate on the gas actually used to produce the food.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/129855.html

http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics2.asp

Posted by lage0062 at 11:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

“The Food Miles Mistake� by Ronald Bailey is an enlightening look into the world of organic and local food production. There were many ideas that were brought to my mind; predominantly those of food production in greenhouses (in unsuitable climates), as well as facts regarding the environmental impact of different types of local food production. However, this report is extremely biased on some points. It fails to uncover points in this debate about the economic impact of local and non-local food production, and remains focused on the environmental aspect.

Bailey attempts to emphasize the importance of growing agricultural commodities in appropriate climates, “Kenyan cut rose growers emit 6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per 12,000 roses compared to the 35 tons of carbon dioxide emitted by their Dutch competitors. Kenyan roses grow in sunny fields whereas Dutch roses grow in heated greenhouses.� At the same time, Bailey does not recognize the possibility that although those rose fields in Kenya are more environmentally productive than the Dutch fields, they may be less economically productive. The Kenyan rose farms may be on land that could be arable for more locally relevant food crops, in order to help combat the food shortages in areas of Africa. The production of the roses in Kenya for export, may directly impact the ensuing food crises in that area.

In his article, Bailey does make it clear that the environmental impact of locally raising agricultural products in a less than favorable climate is vast. The difference between transportation versus greenhouses is logically presented in the rose example – 36 metric tons to 5 metric tons. But the question must be asked, what is more important in this day and age? Leading countries and corporations must take a proper stance upon environmental or economic productivity, in order to combat the problems created by both. Bailey does effectively demonstrate, unknowingly, that the two (environmental productivity and economic productivity) do not go hand in hand, “rich country subsidies amounting to more than $300 billion per year are severely distorting global agricultural production and trade. If the subsidies were removed, far more agricultural goods would be produced in and imported from developing countries, helping lift millions of people out of poverty.� It is entirely likely that the Kenyan roses are produced in Kenya because of subsidies from corporations and/or governments. I find it hard to believe that a farmer in Kenya, possibly faced with personal poverty or communal poverty will choose to produce roses when a local grain or other food staple would be more viable – in order to feed his family and community.

Conversely, Bailey’s points regarding the over-zealousness of some local food production supporters are relevant. It is notable in today’s society; of course I am speaking from a perspective of the United States, that some trains of environmentalism are devoid of logic in favor of green fervor. In some circumstances, it has become popular or trendy to support leftist policies on the environment. All possibilities must be considered in the environmental debate. It may be that green retailers are appealing to these trends by selling locally produced foods, even if they are less environmentally sound. This is far from where the environmental movement should be; it is a departure from the values that form the basis of environmentalism. However, I am in no way degrading these policies, it is obvious that sustainability is vital to the future of this planet (if it accounts for the livelihood of all persons).

To conclude, logical gaps in the production of agricultural commodities must be placed within societal discourse. We must not live under the façade of green or locally produced foods, if those foods are less productive than other methods. In opposition, sustainability is one of the most significant movements of our time, and should be appreciated for its moral high ground – all possibilities considered.

Posted by olso4759 at 5:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

The N-word has been around for a long time. I even saw the word used a bunch in the You Have Seen Their Faces book that we read in class. At first it was used to name African-Americans. Now it has all types of uses from nicknames, pronouns, and words of endearment. The point is people use it way to frequently and way out of context. It is almost like a contest to see how many times they can say the N-word in a sentence to one another. The people that have been labeled as using it the most were the gangsters. Now according to Raquel Cepeda, who wrote an article on the N-word, that hip-hop Latinos are using it. She asks the question, do they have the right to say this word to each other?

First off, we should not be using this word at all. In my mind it is still very racist because it built up enough steam during the slavery and civil rights era that it makes me cringe every time I hear it. They are using the word to the point that it almost isn’t even profanity anymore. To me, this is like using the B-word so much that it becomes ok. I don’t care how they use it or why they use it; they should just not be using it.
Second, if people are going to use it, who decides if they can use it or not? Raquel Cepeda seems to classify the use of the word by your race. She doesn’t think that Latinos can use it because they are not as dark skinned as African-American. Well for one thing Raquel that is being prejudice. If you are saying that only one group of people can use a word, even if it is the N-word, based on their skin color. Well that is just wrong. According to David G. Myers, author of Psychology, he defines prejudice as an unjustifiable attitude toward a group and its members. He also defines a stereotype as a generalized belief about a group of people. Raquel falls within each one of those definitions.
One time my mom and I were in a store near Milwaukee and three African-Americans walked in the store. They were standing behind my mom and I in the check-out aisle. All of a sudden they start talking to each other like this: “What’s up my nigga�, “Oh my nigga that was so tight� and so on. So my mom and I check out and walk outside. My mom immediately says what do you think they would have done if I would have just turned around and said what’s up niggas? For one thing, I was in shock and awe that my mom said that, secondly, it got me thinking, would they get angry if a white person would say that to them? Even if they were using it to each other just seconds earlier?
Another question that gets raised is why do they call each other the N-word? Years ago during the slavery and civil rights era, they would have hated to have been called that. Now they throw it around to each other like nothing. AZ, a half-African-American, half-Dominican rapper, says, “I guess people use the word to get press and all that.� The Boricua rapper Fat Joe says that he uses the word as an endearment. To me, if they have to use the word to get attention or as endearment, which I still can’t get over, then that is just sad. There are so many other words out there that can be used to get attention or to use as endearment.
This is one reason why I cannot stand rap music. It seems like all they do is rhyme swear words while someone lays down a beat. It is like they don’t have the talent to make other words rhyme with each other. Now to me, real talent is rapping without swearing, but to me, they don’t have that type of talent.
Thus, the use of this N-word should stop. The more we use it, the more it becomes ok to use. I do not want to hear people that are close to me to start using it like it is nothing. I am sure I won’t but who knows. Also, if the word is kept on being used, then someday our kids will be hearing it and will think it is ok to use. Remember on “Meet the Fockers� when Jack says ass-hole and then little Jack starts using it. You get my point.

Cepeda, Raquel. "The N-Word Is Flourishing Among Generation Hip-Hop Latinos." The Villiage Voice. 21 Oct. 2008. 20 Nov. 2008 http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-10- 22/music/the-n-word-is-flourishing-among-generation-hip-hop-latinos/1.
Meyers, David G. Psychology. 8th ed. (2007):

Posted by mill3982 at 7:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

One new thing that is become a topic of debate is the use of cloning to allow people to have the same pet over and over again. The article talks about a man who is walking dogs and is talking to a woman and he tells her they are clones. She thinks the man I joking. The three puppies were created in a commercial animal laboratory in Korea. They were created from tissue that was collected in the 1990’s. These dogs were the end result of a 10 year project costing around $25 million. This makes them the most expensive pets in the world. Hawthorne is offering the opportunity for five pet owners to get their pets cloned. The pet owners who wished to do so had to by their way into the cloning. The opening bid started at $100,000 and they went for $140,000 to $170,000.
The idea of changing pets or forming them to the way we want is not a new idea. This has been going on for the last 15,000 years. The reason why dogs are so loved and easily changed is because of their malleability. If it was not so easy to change them they would still be running around in the wild as wolves. Cloning is the next step in a process that is going on since the late Paleolithic era. This allows pet owners new possibilities. If you have a pet and you really like it you can go to a breeder and get very similar genetics but if you neutered your dog this is not possible. This is where cloning steps in and offers a new option to those pet owners.
One reason people are looking into this idea is the varieties of mixed breeds. There are so many variations of breeds and if someone finds a combination that they like and they want to keep it cloning is an option for them to be able to keep having dog of that variation. I know many people where they had bought a mixed mutt and they wish they could get a dog just like it again and they tried finding that variation again but just couldn’t find one.
Hawthorne says that cloning is not reincarnation, but its more than just similar markings. He thought that his first clone would just be all about looks and maybe someday behavioral similarities. Hawthorne said that “it’s a much more visceral experience than that-the feel, the smell. When they first handed me Mira in Korea, you could see the look of genuine astonishment on my face.�(1). Cloning is one way to make people happy and increase their happiness in their life.
I currently have mixed feelings about this new technology. I feel that it is a good thing for people to be able to be happy. If people are willing to pay the big price tag to be happy that is their choice. The only thing that worries is the number of dogs it takes to make just one clone. They have to use multiple dogs for each step in the process. This is causing a lot of debate amongst the people are who are really worried about animal rights. I feel that if they allow cloning to continue they should put strong regulations on what they can and cannot do. Also they should regulate how the dogs are treated.
On the other hand I feel that we do not need to breed more cats and dogs. The U.S. is currently over populated with pets. Everyday there are more than 50,000 puppies and kittens born each day. For every pet that has a home there are four companion animals that are homeless, neglected, or abused. Animal shelters are over flooded with pets and are having to put them down to make room. 30 to 60 percent of America’s animal shelters have to put animals down each year; this is roughly 4 to 6 million animals (2). I know that this service will make many people happy, but it will only be the rich people who can afford it. The average Joe blow will not be able to afford to clone his dog fluffy. Unless they get they get new technology to lower the cost of doing this cloning. Eventually there will be common practices all over the United States and the world offering this service to the average person but until then it will be for only those who have the money to spend on a clone. The only issue that I feel will be the biggest topic of debate over this is the ethical rights to do this and the amount of animals it takes to make one clone.
Sources:
1) http://www.reason.com/news/show/128654.html
2) http://www.dogsonly.org/DogPopulation.html

