In case anyone needed another reason to know cocaine is bad for everyone involved, Scientific American appeals to their conservationist side. Although I doubt it'll work, it's an interesting aspect to the drug problem that has just recently appeared. This is a hard one to fix. I personally think if we start to tackle cocaine use, it ought to be for a better reason than saving parks, but I guess that's just me. In order to put a stop to this some serious attention would have to be paid to it, one that people probably aren't willing to put their money and their government's efforts towards.
In general, I see society as accepting drugs as something that will always be here. Not many people are up in arms about cociane. The Iraq war? Of course. Gay marriage? Check. Abortion? Yep. Cocaine? Well that can wait. We have more important things to worry about. It kills me to see the difficulty in zoning in on America's real problems: drugs and poverty. Education needs to be cleaned up, crime needs to be addressed, and a real solution to poverty besides food stamps. The national parks we really can worry about later.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
People Not as Offended About "Biiter" Remarks
Along with many others who have read and watched Barack Obama's remarks on Pennsylvania voters being "bitter," I'm confused about the criticism. Not only was the video posted by an unethical source (completely different topic all together) but I don't even see what he said as being elitist. People have responding with similar comments--even those people that Obama was speaking about.
It was refreshing to see in an article on Salon.com, that reporters were asking residents of rural Pennsylvania how they felt about the comments, instead of focusing on what others thought. Their response? Basically, 'he's right.' These people aren't necessarily even supporters of Obama, some are supporters of Clinton. Either way, they regret their decision to vote for Bush, and do not plan on voting for another Republican.
I see this remark as going in favor of Obama for a couple of reasons. First of all, those voters that are mentioned in the article, are vowing to not vote for another Republican. One of Obama's biggest appeals is to on-the-fence voters. The fact that he's speaking to these people at all, and even better the fact that he recognizes their struggles and their frustration, makes him the stronger of the two Democratic candidates. The people saying these comments were elitist, are in fact for the most part, upper class people in society themselves.
In his speech Obama said that he was not the one out of touch. Clinton tried to say he didn't understand the people, he was condescending, and that the blue collared workers were optimistic. Apparently she hasn't talked to these people. I say, way to go Obama.
It was refreshing to see in an article on Salon.com, that reporters were asking residents of rural Pennsylvania how they felt about the comments, instead of focusing on what others thought. Their response? Basically, 'he's right.' These people aren't necessarily even supporters of Obama, some are supporters of Clinton. Either way, they regret their decision to vote for Bush, and do not plan on voting for another Republican.
I see this remark as going in favor of Obama for a couple of reasons. First of all, those voters that are mentioned in the article, are vowing to not vote for another Republican. One of Obama's biggest appeals is to on-the-fence voters. The fact that he's speaking to these people at all, and even better the fact that he recognizes their struggles and their frustration, makes him the stronger of the two Democratic candidates. The people saying these comments were elitist, are in fact for the most part, upper class people in society themselves.
In his speech Obama said that he was not the one out of touch. Clinton tried to say he didn't understand the people, he was condescending, and that the blue collared workers were optimistic. Apparently she hasn't talked to these people. I say, way to go Obama.
Approved Torture Techniques
The AP and ABC have reported that the mysterious legal approval of torture techniques came from former attorney general John Acroft during a meeting chaired by Condoleezza Rice. Vice president Dick Cheney, secretary of state Colin Powell, and CIA director George Tenet were in attendance at a meeting that approved slaps, pushes, sleep deprivation, and the controversial act of waterboarding. President George Bush was purposefully isolated from this meeting, not that anyone doubts that he probably knew about it.
Last semester I took a class called Contemporary Moral Issues, which was actually a philosophy class. One of the units we studied was torture: what qualifies, what are the human rights issues, should it be used, and if so when? We also discussed water boarding which is probably widely misunderstood by the public because of all the hype surrounding it. It's probably by far the hardest technique to handle mentally, since it stimulates the feeling of drowning. It does not, however, leave lasting effects.
In a video released by ABC, it portrays John Ashcroft in a moral dilemma. History will not judge us kindly, he reportedly said. This topic is most definitely a complicated one. On one hand, torture is inhumane, doesn't actually work sometimes, and doesn't have much of a way of finding out if it actually works. On the other hand, shouldn't terrorist be held to harsher standards than the average citizen? And isn't it better to save a group of innocent people than cause a potentially bad guy some distress?