Posted by davi1518 at 4:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I thought that this was a very interesting discussion about the use of the word nigger in today’s society. The reason why the discussion is so interesting, is because the subject is difficult and makes many people uncomfortable. Even in writing this position statement, I feel uncomfortable putting the word on the paper, because of that feeling that I might be offending some body. What I really liked about this discussion on The View was that both sides of the discussion really tried to dig to the core of the problem. I thought that both Whoopi Goldberg and Elizabeth Hassleback made good points, however I thought that they both missed some key elements of the discussion.
Elizabeth Hassleback was the lady who argued that nigger should not be used by anyone, even black people themselves. Her point was that the use of this word brings back bad memories and thoughts, and that it obstructs the goal of having a more equal society. I think that this is a great point she is getting to, but her presentation and view are a little naïve. It is probably very easy for Elizabeth Hassleback not to use the word nigger. She even said her self that she grew up in a traditional Polish and Italian family. This word was probably never used in her family and she has probably always seen it as a word that cannot be said. That is why she has such a one sided in her approach to the word.
I think that many white people grow up with the same understanding of the word nigger as Elizabeth Hassleback. We learn at a fairly early age that this is a bad word and should never be used, period. That is why sometimes, we become confused when we hear it used when black people are talking with or about each other. I think that we have to understand that for the most part we have grown up differently then many people of color. Even if we are on the same economic level, they still will have different experiences then us, as all families of any do. My philosophy from a white person’s perspective is that I will never use the word publically or privately. When I hear it used amongst African Americans, it does not bother me in any way. I understand that it comes from a totally different context, and it is not my responsibility or right to tell them what they can or cannot say.

Whoopi Goldberg was the woman who made the best points on the side, that African Americans should be able to use the word nigger as they like. Her point behind this being that it was once a word of hate that African Americans now use almost as a term of endearment. Now obviously I am not African American, so I have only limited personal knowledge on the subject, but for the most part I agree with Whoopi Goldberg’s reasons for using the word. However I did think that Elizabeth Hassleback made a good point at the end of the discussion about how the word slows down the goal of reaching an equal society. I watched the tape twice, and I don’t’ think that Whoopi really had a legitimate answer to this question. She kept on making the point about the story of her family and how and how Mrs. Hassleback couldn’t understand the experience. Now, I totally agree that Elizabeth Hassleback can’t understand that experience, but I think she was right when she said we should all move on from our ugly past, and start a new trend in the future.
I think that as the American people move farther and farther away from the foolish and terrible events of our early history in dealing when minorities, it will become time to drop all the racial slurs. I am not saying that we should forget what has happened in history. In fact it is something that we need to remember, because it helps us see how far we have come, and it gives us hope for an even better America in the future. This is why, when talking about this subject on the word nigger, we need to use the ideas of both Mrs. Hassleback and Mrs. Goldberg. On Whoopi’s side, we as white Americans could do a better job trying to have a broader view on world issues. However, I think that all Americans of every color need to start thinking in way where color is not an issue in any way.

Posted by tipp0013 at 8:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

In an article published in the New York Times, documentary filmmaker Errol Morris discusses the various ways that political campaigns have used real people ads over the course of the last half-century. Morris begins with discussing the campaign of Dwight D. Eisenhower and his opponent Adlai Stevenson. In the Eisenhower the commercial a young female asks supposedly spontaneous questions to Eisenhower and then he responds. In the Stevenson commercial a very well poised woman gives a testimonial of why she is voting for Stevenson. These commercials are very well rehearsed and it shows. But Morris argues that in its day the commercials were effective. Morris then moves to the 1960 election and an ad for John F. Kennedy. The commercial shows Kennedy stopping over to an average American family home, the Stills family, and off the cuff discusses the financial problems that the family is facing. The ad is supposed to seem candid but comes off very rehearsed and cold. He continues with the 1972 election and describes a commercial for Gerald Ford. The commercial is a man on the street commercial. A man on the street commercial being where people are stopped on the street and asked whom they are voting for and why. But this commercial is slightly different; the people that are being interviewed are democrats who are going to vote for republican Gerald Ford. The commercial also shows a diverse range of people, a businessman, a black female, and an average working man. The commercial is effective because the people are not coached and the environment is not staged. Morris then moves to the 1980 election and a commercial for Jimmy Carter. The commercial shows a woman from rural Oklahoma stating how Jimmy Carter is a peacemaker. The commercial is very good because the woman is real and her feelings and emotions are real and that shows up in the commercial. The next commercial is from the 1984 election, and shows Reagan on his famous cross-country train tour. The commercial shows average American towns people stopping their daily life to go and see Reagan on the train. The commercial is somewhat convincing but could be more effective if we heard from the people instead of the narrator. Morris then moves to more recent history and the 2004 election and discusses the swift boat campaign of John Kerry. These commercials showed the men that served with John Kerry in Vietnam disproving what Kerry had said about his service in Vietnam. These commercials are very effective because they provide first person testimony, which translates to having voters automatically believe the veterans being interviewed. Morris concludes with the last election and reviews the self-ads and some ads he created. The self-ads are people creating their own ads for a candidate with a web cam or video camera. He states that these ads are not very effective. The ads that Morris created are of different people stating why they are voting for Obama. In all the article is very insightful of the types of political advertising and how they are used and the history of political advertising. In my opinion political advertising is very misguiding. Ideally the voter could find non-bias information on the candidate and make and educated decision before voting, but sadly this is not the case. The ads discussed in the article are in some way deceiving and bias. This political advertising is in no way the best way to communicate information to the voters. But not heavily mentioned in the article is attack advertising. Attack advertising in the lowest and ugliest form of political advertising and in my opinion totally unnecessary. If a candidate cannot convince and inspire voters with their knowledge, skills, and experience then the candidate does not deserve the votes.

Posted by suess015 at 1:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

    With a high expected voter turnout and problematic elections in the past, notably in 2000 and 2004; this year’s voting system was under heavy pressure to compete at its best. In an attempt to help solve many of the problems faced in the Presidential Elections, Nancy Scola and Allison Fine proposed the usage of an online Twitter based system as solution to continually report voting experience data. With the help of many programmers and web designers, the site Twitter Vote Report was created.

    The Twitter Vote Report project began as a blog entry by Nancy Scola and Allison Fine. Voter caging, miss leading fliers, faulty machinery, long waits due to poorly trained poll workers are just a few of the problems election day could hold (1). These problems are often a result of lack in communication and knowledge.

    As a solution to help keep people informed and prevent such slowdowns, one of the best forms of communication is the internet, specifically micro-blogging systems such as Twitter. As an established stable system, Twitter allows for 140 characters or less posts to be sent quickly from person-to-person, person-to-many, and many-to-many.