I recently saw the movie Rendition which portrayed the downfalls of torture techniques. Above every argument I've heard on the topic, watching this movie was the most powerful, and left the most lasting effects on me. Let me say first of all I'm a conservative and tend to think that anyone willing to kill thousands of people deserves to go through distress. I understand that everyone ought to have equal human rights, but I also think once you commit a crime to humanity, or are involved with a crime at that level, you lose those rights. That said, this movie completely changed my perspective.
A brief overview: An American citizen is in Africa doing some type of business. In the beginning you see a terrorist attack and a CIA official being killed from it. The American citizen is taken into captivity by the U.S. government after his flight back to the U.S. Any record of him being on the flight has been erased and he has in essence disappeared. While his wife persistently tries to find him, he is being tortured because of a phone call he made to the man involved with the attack. He also has previously knowledge of chemicals and knows how to create effective bombs, which these were, much better than the earlier ones.
In the movie, the man insists he doesn't know the man who's cell phone said he called. He is continuously tortured until he makes up a story about being payed to send them plans about the explosives. He gives them a list of names, which turns out to be a soccer team. The viewer never finds out whether the U.S. citizen knew this man or not. The scenes were fairly graphic and the U.S. citizen was a sympathetic character. After this movie it was hard for me to see the benefits. Whether this man knew him or not , it was clear that he had no incentive to participate in terrorist acts. He had a family in the U.S., an extremely stable and well paying job (the money was not an issue), and the treatment was completely unethical and illegal. He was not allowed to speak with a lawyer, call his wife, or go to any kind of trial. It was barbaric and made me realize how complicated the issue can be.
It's not always black and white, "good guy" and "bad guy." Sometimes it's unclear and in those cases torture is completely unethical. It's too difficult to make laws specifying when torture ought to be used, there are just too many scenarios. While others might be harsh on Ashcroft, I can understand his moral dilemma.
Last semester I took a class called Contemporary Moral Issues, which was actually a philosophy class. One of the units we studied was torture: what qualifies, what are the human rights issues, should it be used, and if so when? We also discussed water boarding which is probably widely misunderstood by the public because of all the hype surrounding it. It's probably by far the hardest technique to handle mentally, since it stimulates the feeling of drowning. It does not, however, leave lasting effects.
In a video released by ABC, it portrays John Ashcroft in a moral dilemma. History will not judge us kindly, he reportedly said. This topic is most definitely a complicated one. On one hand, torture is inhumane, doesn't actually work sometimes, and doesn't have much of a way of finding out if it actually works. On the other hand, shouldn't terrorist be held to harsher standards than the average citizen? And isn't it better to save a group of innocent people than cause a potentially bad guy some distress?
I recently saw the movie Rendition which portrayed the downfalls of torture techniques. Above every argument I've heard on the topic, watching this movie was the most powerful, and left the most lasting effects on me. Let me say first of all I'm a conservative and tend to think that anyone willing to kill thousands of people deserves to go through distress. I understand that everyone ought to have equal human rights, but I also think once you commit a crime to humanity, or are involved with a crime at that level, you lose those rights. That said, this movie completely changed my perspective.
A brief overview: An American citizen is in Africa doing some type of business. In the beginning you see a terrorist attack and a CIA official being killed from it. The American citizen is taken into captivity by the U.S. government after his flight back to the U.S. Any record of him being on the flight has been erased and he has in essence disappeared. While his wife persistently tries to find him, he is being tortured because of a phone call he made to the man involved with the attack. He also has previously knowledge of chemicals and knows how to create effective bombs, which these were, much better than the earlier ones.
In the movie, the man insists he doesn't know the man who's cell phone said he called. He is continuously tortured until he makes up a story about being payed to send them plans about the explosives. He gives them a list of names, which turns out to be a soccer team. The viewer never finds out whether the U.S. citizen knew this man or not. The scenes were fairly graphic and the U.S. citizen was a sympathetic character. After this movie it was hard for me to see the benefits. Whether this man knew him or not , it was clear that he had no incentive to participate in terrorist acts. He had a family in the U.S., an extremely stable and well paying job (the money was not an issue), and the treatment was completely unethical and illegal. He was not allowed to speak with a lawyer, call his wife, or go to any kind of trial. It was barbaric and made me realize how complicated the issue can be.