    By using a flexible twitter based system, it was possible to create a website dedicated to reporting the status of voting polls and voter experience around the country. The system was designed so that messages could be sent and received in the form of text, SMS, and voice. This enabled voters to relay information about their poll status from pocket devices such as cell phones. All the data received was then dynamically aggregated and presented in real time using the Google Maps interface.

Much of twitter’s power comes from its flexible design. As problems come up, volunteers and activists can organize on the fly to get information out. Twitter could act as a form of mobile legal aid. If voting problems arise messages could be sent privately to groups designed specifically for guidance. Answers to these questions could either be sent privately or broadcasted to all users.

    During Election Day, Twitter could be used to help monitor and manage the wait times at polling places. Voters at polling stations could send an SMS message to the Twitter Vote Report system letting people know the estimated wait. Poll wait times could be found on the dynamic Google Map along with any other problems that may be occurring at the poll. To prevent mass confusion, messages that are received are subject to review by the Twitter Vote Report administrators.

    I agree with Scola and Fine main point, that there are major problems with communication among voters and polling sites. With several communication based problems occurring in the past and an immense increase in younger voters, I think the building of such a system was in the right path. Many young voters are already technologically savvy making the process of sending text or SMS messages straightforward.

    In the blog proposing the Twitter based system, Scola and Fine use the example of the college kids in Virginia’s Montgomery County as an example of a lack in communication power among students. On August 27, 2008, news broke out that voting in the state may jeopardize their student loans and scholarships (2). If there had been a central hub on Twitter for voter communication, information could have been transferred easily and the chaos ensued could have been avoided. During Election Day, the Twitter Vote report proved to be highly successful. A Twitter user @wellstoneaction tweeted that a polling place in Minnesota was difficult to find due to “road closures and a lack of signsâ€?(3). The voter’s complaint was picked up by the Twitter Vote Report site and within minutes of his message, he was contacted by a member of the Election Protection in Minnesota who ended up solving the issue (3). The Twitter Vote Report service was an invaluable tool for Election Protection, which fielded numerous complaints, and kicked off 20 investigations due to reports that came in from the service (3).

    Although the Twitter Vote Report served as an aid to many investigations and complaints, it fell into criticism. In the article Post-Election Analysis of The Twitter Vote Report, the author Bob Conrad argued that “few conclusions can be drawn other than that the data, and their criteria for acceptance, are essentially a messâ€?(4). He argued that this was due in part to “a minority of users dominating the public Twitter streamâ€?(4). Although I agree improvement could be made on certain aspects such as the number of users and subjectivity of posts, the opposing points Conrad argued with failed to indentify the true purpose of the Twitter project. According to one of the organizers at the Twitter Vote Report,

“The goal was to get a report of what was going on at polling places around the country and we did that in a new and innovative way. This was an all volunteer project with no money or resources around so I think it’s fair to point out flaws but that's about it. The reason the data is transparent is so that people like you can look at it and improve upon it for future use. The goal is to show everyone what we did so that more people can work on it and improve it.�(5)

    Although there were faults with the system, I think ultimately the Twitter Vote Report project was a great step in the right direction. For a system designed in just three weeks (6), it’s impressive to see the collaboration among volunteers from both parties. It’s a prime example of the power of modern day social networking tools. Although there is a need for improvement, the Vote Report system is off to a great start. Even though the sending of SMS and text messages may not be something many elderly folks would take part in, teaching older people who are interested how to use such systems would be straight forward. The number of young and technically savy voters is rapidly growing and by using systems such as Twitter to aid in complex resource management during Election Day, people can stay informed and resources can be maximized.

Works Cited:
1. Nancy Scola and Allison Fine - Twitter: An Antidote to Election Day Voting Problems? http://www.nancyscola.com/2008/10/twitter_an_antidote_to_electio.html

2. Elizabeth Redden - Warning for College Student Voters, http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/09/03/voting

3. Terrence O'Brien - Twitter Helps Out With Election Irregularities, http://www.switched.com/2008/11/05/twitter-helps-out-with-election-irregularities/

4. Bob Conrad - The Twitter Vote Report Analysis of Nevada’s Post-Election Data http://thegoodthebadthespin.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/twitttervotereportdataanalysis.pdf

5. Jesse Stay - Reno Bloggers Slam TwitterVoteReport After Limited Analysis http://www.louisgray.com/live/2008/11/reno-bloggers-slam-twittervotereport.html

6. Allyson Kapin - Twitter Vote Report Offers Real-Time Democracy on Election Day, http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/allyson-kapin/radical-tech/twitter-vote-report-offers-real-time-democracy-election-day

Posted by dsaxx005 at 2:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

In recent news, a commercial animal laboratory located in Korea developed a procedure that involves using tissue from an adult dog to create cloned puppies. While the article did not go into much detail about the actual process, its main focus was major opposing and supporting sides of the issue.

Lou Hawthorne, head of BioArts International, spent approximately 10 years and $25 million creating clones of his mother’s adored mixed-breed dog. Although the dog died in 2002, a sample of tissue was collected in the ‘90s, and this tissue was then used to make three cloned dogs. These dogs are not only physically similar with the same coloring and markings, but also exhibit similar behavioral characteristics. With this recent technology, Hawthorne is now “auctioning� off the opportunity for five pet owners to clone their beloved dogs, thus creating a sort of elixir of life – at a cost. The bidders ended up paying a price somewhere between $140,000 and $170,000.

Supporters of pet cloning argue that “canine fabrication� is not a new idea. For the last 15,000, humans have shaped dogs to better serve human interests. Dogs evolved from wolves, so it is their ability to be easily domesticated and shaped that makes them dogs. Originally, there weren’t different purebred breeds or popular mixed breeds. These are “modern inventions� that were made by breed standards in order to make dogs more useful, physically attractive, compatible, and enjoyable to be around. Supporters also assure that the dogs are treated well. They say the surgeries are quick and less invasive than common procedures, such as spaying and neutering, and the animals are sedated to avoid pain. Hawthorne’s biotech firm includes a clause in the contract ensuring that the lab either keep and take care of the animal or it must be adopted, so euthanasia is not an occurrence.

However, the opposing side, mainly the Humane Society and the American Anti-Vivisection (AAVS), argues that pet cloning is “cruel, manipulative, and pointless.� They feel it is wrong to reap financial benefit by “exploiting grieving pet widows.� Furthermore, taking an animal and simply duplicating it demoralizes the animal and compares it to an “object that can be manufactured.� Most importantly, the opposing side is concerned with the welfare of the animals, arguing that no one really knows what goes on behind closed doors. Cloning just one animal actually involves many, and, according to the Humane Society and the AAVS, all of these animals are confined and “subjected to painful hormone treatments and invasive surgeries.� In addition, animals also often suffer from birth defects and have high mortality rates. In response the cloning, foes have called upon legislative action to, at the very least, regulate the process.

I have mixed emotions on the morality of cloning pets. First and foremost, I think it is important to uphold strict regulations that ensure the welfare of the animal. If that is taken care of, I do not see anything ethically wrong with allowing pet owners to, in essence, have their dog to live forever. It doesn’t seem to hurt anyone. Using the technology for profit seems like an everyday part of life – everyone has to make money. However, I do feel that animals deserve at least comparable rights to humans. We do not allow human cloning, so why should we allow the cloning of pets?

Despite my mixed emotions on the ethics of pet cloning, I felt the opposition overlooked one glaring fact, and this fact is the basis of my disagreement with pet cloning. America makes the general claim of loving pets – millions of homes have household pets (63%), and billions of dollars are used to care for those pets (2). However, according to the Humane Society of the United States, more than 3-4 million cats and dogs are euthanized in shelters nationwide (1). Often times, they are perfectly healthy, friendly animals that would make adorable pets. Furthermore, the Humane Society estimates that 25% of these animals are purebred. Sadly enough, these animals never get a chance to be the great companions they could be. Instead, they are tossed away like a piece of a trash.

For those who aren’t as heartfelt about the overpopulation crisis’s affect on animals, know that it also affects humans. Each year, 4.5 million people suffer from dog bites (3). These bites are not caused by “bad dogs,� but rather dogs that are simply unfamiliar with and frightened by humans. If they had loveable homes, they would likely not exhibit such behavioral problems. Furthermore, each year cities spend millions of taxpayer (meaning you) dollars to the control population crisis (3).