It's not always black and white, "good guy" and "bad guy." Sometimes it's unclear and in those cases torture is completely unethical. It's too difficult to make laws specifying when torture ought to be used, there are just too many scenarios. While others might be harsh on Ashcroft, I can understand his moral dilemma.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Possible Inclusion For the Death Penalty
The Washington Post ran a story today on the inclusion of child rape as a crime that deserves the death penalty and states that have adopted this, or some that wish to in the future. Let me first say that I am against the death penalty, not for moral reasons, I have no sympathy or respect for the life of someone who murders someone or rapes a child. I do think, however, that logistically it has become an unsatisfactory punishment. The "eye for an eye" model does not make sense in today's society. The death penalty is also costly, and depends too much on other resources such as DNA testing and the ability of the lawyer to make sure innocent people do not get killed. I also don't understand the moral argument that that's what they deserve. If someone brutally murders your daughter, you'd want just punishment. Put the state isn't going to brutally murder them, they will instead peaceful inject them with substances that in essence is like putting your dog to sleep.
The arguments for and against this new provision may seem completely logical and simple to the side arguing for each, but I think that in this case, the answer is more complicated, if one were to assume that the death penalty should be implicated at all, for anyone. On one side, it is argued that this is one of the most henious of crimes, that anyone who has the ability to molest a child ought to be given the most strict punishment. I agree that alongside murder there isn't anything as unthinkable as the molesting of a child. However, the other side has a more convincing argument. Many of these rapes and molestations are reported my friends and families of both parties. Many molestors will only commit crimes on those they know and spend time with, which is why in many cases the molestor and the child have the same circle of relationships. This provision might cause those who would normally report a rape, not to, because although the act is a disgusting one, it's hard to turn a relative in when it is common knowledge they will be facing death. Prison time is much easier to deal with. This also, some may argue, will encourage rapists to kill their victims instead of living them alive to tell others.
In rebutal to both: If it were my child being raped by my brother/uncle/father/grandfather, I think my anger and disgust would override my feelings of nostalgia to keep them around. Prison time or death, I doubt I'd be in contact anymore. Secondly, the later argument seems to contradict the first in that if uncle Henry is doing the raping, he probably isn't going to kill his neice. That's a lot harder to cover up to the rest of the family. As for both sides, prison time is not going to change a child molestor which is exactly why the Megan laws were created. If you commit manslaughter and spend time in jail, upon your release you do not have to tell anyone about your crimes. It is assumed that you did your time and you learned your lesson and it is against a democratic society to assume you will commit again. For molestors however, they do not learn from their mistakes no matter how much time is spent in jail. Punishment does not work because it is a disease. It takes therapy and counseling and other approaches to deal with child molestors. Therefore, both would have to reevaluate the punishment of offenders. Perhaps death is not the answer, but neither is prison.
The arguments for and against this new provision may seem completely logical and simple to the side arguing for each, but I think that in this case, the answer is more complicated, if one were to assume that the death penalty should be implicated at all, for anyone. On one side, it is argued that this is one of the most henious of crimes, that anyone who has the ability to molest a child ought to be given the most strict punishment. I agree that alongside murder there isn't anything as unthinkable as the molesting of a child. However, the other side has a more convincing argument. Many of these rapes and molestations are reported my friends and families of both parties. Many molestors will only commit crimes on those they know and spend time with, which is why in many cases the molestor and the child have the same circle of relationships. This provision might cause those who would normally report a rape, not to, because although the act is a disgusting one, it's hard to turn a relative in when it is common knowledge they will be facing death. Prison time is much easier to deal with. This also, some may argue, will encourage rapists to kill their victims instead of living them alive to tell others.