It seems illogical that, in order to combat the pet overpopulation crisis, we are going to introduce new techniques to clone pets, thus creating even more. I understand that, as of now, cloning plays virtually no role in the population problem - it is too new and way too expensive. However, if this cloning continues, eventually it will become mainstream, and who’s to say that millions of animals will not be produced? This will leave even more unwanted animals that die each year due to lack of a home and food. Rather than allowing pet owners to create replicas of their already adored pets, we should encourage people to save a life and adopt a new, loveable pet.

Pets have proven benefits for humans. Pets teach people of all age virtuous traits, such as responsibility, loyalty, empathy, sharing, and love (4). Development of these traits is especially important in children, who, through the process of caring for a pet, also learn to care for other humans. Pets serve in many animal-assisted therapies, and they also help people who have medical or physical ailments (4). People with dogs are often healthier with lower blood pressure and cholesterol levels, since they experience increased physical activity by walking their dog (4). Pets can lessen feelings of isolation and loneliness, while reducing stress and depression (4). Happier people are healthier people.

With all of these benefits, I encourage everyone to have a pet. Furthermore, adopting a pet can add new meaning to one’s life, and the experience can be extremely rewarding. It is completely unnecessary, and even somewhat selfish, to clone your dog because you feel it is the only one that give you satisfaction, especially when there are millions of pets waiting to be adopted.

Sources:
1. “Why You Should Spay and Neuter Your Pet.� 9 Feb 2008. Humane Society of the United States. 13 Nov 2008. http://www.hsus.org/pets/pet_care/why_you_should_spay_or_neuter_your_pet.html.
2. “Pet Overpopulation and Ownership Statistics.� 7 Jul 2008. Humane Society of the United States. 13 Nov 2008. http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/pet_overpopulation_and_ownership_statistics/
3. “The Crisis of Pet Overpopulation.� 4 May 2007. Humane Society of the United States. 13 Nov 2008. http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/pet_overpopulation_and_ownership_statistics/the_crisis_of_pet_overpopulation.html
4. “How Pets Help People.� 11 Apr 2008. Human Society of the United States. 13 Nov 2008. http://www.hsus.org/pets/pet_care/how_pets_help_people/

Posted by harpe174 at 1:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Certain words are not allowed on public television, but is this a cause worth federal regulation? According to Steven Pinker’s “Freedom’s curse� there are a few different stands that a person can take in this particular argument. Some may say that if a word elicits negative emotional response and can be negatively influential on an easily impressionable child then it should be illegal to display on television. However, is this a situation in which the law should become involved? So far, the law has not remained consistent in its judgment of such cases. And is it really necessary to ban words when they are not used within an offensive context?
A word is simply a label, given to an object or an action so that it becomes identifiable through human speech. However, over time and through the development of slang terminology, many such labels have lost their original meaning, or gained alternate definitions. Due to this fact it has become nearly impossible to confidently identify the meaning of any given word without reference to the context surrounding it. This is true for any word, including swear words. When a person uses a swear word in a non-offensive manner, should he or she be penalized in the same way as a person who uses the same word in a suggestive, and therefore offensive manner?
It’s true that there is something to be said for respecting the innocence of children viewers, and this is the reason that it is important to place rating warnings on television programs that may contain inappropriate subjects or language for those under a certain age. Once this is done, the parents become responsible for using their own discretion to regulate what the children view and do not view. Parents should be conscious of the content of the television programs that their children view. If a child is watching a program with a rating on it that is inappropriate for him or her to watch, the parents should be accountable. Words should not be made illegal to say on television simply due to the fact that it may be offensive to viewers- it should just become mandatory that any programs that display such content be rated in a way reflective of these things. Parents are ultimately responsible for what is deemed acceptable for their children to view at any given stage of development. Regardless of whether a word is said on television under the protection of a rating or without a rating, it is likely that nearly the same amount of children will be viewing at the necessary time to witness it. With or without ratings, conscientious parents tend to be aware of what his or her children are viewing, and will not allow them to view questionable material without first viewing it themselves to screen the content. If a parent is not conscientious or available enough to be aware of what his or her child is viewing, the presence of a rating has no effect whatsoever- because they are not there to see it. And, of course, there are times when even the most conscientious of parents are unaware of their children’s actions altogether- it’s impossible to be aware of everything all the time. Whether the parents be conscientious enough to have previous knowledge of the content of a program their child is watching, or they are unavailable to monitor their child’s viewings at all, one could argue that the concept of rating becomes, in a sense, utterly superfluous. Nonetheless, ratings are undoubtedly a good way for the television station to guarantee ample warning to its viewers about upcoming content so as to avoid any unpleasant surprises.
Many things, much like a photograph, when taken out of context shed their original meanings. A photograph can mean a million things to a million people, its true meaning lost when the context in which it was taken is known only to its photographer. A photograph of a boat is just a photograph of a boat until it is known by the viewer what boat it was, where it was going, who or what it carried, and what happened on its journey. The emotional responses that a photograph might elicit from its photographer, knowing of its context, will not be induced from a viewer without the same contextual knowledge. The same holds true for words. Words are simply words- a label given to an action, or an object. Over time, many words become slang for other words, and other words still, gain alternate meanings, in addition to their originals. A word in itself cannot be harmful, it is the idea, or principle of which it is representative that can be deemed offensive. But if these same words are placed in a completely different context, with a completely different meaning, are they still offensive? Should they be? This is the question that needs to be answered before any decisions can be made regarding a word inappropriate, simply on the basis of one meaning alone.

Posted by lamp0125 at 11:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It seems as if Facebook can be both a good and bad thing. After reading the article Say Cheese: 12 Photos That Should Never Have Been Posted Online, I think it’s safe to say that Facebook, MySpace, and other personal online websites, can be what you make of them. This article discusses 12 different instances where pictures posted online have caused them great consequences, mostly job-related. It does a great job in sense that eludes the fact that all consequences could have been avoided if the person posting the picture would have thought about the fact that everyone can have access to the internet, and you could be being watched at any time.

All twelve photographs discussed in the article say all the bad things that have happened to the person who posted the picture, but only one directly states that the person “endured a painful lesson on how to use Facebook’s privacy settings�. This photograph was one of the later ones discussed and up until that point, I felt is if the article was never going to get point I thought it was trying to make across. I believe it was on this instance that that the article switched from discouraging the readers not to use Facebook, to saying that it’s okay, as long as you watch your back. If everyone listen what has been said since online websites such as Facebook came out, we would not run into to problems such as this and personal websites would not be look at as such a bad thing.

On some cases, I do believe that employers have the right to punish their employees, and that is when the employee lies and has gotten caught. I’m not a promoter of the lying however when you are not smart enough to watch your back, and post photographs of your “family emergency� online for everyone to see, you not only to be punished by your employer, you also need to once again “endure a painful lesson on how to use Facebook’s privacy settings�. In cases such as this I think that it comes down to pure stupidity, if the you know that anyone can see what your posting online, you better make sure that you don’t post stuff which could cost you your job, and get you sent to jail.

Some may argue that when they are punished in instances such as this, their rights are being violated and that they are being treated unfairly. I do believe that in some cases this is the truth, however it is like the case where the drive videotaped them self driving at excessive and unsafe speeds, something need to be done, because they’re not only putting themselves in danger but also others as well. Another case in which I had strong opinions on was when teachers have posted inappropriate pictures of themselves online. As a teacher you are expected to a role model and set a good example for your students. It should also be well known as a teacher that students are very prone to have web pages such Facebook, and that they will try to find information about anyone and everyone. I do however believe that is perfectly ok for teacher and more mature generations to have personal web pages like this because they offer great networking possibilities.

As a whole, I believe articles such as; Say Cheese: 12 Photos That Should Never Have Been Posted Online, offered great insight into the dangers of internet. I took away more from the article that you shouldn’t post inappropriate photographs but also just how dangerous the internet can be. Anyone can see anything if you don’t watch your back and use the privacy settings made available to you. I believe that is very important for anyone who chooses to post any person information online to do use the settings and anything that is too serious or personal, do not post it.

In conclusion, after reading the articles pertaining to this subject, I believe that when used in the correct ways and with the correct provisions, Facebook, MySpace, and other personal blogging web pages can be a great way to network. These websites allow the reconnections of former classmates and even family members. As long as they don’t contain inappropriate information or pictures, they can also allow for potential employers to get a feel of who you really are and may lead to the decision of whether or not you get hired by this certain employer.

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/150920/say_cheese_12_photos_that_should_never_have_been_posted_online.html%253Ftk%253Drl_noinform

Posted by donne099 at 2:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Political campaigning is a lot like advertising. It is “a form of communication that typically attempts to persuade potential customers to purchase or to consume more of a particular brand of product or service.� (wikipedia) The service: President of the United States of America. The brand: Eisenhower, Kennedy, Ford, Kerry, Carter, Bush, McCain, Obama, etc. The objective, as well as the hurdle, is to connect to American citizens and appeal to them, or make the opposition seem unappealing. Errol Morris has written an article, “People in the Middle,� about the methods used to attract those who haven’t made up their minds yet and how these methods have changed election after election.

Morris notes the prominence of “real people� advertisements, those that connect the viewer to the real people in the ads, and in some cases, connect the presidential candidate to those real people. This, in turn, connects the candidate to the viewer. Morris takes his examples of ads from “The Living Room Candidate� website compiled by David Schwartz. “Real people� advertisements have always been appealing because of their candid appearance. A 1952 ad for Eisenhower shows a woman in a town hall type of setting, which is nicely lit and has a conveniently neutral background. The woman asks a “candid� question about rising food prices. Eisenhower answers her question earnestly, even giving a shout out to his Mammy? It is all very scripted and not at all candid.

Kennedy gives the real people appeal a shot when he comes to dinner with the Sills. Kennedy sits down to dinner with the all-American family, and they discuss their concerns about the economy, society, etc. It is supposed to be a candid, normal occurrence. The question comes up, though, “JFK shows up in their living room? Was he invited? Did they offer him milk and cookies?� (Morris.) Candid or genuine are certainly not the words to describe the ad and it is certainly not a strategy that would work in the 2008 election.

The 1972 ads for Gerald Ford take a turn toward the kind of “real people� political advertising we see today. People stopped on the street, conveniently switch voters, who tell why they are switching to Republican. Although specific people were used in the ad, the interviews were obviously unscripted. This ad appeals mostly to the people in the middle. Those who haven’t made up their mind yet, who see hardcore Democrats switching to vote Republican may be turned off by opponent Jimmy Carter.

These switcher ads also create a new genre: the attack ads. Morris cites the Swift Boat Veterans’ anti-Kerry ads from the 2004 presidential campaign as memorable attack ads. In these ads, real people who served with Kerry during Vietnam called him a liar, among other things. These advertisements work because they have the real people factor. The downside, though, is the turn off. For me, at least, the ruthlessness of these claims and attacks against Kerry turn me off to Bush, even if he isn’t the one putting out the ad.

The real people appeal is an appeal to the ideals of democracy. The idea is preached and preached that every vote counts, and in this democratic system everyone has a voice in choosing the leaders of our country. With this in mind, it isn’t much of a surprise that McCain/Palin turned real people into a large aspect of their campaign. Joe the Plumber is just like you and me. (Except that we haven’t turned into celebrities, our opinions on politics don’t make it on Fox news, and we aren’t in talks with producers about making that country album we always wished we could make.) The point is that real people advertising works because you and I are real people. The question is, though, with real people becoming increasingly prominent in political campaigns, how far will the real people approach reach, come 2012?

by Nora Nolden

Posted by nold0020 at 6:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Many people in the United States either don't know or don't care to know about the world of gender-identity disorder. Hannah Rossin decided to start a case study of a boy named Brandon in order to gain a better understanding of the psychological disorder.

Brandon is a 5 year old boy who has shown desires to be the opposite gender since he was born. Some of the signs have been as subtle as wanting to play with barbies and others have been as obvious as sticking his penis between his legs and yelling "I'm a girl." After years of behavioral and psychological therapy his parents viewed a program on the television about a child with similar behavioral characteristics to Brandon. Brandon's family then decided to attend an organization meeting for parents who have children with gender-identity disorder. His mother stated that this was the first place Brandon felt accepted for who he was. Other parents helped assist Brandon's parents in the acceptation of their son and to understand that this is who Brandon is. Once they investigated the organization devoted to this type of children Brandon's parents began to accept that this is simple how their child is and not a problem that needs to be cured.

The causes of gender-identity disorder are still unknown. The most accepted theory is that there is a mutation of one of the chromosomes in the child DNA. One criticism of this theory is that in some cases the disorder's symptoms are not diagnosed until later adulthood. The common treatment for this disorder is to simply let the child live as the gender they wish by using hormones to suppress puberty and obtain the characteristics of the other gender.

This issue of gender identity has been one of the many questions of behaviorists during the past century. In 1967 Dr. John Money hoped to put his theory that gender is a societal construction to the test. The subject he chose to test his theory on was a young boy who, in a botched circumcision, had been left without a penis. Money's experiments consisted of removing the rest of the boy's genitals, having reconstructive surgery and have the parents raise the child as a girl. Money's goal was to prove the only reason we think of ourselves as a male or female is that society treats us both differently. After 14 years, the experiment ended in disaster after the child continues to act like a boy and was going deeper and deeper into depression. Based off this experiment psychologists now believed that there is a difference in the brains of both genders that make us act in certain manners. The final analysis proved that Money's theory of socially constructed genders to be false. Based off the assumption that this discovery can be applied to Brandon is reasonable to conclude that Brandon was simply born to a more feminine brain in a boy's body.

Many skeptics of this theory of being born with different brain chemistry have pointed out that over the past few decades the number of documented cases of gender- identity disorder has skyrocketed. Their argument is that we are over diagnosing children with the disorder. Others counter the argument by saying that we are simply more accepting and that allows the individuals to be identifies more easily. Yet another theory is that many more children are growing up without a father which leaves out a role model for young boys. In order to remedy these problems psychiatrists have developed special treatments to help father absent families. Many question the logic behind such treatment since there has been little coloration between family status and gender-identity disorder children.

Many studies have proven that children are born with their gender ingrained into their psyche. Money also proved that the gender of the brain cannot be changed after birth through his failed attempt on the young boy. With this in mind we should accept people for how they are and not try to change they was they think and act.

This was written by Alex Lager with the assistance of the following sources.

http://www.webmd.com/sex/gender-identity-disorder

http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/rekers.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811/transgender-children

Posted by lage0062 at 11:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

When most mothers look at their new born baby for the first time, words cannot describe what they are feeling. This is true for Tina Simms when she gave birth to a beautiful baby boy named Brandon. Months later when Brandon started to develop more, Tina could see that he was acting different than most boys of his own age. Instead of being interested in trucks, action figures, and playing sports, he preferred dressing up as a girl and playing with dolls. Doctors told her it was a phase, but Bandon seemed as though he would not grow out of this stage. One night when he was saying his prayers, he told his mother that God had made a mistake making him a boy. Tina was overwhelmed with this and soon connected with more parents of transgender kids. Transgender is when a person perceives themselves as the opposite sex. The parents swapped stories about their children and some of the decisions that they had to make; for example, rearing techniques, hormone supplements, and/or surgery. Tina and her husband, Bill, had to make some of these same difficult decisions on how to bring up Brandon.