In rebutal to both: If it were my child being raped by my brother/uncle/father/grandfather, I think my anger and disgust would override my feelings of nostalgia to keep them around. Prison time or death, I doubt I'd be in contact anymore. Secondly, the later argument seems to contradict the first in that if uncle Henry is doing the raping, he probably isn't going to kill his neice. That's a lot harder to cover up to the rest of the family. As for both sides, prison time is not going to change a child molestor which is exactly why the Megan laws were created. If you commit manslaughter and spend time in jail, upon your release you do not have to tell anyone about your crimes. It is assumed that you did your time and you learned your lesson and it is against a democratic society to assume you will commit again. For molestors however, they do not learn from their mistakes no matter how much time is spent in jail. Punishment does not work because it is a disease. It takes therapy and counseling and other approaches to deal with child molestors. Therefore, both would have to reevaluate the punishment of offenders. Perhaps death is not the answer, but neither is prison.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Newstrust
Our class is taking on a project of contributing articles on the global economy to the community of Newstrust.net. I've had a chance to browse the site a couple times now and I'm overall pleased with what they offer.
Although personally I probably would not on my own take time to rate every article I read on the site, I think the idea of it is promising. I do think that if I came across an article that I think was particularly terrible, or particulalry well written and well reported, I would take the time to say something about it, otherwise I would probably use it as more of a homepage, somewhere to get a variety of sources commenting on topics that I care about.
As a hopeful future journalists I'm glad that newstrust honors the things that really matter in an article: accuracy, sources, structure, and fairness. It's important that the web doesn't serve as a place to simply rant about topics or pass things off as facts, because that would ruin the business and point of good journalism.
A selfish reason for appreciating newstrust is the fact that I usually only check the Washington Post website on a daily basis. Newstrust can give me a convenient place to check other publications that may have better stories, more information, or just a different perspective. I appreciate that you can also divide stories posted into different types of publications. So if I'm in a mood for a longer more in-depth article I can find the magazine section and click on an article from Slate magazine or Newsweek.
Although personally I probably would not on my own take time to rate every article I read on the site, I think the idea of it is promising. I do think that if I came across an article that I think was particularly terrible, or particulalry well written and well reported, I would take the time to say something about it, otherwise I would probably use it as more of a homepage, somewhere to get a variety of sources commenting on topics that I care about.
As a hopeful future journalists I'm glad that newstrust honors the things that really matter in an article: accuracy, sources, structure, and fairness. It's important that the web doesn't serve as a place to simply rant about topics or pass things off as facts, because that would ruin the business and point of good journalism.
A selfish reason for appreciating newstrust is the fact that I usually only check the Washington Post website on a daily basis. Newstrust can give me a convenient place to check other publications that may have better stories, more information, or just a different perspective. I appreciate that you can also divide stories posted into different types of publications. So if I'm in a mood for a longer more in-depth article I can find the magazine section and click on an article from Slate magazine or Newsweek.
"The Complexity of Religion Can be Daunting"
Northeastern University’s journalism department held a forum Wednesday at 11:45 to discuss the topic of how religion in the media is changing.
The three speakers included Benjamin Hubbard, professor of comparative religion at California State University, Debra Mason, executive director of the Religion Newswriters Association and director of the Center for Religion, the Professions and the Public at the University of Missouri, Columbia, and Munir Shaikh, executive director of the California-based Institute on Religion and Civic Values.
Northeastern’s professor Stephen Burgard moderated the discussion that was held in the Curry Student center Ballroom. Around 100 students, faculty, and staff attended the hour and 45 minute discussion.
Hubbard, the first speaker opened with some stats about media bias in correlation to religion. According to recent studies, there’s been a problem with the siding with traditional, conservative religions in stories heavy in conflict.
“The media loves stories about religion if they have conflict,” Hubbard said. “This makes it look like a constant struggle between us and them.”
The media has to be constantly worried about how they’re portraying religions today, he stressed. It’s important to cover both sides, and all stories, including those without conflict.
Hubbard thinks that religion is becoming more and more present and the media needs to start focusing more on religion stories, and in making them accurate.
“Religion…is present so often that the need for reporters to be religion literate is becoming more and more important,” Hubbard said.
He went on to mention some important internet sites, including religioustolerance.com, that have been doing an exceptional job either covering religion stories or providing journalists with important religious information.
The recent story of Barack Obama’s former reverend showed both responsible and irresponsible religious coverage by the media, Hubbard explained. The politically right leaning media fell short in telling the whole story, while the left went behind and double checked information and told the whole story.
Mason spoke next, opening with the obvious recent changes in the media in general. Community building, conversational writing, and guerilla marketing have become essential in today’s world of journalism, Mason began with.
“The core of how we define news…is changing,” Mason said. “For religion news, I think that’s a good thing.”
She introduced those in attendance to the site beliefnet.com and complimented the site on its ability to include information from a wide range of religions and topics. She also showed the site the directs: religionwriters.org.
The first step in good religion writing is knowing yourself and your own values, Mason instructed. You have to know what you believe in, because you will be asked that question, and you have to know your biases so you can be careful of that in your writing.
She then advised journalists to do your research before going to an interview. You need to know certain aspects of their religious beliefs so you can show them that you respect them. Have tough skin when approaching an article as well, she said.
“No other topic gets criticized or critiqued as much as religion,” said said. But don’t scare that into approaching the topic with fervor.
Like in many other beats, religion is being cut from papers around the country, so if a journalist wants to write about religion for the rest of their lives they ought to have a back-up plan, or be open to thinking outside of traditional media.
Rocco Palmo, a young man in his 20’s from Philadelphia, started his own blog called Whispers in the Loggia, a blog about the Vatican. He has been able to cover stories on Catholicism that no one has traditionally been able to get access to, Mason explained. Those are the kinds of directions up and coming religion journalists should be looking towards.
The last speaker spoke more directly about the religion of Islam. He explained that in today’s society it is extremely important to be respectful of religions we may not know a whole lot about.
The media has previously made mistakes in wording and phrases that can be easily avoided by learning more about the religion and the modern way of addressing things versus the more archaic way.
He then showed both articles that showed obvious biases towards Muslims, and those who approached the topic respectfully and with grace.
“The professional side,” Shaikh said, “I think, is showing tremendous maturity.”
The three speakers included Benjamin Hubbard, professor of comparative religion at California State University, Debra Mason, executive director of the Religion Newswriters Association and director of the Center for Religion, the Professions and the Public at the University of Missouri, Columbia, and Munir Shaikh, executive director of the California-based Institute on Religion and Civic Values.
Northeastern’s professor Stephen Burgard moderated the discussion that was held in the Curry Student center Ballroom. Around 100 students, faculty, and staff attended the hour and 45 minute discussion.
Hubbard, the first speaker opened with some stats about media bias in correlation to religion. According to recent studies, there’s been a problem with the siding with traditional, conservative religions in stories heavy in conflict.
“The media loves stories about religion if they have conflict,” Hubbard said. “This makes it look like a constant struggle between us and them.”
The media has to be constantly worried about how they’re portraying religions today, he stressed. It’s important to cover both sides, and all stories, including those without conflict.
Hubbard thinks that religion is becoming more and more present and the media needs to start focusing more on religion stories, and in making them accurate.
“Religion…is present so often that the need for reporters to be religion literate is becoming more and more important,” Hubbard said.
He went on to mention some important internet sites, including religioustolerance.com, that have been doing an exceptional job either covering religion stories or providing journalists with important religious information.
The recent story of Barack Obama’s former reverend showed both responsible and irresponsible religious coverage by the media, Hubbard explained. The politically right leaning media fell short in telling the whole story, while the left went behind and double checked information and told the whole story.
Mason spoke next, opening with the obvious recent changes in the media in general. Community building, conversational writing, and guerilla marketing have become essential in today’s world of journalism, Mason began with.
“The core of how we define news…is changing,” Mason said. “For religion news, I think that’s a good thing.”
She introduced those in attendance to the site beliefnet.com and complimented the site on its ability to include information from a wide range of religions and topics. She also showed the site the directs: religionwriters.org.
The first step in good religion writing is knowing yourself and your own values, Mason instructed. You have to know what you believe in, because you will be asked that question, and you have to know your biases so you can be careful of that in your writing.
She then advised journalists to do your research before going to an interview. You need to know certain aspects of their religious beliefs so you can show them that you respect them. Have tough skin when approaching an article as well, she said.