For many of the parents, it seemed like an easy decision to make, either rear the boy as a girl or vice versa. But for Tina and Bill, it wasn’t going to be that easy. I totally understand their hesitancy. Many doctors say that that is the worst thing you can do it to start raising them as the opposite gender, even if it is what they truly want. Take for instance the case of David Reimer, who was accidently castrated while being circumcised. His parents made the decision to raise him then as a girl, named Brenda, without him knowing. David never felt like he was in place, he always wanted to play trucks and sports. His parents finally told him at the age of 14 what happened, and David soon went back to being a boy. Later on he got married but shortly after he committed suicide because he just never fit in (Myers 130). Looking into David’s case, I would know that I would not want to raise my child as the opposite gender. Most parents want happiness for their children and making the decision to raise them as the opposite gender would not bring happiness (Myers 537).
Being the parents of a transgender child would be one of the hardest things in the world to deal with. You have to make decisions that most parents never even think about. You would be planning your child’s life on how they would be most happy, but knowing they may never be accepted by their peers.
Kids are mean; they bully kids who are not up to their standards of normal. These kids do not know that they cannot help it. It is the “Nature� of gender, not the “Nurture (Myers 126).� During the development of the fetus inside the womb, there is a sex steroid imbalance (Myers 126). This is what causes transgender children to perceive themselves as the opposite sex. So for there is no treatment to make sure this does not happen, but the parents would not know if their child was transgender until it was around 1. They do have hormonal supplements called blockers to keep a boy’s voice high, or to keep a girl flat-chested. I do not think it is right to change body chemistry. People do not know the long term affects that those have on the body. A boy body is meant for boy hormones and same goes for the girls. The body is a not a universal or neutral medium to shift to which ever gender you please (Myers 129).
Many people will not agree with the decision if I were to raise my transgender child as their sex. As humans, we are happiest when we have a feeling of belongingness (Myers 495). From what I have gathered, the children who are raised as the opposite gender truly never fit in. Other kids are able to see who they really are and will bully them. When kids are raised by their original sex, they seemed to do better. They are able to connect with other people just like them, thanks to the Gay Rights Movement.
Thus, we need to move aside our differences and accept everyone as who they are. It shouldn’t matter if they are black, white, blue, straight, gay, or transgender. We just saw history in the making with Barack Obama being elected president. Why don’t we make a little more history and accept these people.

Meyers, David G. Psychology. 8th ed. (2007):
My Secret Self. TransGriot. 13 Jan. 2008. 7 Nov. 2008 .
Rosin, Hanna. "The Atlantic." A Boy's Life. Nov. 2008. 6 Nov. 2008 .

Posted by mill3982 at 11:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The article entitled, “Say Cheese: 12 Photos that Should never have been Posted Online,� gives twelve examples of people who put their jobs in jeopardy after posting pictures to social networking sites. This article shows us how we need to be careful of what we post onto social networking sites. Once an item is posted onto the web, it is there for everyone to see, and we need to be conscious of this.

The article’s twelve examples have the common thread that the person posted an inappropriate picture and either was fired or kicked out of their school. There are many examples that all prove this point. One particular example is of a fireman who performed in a bodybuilding contest two weeks after he declared disability because of a sore back. He posted pictures and video online of the event, and his bosses saw what occurred. To make a long story short, he lost his job.

In another instance the article discusses a twenty-seven year old student teacher that posted a portrait of herself as a “drunken pirate.� Her university saw the picture and revoked her degree and progress at the university.

There are many more example s that prove the point that we need to be careful with everything that we post online, but to what extent. In the example of the student teacher, she was twenty-seven. She is legally old enough to consume alcohol, and in addition to this, in the picture she wasn’t holding any alcohol. She lost her job based on the caption, “drunken pirate.�

It is my opinion that organizations read too far into pictures, captions, and videos that are posted on the Internet. I don’t think it’s right that organizations can look on social networking sites and base their judgments on the photos that a person has. I feel that it’s important for organizations and employers to really get to know their candidate as a person and not base important decisions off the kind of photos on their profile.

In another area of the article the author uses an example of a Microsoft employee who posted a picture with him using a Mac. Of course, Microsoft discovered these pictures and took action by firing the employee. He didn’t do anything harmful to Microsoft, but they viewed this picture as offensive.

These kinds of examples are endless, but how far is this going to go. I think it’s important to deal with issue now. It’s growing more popular for employers to check possible employee’s Facebook profiles to see the things that they’ve been involved with. Facebook has taken great measures to improve privacy within the site, and I feel that they should continue to make these profiles more and more private.

Employer’s should not have the right to base important hiring decisions of one particular picture. They should rather base it on the content of resume and how the possible employee conducts himself or herself during the interview. Social networking and posting pictures is supposed to be fun. It’s for your friends to see you in different areas of your life. We shouldn’t be scared to post a particular picture because it may fall into the hands of our employers and put our job at risk.

Rash decisions are being made by to many employers regarding pictures online. It’s important for employers and organizations to realize that social networking sites are intended for fun. They aren’t meant to be serious, but rather a time to escape work and pressure from the world. It’s based on these reasons, that I feel employers are looking too far into multimedia posted on the Internet.

Posted by muell484 at 10:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Upon reading “A Boy’s Life� I was astonished at the number of children today that identify themselves as another gender at such a young age. In the article author Hanna Rosen describes the life of a family that lives in a small southern town that is coping with the reality that their young son is transgender. In the article transgender is described as a gender identity disorder, in which boys want to be girls and girls want to be boys. The article focuses on young children with the disorder. Brandon, the young boy in the story begins at a very young age acting like a girl. He wants to play with dolls, wear his mom’s clothes, and even tucks his penis back so he can look like he has a vagina. This all begins at a very young age when his first complete sentence was “I like you high heels� spoken to a women at a restaurant his family was dining at. His mother took him to various psychologists to seek help for her troubled son but nothing seemed to work, he in his mind was still a girl. It took the power of Google to finally find some help for Tina, the mother. Tina watched a 20/20 special on transgendered children and then bought a computer so she could Google the term and discovered many children across the country are considered transgendered. She navigated the Internet and found a whole sub culture of families dealing with the issue. The article then explains some of the history of gay and transgendered culture and the strives they have made in the last fifty years, and case studies done on transgender to explain why it occurs. But the most interesting part is when the described the solution. Let your child choose to wear a skirt or pants. Many families are letting their transgendered child act the gender they want. Which seems to be all well and good until the physical features that define men and women appear during puberty. But this problem can now be fixed according to the article by drugs that prevent and delay puberty. Boys will not develop facial hair and a deep voice and girls will not develop breasts or get a period. Thus this allows transgendered children to conceal their true gender until a sexual reassignment surgery can be preformed if they choose to have the procedure. The article discusses other families that took their child to therapy with specialists on the subject and their child after time became realigned with their own gender. The therapy was based of finding an event that could have triggered the child wanting to be transgendered and working through this event. I cannot even begin to imagine being a parent and having to deal with my child being transgendered. I am a traditional guy that has always believed boys play with trucks and girls play with dolls. In light of what I have read in this article I would rather have my child growing up happy and healthy and leading a successful life than having to hide his/hers true identity. I believe letting my two-year-old son wear a skirt and high heels before seeking therapy would be a mistake due the cases illustrated in the article. But once the child is old enough to know what he wants and who he is I wouldn’t want to force him to be something that he is not.

Posted by suess015 at 1:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The recent election has exposed all of society to the expected strategic political campaigns. Campaigns advertisements have always existed since the foundation of the United State’s democracy, however, the advertisement tactics have changed. With the increase of funds, technologies, a better understanding of how audiences respond to certain approaches competition has become more subjective, or so the media seems to make the public believe. Manipulation of the media plays one of the most important roles in influencing the outcome on Election Day.

Errol Morris in “People in the Middle� puts together a timeline of political strategies from the past until this year’s presidential election, including his personal piece. He needs not say much in evaluation of the effectiveness of the advertisements that he presents through out the article. Each segment’s influence on their viewers is very easily witnessed. In Eisenhower’s clip, a woman appears to be asking him an impromptu question that leads him to a response fitting towards a solution to her problem. He is also capable of incorporating a comment about his aunt into the response. Morris considers this presentation of concerns effective, however he does not address Eisenhower’s delivery. As a viewer, I was repelled by his mention of his family member. His attempt seemed desperate to identify with the common people. Errol Morris was completely accurate when he criticized John F. Kennedy’s visit to the home of the Sills family. It was staged and when Kennedy, a wealthy man, personally interviews the head of the household regarding financial struggles, made it difficult to interpret sincerity.
It was wise of Morris to analyze these successes and failures of the past in order to develop strategies for the current Election year. He must have put in much more analysis into his investigation than the commentary that narrated the sample political pitches of the past. Without further research into audience responses in more present society much of his conclusions could not be explained as to why they are so effective. Morris must have recognized that in home visits and interviews with the “average citizen� are not enough to catch the attention of those living lives surrounded by today’s media. Audiences are keener to advertiser’s tricks. The campaigns today do not simply need to convince, but rather persuade the viewer to not only believe in the cause but also buy into the validity of the presentation. With all the junk mail and slogans thrown their way, political campaigns could be lost in the jumble.
Competition has also increased. With the increase in means of communication and mediums for advertisements, more and more can be produced. Not only are sponsored ads going threw circulation but home video ads are being produced by individuals. These home productions open doors to a no longer one-way campaign. Conversation has been opened to the public and the campaign. Rebuttals and reinforcements of politician-sponsored advertisements can be broadcast nationwide. The public just as easily views these individual productions as campaigns’ advertisements. In addition, political ads are more closely monitored by the news than past ads and the homemade versions, giving more power to personal opinion than ever before. Charles Almon says it best in his response to Errol Morris’ piece, “Real people tend to be stupid followers,� And, “Their minds are already made up and they simply want their feelings and prejudices reinforced.� With the variety of advertisements, personal and political, people have the ability to find reinforcement to the ideals they believe in rather than just tune in to what ever is presented to them.
Although Errol Morris cleverly analyses the political strategies of the past, he has come up with a strategy that has been proven to be the most effective, yet in today’s time it does not hold the same potential influence it may have in the past. His ad, although crafty in presenting “middlemen� (Republican’s voting Democrat in this election), did not account for audience awareness to strategy and set political views. The money spent on advertisement is disproportional to the number of people that it influences. Most individuals are set in their opinion and these ads are only preaching to a select undecided few. Morris was accurate in associating real people presentations to higher successful response rates, but in order to be even more effective politicians need to almost have nothing to do with their advertisements. “Joe the Plummer� was an effective attention getting in this year’s election, however, if he had made an internet advertisement the interpretation would be sincere and more effective than multimillion dollar sponsored ads.

Posted by reger019 at 10:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Being a boy born in a girl’s body and vice versa is not something every person believes is true about his or her self, but there are many people who have felt this way their entire life. Parents of children feeling this way and adults living with feelings of discomfort use those two explanations to describe a condition which medical professionals call “genetic identity disorder.� People who are diagnosed with this disorder are usually uncomfortable with their actual gender autonomy and tend to act or present themselves as the opposite sex. They are known as transgenders. For many whom do not have these types of feelings have a hard time comprehending how to react to such ideas or even understand how this can possibly happen. In the article “A boy’s life� by Hanna Rosin, she explains different cases of people diagnosed with this disorder, people’s thoughts on the matter, studies being done today, and possible “solutions� to the disorder. While reading this article, many thoughts and ideas were generated. First I noticed that some parents of children considered having the “genetic identity disorder� appeared to have more pressure and anxiety compared to the children themselves. Is this how it should be? Also from that, are parents helping their children by making important decisions for them? There is also the problem of how society reacts to this topic and if how they are reacting is fair.

Parents having children dealing with the issue of not feeling comfortable with their original gender are dealing with something that is unfamiliar with the way they think. It’s understandable that these parents may be confused on how to react or deal with this type of behavior, as well as trying to consider what is best for their children in the long run. At points, though, these parents seem to be embarrassed of their children, and have a hard time coming to terms with the situation. One mom in the article decided not to stop at Dairy Queen, but instead went through the drive-thru because she was tired of having eyes staring at them all the time. Maybe she was only worried about her son, who now is living as a girl, but she seemed to be worried about having people stare at her as well. At that moment, she was treating her son no better than the people who stared at him and talked about him negatively, which was unfair and cruel. This mom was and still is trying hard to help her son live an enjoyable life as a girl, and yet she is struggling to deal with it herself. Personally, it doesn’t seem right that a parent is having a harder time with the situation considering that the child is the one who is uncomfortable in his or her skin when they wake up in the morning, or that people are talking about them whenever he or she walks by. Many of these children are not happy because they are unable to live a life they want. Of course every parent wants their child to be happy, and in this case, they should accept their child as who they are as an individual.

Immediately for most parents, therapy is the answer to solving their child’s disorder. There are some shrinks who think it’s fixable. The problem is they don’t for sure know if it’s fixable or not, and parents still make the decision for their children to go to a therapist. Some children are quite young to be making their own decisions, so parents tend to make the decisions for them. In the case of a genetic identity disorder, it’s hard to say if parents should be the decision maker, and yet children are too young. Decisions parents make could affect their children’s lives forever. One option parents can choose is to have their children take puberty blockers which are drugs that will halt puberty for boys and girls, and they are also given hormone injections the rest of their life if that is the choice. These children may change their mind when they are older, though, so this could cause a problem. Parents feel they need to make the decision as to if their child will be male or female, and sometimes if it’s forced against a child’s will, this could cause problems later on in life such as depression. It may seem right to just allow the children to choose what they want, but it’s hard to say.

In society today, there are people who will treat transgenders equally to themselves, and then there are those who can’t handle the fact that people are different from themselves. Technically these people are still people, and there isn’t anything different. Adults who have lived with wanting to be a person of the opposite sex have a hard time as it is trying to live a fulfilling life, and people who don’t accept them make this impossible at times. It’s not fair to transgenders when they are rejected by families, friends, and employees because they haven’t done anything wrong. While reading through the article, it appears that they can’t help how they feel. Gender identity disorder is said to be caused by genetic abnormalities, hormone imbalances, defects in normal human bonding or child rearing, and possibly a combination of these. It’s something they appear to be born with. In the article “A boy’s life,� it was stated that some people will tell parents that they gave up on their child to live a healthy and normal life by allowing him or her to live a life as a different sex, which just seems cruel. Giving up on a child was not the case, and the child may be living a healthier life because he or she won’t have to deal with depression and confusion by being someone they feel they are not.

Overall, I don’t feel parents should be having more problems and anxiety than the children should because they don’t understand what children are going through. Parents should be careful when it comes to determining how their child’s life should be. It’s hard to say if there is a right or wrong answer to a child’s well being when it comes to determining if they should change their sex or not. It seems they should make their children happy. Also with society, people should accept those who are transgenders and not judge. They are people too with feelings; they have just had a different life experience. Everyone does though.

Posted by jone1394 at 6:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

     One of the most interesting aspects of our world are the ways in which humans have changed it to fit our needs. In an attempt to show what types of changes have taken place, Edward Burtynsky along with director Jennifer Baichwal travelled to Asia to explore the “Manufactured Landscapesâ€? of China and Bangladesh. Although Burtynsky tried to make his film as unbiased as possible, it was clear that he was trying to educate his audience about sustainability.

      The film begins with an eight minute track scene showing the immense size of one of the many Chinese warehouses. The warehouse was approximately half a kilometer long and was the biggest producer of coffee makers and irons. The various photographs of factory areas show the lives of thousands of workers. These workers perform repetitive tasks for several hours at pay lower than China’s minimum wage of 55 cents an hour (Barboza).

     Burtynsky continues to show China’s computer recycling processes. Fifty percent of the world’s computers end up in China to be recycled. These computer parts are referred to as E-waste. There exist entire towns dedicated to handling e-waste. Many computer circuit boards contain surface mount chips made from valuable metals. In order to remove these surface mount parts, the boards are heated to very high temperatures at which point the chips can be pulled off with pliers. When the boards are heated, they also release many toxic fumes. The fumes emitted from burning boards can be smelled from 5 to 10 kilometers away. In other towns, monitors are smashed to recycle the glass screens. These monitors are filled with phosphors, lead, cadmium, and other heavy metals. After rains, these metals move deep into the water table and eventually contaminating it to the point where water has to be shipped from outside into the town.

     In Bangladesh, oil tankers were decommissioned and dismantled for their iron. In the process of dismantling the ships, toxic waste such as asbestos, arsenic, mercury, and lead are released. In fact, one of the main reasons the ships are deconstructed in Bangladesh is due their low enforcement on environmental laws.

     In China the shear rate of development has caused a massive energy strain. This strain has resulted in the building of the Three Gorges Dam. The dam is so massive that it resulted in the relocation of 13 cities which would be flooded by the dam’s reservoir.

     I agree with Burtynsky’s main point about sustainability. By photographing three major environments, he tries to illustrate the level of sustainability in our world. In his film, he avoids “damning or celebrating the industryâ€? by telling the story with limited commentary. Although it could be argued that his decision to take a particular photograph creates a form of bias, he tries his best display the raw situation. He uses the examples of the computer chip circuit boards and dismantling of ships as a way of illustrating the lack of sustainability.

     The extremely long work hours found in China’s factories are an example of the lack of worker rights found in China. As stated by the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, in the Pearl River Delta region “factory workers lose or break about 40,000 fingers on the job every yearâ€? (Barboza). When factory workers were interviewed by a nongovernmental organization, one 16-year old worker stated “the machines are quite hot, so I've burned my hands." in response to questions about his blister covered hands. Another worker stated that they were forced to sign papers "volunteering" to work overtime (Barboza). It’s the lack of enforcement in human rights among corporations that have resulted in treating workers as though they were slaves. This kind of development is unsustainable, likely leading to bigger human right issues in the near future.

     Although the Three Gorges Dam was designed to help supply China’s growing need for energy, it has also created a variety of environmental problems. The Three Gorges area accounts for 20% of China’s seeds and plants and more than 6000 species. The biodiversity of the region is threatened by the dam as it floods many habitats, reduces water flow to others, and alters weather patterns (Hvistendahl). To this day, the dam has restricted water flow to fifty percent. This decrease in flow has resulted in a spike increase in schistosomiasis, a blood parasite transmitted to humans by snails (Hvistendahl). Greater accountability needs to be taken before such structures are built. Although hydroelectric power is a cleaner form of energy then China’s coal power, effects on wild life and the bio diversity of the land should have been evaluated prior to building the dam.

     In Burtynsky’s photos of the Bangladesh deconstruction yards, the sense of abysmal working conditions became apparent. The question of whether or not ship breaking should be permitted is a complicated question to answer. On one hand, workers are subjected horrendous working conditions, spending years without protection in hazardous waste such as asbestos, arsenic, and mercury (CBS). Such contaminants are not collected and are left to contaminate the sea. On the other hand, by enforcing strict regulation, the ship breaking business will die out leaving thousands without work. In response to a question about enforcement of regulation, Mohammed Mohsin, the owner of a ship breaking business, stated “It would be stopped from tomorrow. â€? If the ship breaking business stops, it would leave 30,000 men out of work and deprive Bangladesh of its source of steel (CBS). It’s not only an environmental concern, but also a humanitarian concern. I think that regardless of the costs, ships that are sent to the shipyards should at the very least be cleaned of all toxins. The workers of the shipyards are human and deserve to be treated with a certain level of decency. Dumping toxin filled ships in poverty stricken land is not a solution; eventually those toxins will end up on our own shores.

     Finally, I agree with Burtynsky comments in his presentation at TED talks; a technology, entertainment, and development conference. In particular I agreed with his ideas regarding the education of sustainable development at an early age. He proposes the idea that competitions should be held for young students and prizes should be given out for designing or innovating new sustainable ideas. He targets the competition to students between the 4th and 6th grades. I agree that it is important to teach students at an early age about sustainability. By conducting such early teaching, students will grow up understanding what it means to be sustainable and what type of actions need to be taken.

     The earth is affected by not only our pollutants but also those from foreign nations. It’s important to understand the effects that unsustainable developments have on the world. By starting with our youth, generations will become more involved with the problems of the world. They will also be more devoted to solving these problems and developing new ways of creating a more sustainable future.

Works Cited:

Barboza, David. "In Chinese factories, lost fingers and low pay." International Herald Tribune. 5 Jan. 2008. 2 Nov. 2008 .

CBS. "The Ship Breakers Of Bangladesh." 60 Minutes. 2 Sept. 2007. CBS News. 2 Nov. 2008 .

Hvistendahl, Mara. "China's Three Gorges Dam: An Environmental Catastrophe?" Scientific American. 25 Mar. 2008. 2 Nov. 2008 .

Posted by dsaxx005 at 10:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

First and foremost, Berger’s writings are chiefly concerned with art as an expression of ideas and ideologies rather than anything else. It is important to acknowledge the definition of ideology as put forward in Marxism -- it is a complicated term. In the view of Marx, ideology is present in every human action, thought, and word. Its extent is universal, and these clusters of thoughts and beliefs constitute culture. Marxism’s theories are based around this idea, and related towards upending the dominant class’s controlling ideologies (e.g. racism, sexism etc.) in favor of those of socialism and later, communism.

In the words of Berger, “A photograph which achieves expressiveness thus works dialectically: it preserves the particularity of the event recorded, and it chooses an instant when the correspondences of those particular appearances articulate a general idea� (Words and Images, 200). Berger hesitates to define expressiveness as anything but the transmission or reception of an individual idea. In comparison, Marxism reduces all art to a minimal form of ideology transfer, which is based within the context of the material reality present at the time the art was created. This theory simply does not account for art created or received as oppositional to dominant ideologies, or unrelated to contemporary ideologies whatsoever. In this light, Berger exposes the crude flaws of Marxism while setting himself in that field.

It is within this set of beliefs that Berger lies, and the aforementioned definitions are inherently present in Marxism. However, Berger first developed his television series (and later in print) Ways of Seeing in 1972. According to Bryan Appleyard from The Sunday Times, “In fact, the Booker gesture [by Berger] in 1972 marked the beginning of a movement away from this kind of thinking. It was an anti-corporate gesture. Berger is now a great fan of Naomi Klein’s anti-corporate writing and is plainly more concerned with the abuses of capitalism than with its overthrow.� Although Berger is stated as being interested in the flaws of capitalism, the words of Appleyard indicate a departure from old ways of thinking for Berger. And in this day and age, there are many oppositional standings towards capitalism, not all of them being Marxist.

Appleyard effectively misconstrues Berger’s political aims in the final paragraph of his article. Previously mentioning Berger’s kindness, “[…] his manner is grandfatherly and sweet. He is intensely solicitous of my welfare. Would I be too cold if we ate outside?� (Sunday Times) Appleyard later derides Berger. The excerpts of dialogue from Appleyard’s conversation with Berger are lacking, and Appleyard places them within a context that allows him to direct the reader to a conclusion that he desires. Appleyard says of Berger, “Try as I may, I cannot understand how any Marxist or communist sympathiser does not express regret and feel bitter remorse in the face of the historically unprecedented carnage wrought by Lenin, Stalin and Mao� (Sunday Times). While I am assuming here that Berger has indeed expressed regret and remorse over the tragedies brought in the name of communism, and simultaneously agreeing with Appleyard, Appleyard’s tactics of derision are unconvincing. I view them as journalistic shock value. In his final sentence, Appleyard continues his portrayal of Berger as insensitive, “His politics, meanwhile, exist in a bubble of withdrawal from reality, the correlative of his withdrawal to this hillside farmhouse.�

In conclusion, the views as presented in 1972’s Ways of Seeing are intrinsically Marxist. However, that does leave room for a change of belief following the revelations of the tragedies wrought by communist thought, incorrectly put into practice most notably in China and Russia. I believe Berger to be humanist, but perhaps that is a bias I have created myself. I am unimpressed by the journalism of Appleyard, and his piece is minimal entertainment in my eyes. It is possible that Appleyard’s display of Berger as a political misfit is a conveyance of current capitalist ideology, that is, to say that those on the left are out of touch. I am hesitant to make this statement definitive, as it is contrary towards my previous analysis of Marxism. I believe the expression is, can of worms.

1. Appleyard, Bryan. The Sunday Times. Sunday Times interview with John Berger. http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article4627885.ece. August 31, 2008. Retrieved November 1, 2008.

2. Bartholomae, David, Anthony Petrosky. Ways of Reading: Words and Images.

Posted by olso4759 at 7:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)