“No other topic gets criticized or critiqued as much as religion,” said said. But don’t scare that into approaching the topic with fervor.
Like in many other beats, religion is being cut from papers around the country, so if a journalist wants to write about religion for the rest of their lives they ought to have a back-up plan, or be open to thinking outside of traditional media.
Rocco Palmo, a young man in his 20’s from Philadelphia, started his own blog called Whispers in the Loggia, a blog about the Vatican. He has been able to cover stories on Catholicism that no one has traditionally been able to get access to, Mason explained. Those are the kinds of directions up and coming religion journalists should be looking towards.
The last speaker spoke more directly about the religion of Islam. He explained that in today’s society it is extremely important to be respectful of religions we may not know a whole lot about.
The media has previously made mistakes in wording and phrases that can be easily avoided by learning more about the religion and the modern way of addressing things versus the more archaic way.
He then showed both articles that showed obvious biases towards Muslims, and those who approached the topic respectfully and with grace.
“The professional side,” Shaikh said, “I think, is showing tremendous maturity.”
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
I Love Dumb Americans
I admit that I don't know everything there is to know about the rest of the world. Unlike some other students my age however, I do care to learn. I'm interested in international issues and I always read world news before national and local. One thing that I find hilarious though is a good ignorant American joke.
Nation Of Andorra Not In Africa, Shocked U.S. State Dept. Reports
To be serious, I honestly do think that if American's could pull their heads out of their asses and realize that we are not the end all be all of the world, we could gain some international respect. No wonder other countries hate us, we don't know anything about them! We don't even know what countries exist and what countries don't. Of course, I know this video was probably edited and re-edited and re-edited to find the more ignorant southerns they possibly could. Even still, it's pretty sad to hear some of the answers they give.
I'm not being anti-American when I say this. I actually do love America and the idea of what it stands for. Through and through patriotic ideals. Because of that I think it would do a lot of good in a day and age where there are people that would risk their lives to bring down America, to be able to see things from another perspective. To actually get a worldly view on things.
Nation Of Andorra Not In Africa, Shocked U.S. State Dept. Reports
To be serious, I honestly do think that if American's could pull their heads out of their asses and realize that we are not the end all be all of the world, we could gain some international respect. No wonder other countries hate us, we don't know anything about them! We don't even know what countries exist and what countries don't. Of course, I know this video was probably edited and re-edited and re-edited to find the more ignorant southerns they possibly could. Even still, it's pretty sad to hear some of the answers they give.
I'm not being anti-American when I say this. I actually do love America and the idea of what it stands for. Through and through patriotic ideals. Because of that I think it would do a lot of good in a day and age where there are people that would risk their lives to bring down America, to be able to see things from another perspective. To actually get a worldly view on things.
Monday, March 24, 2008
McCain Is Old
Talking to my roommates the other day I realized a fact that I have overlooked so far: John McCain is old. I'm not talking about president old, like my dad's getting kind of old. I'm not convinced he would live long enough to spend two terms in office. Not that I'd want him to but still, it's a little unnerving.
I found a pretty hilarious video appealing to any possible voters older than McCain. But besides the fact that it's funny that he is REALLY getting up there, the fact is that the president's job is pretty overwhelming. McCain has not only lived a long life but he has lived a hard life. Being a Vietnam POW is a pretty rough event in one's life. It's not like what most of us go through, and it probably ages a person faster than their friends and families who didn't spend years in a torturous environment.
If we go along with Anna's proposal each year in the presidential office is 7. I think that's steep so we'll say every year is equivalent to 3. So lets add 8 years of life onto what he already is--that would make him 79 with the extra stress put on him from the POW experience. If he became president, at the end of his first term, he'd be 91. That's pretty much dead, not to be harsh. At least that makes the vice presidential candidate an exciting pick, you'll never know when we'll really need him. Ouch.
I found a pretty hilarious video appealing to any possible voters older than McCain. But besides the fact that it's funny that he is REALLY getting up there, the fact is that the president's job is pretty overwhelming. McCain has not only lived a long life but he has lived a hard life. Being a Vietnam POW is a pretty rough event in one's life. It's not like what most of us go through, and it probably ages a person faster than their friends and families who didn't spend years in a torturous environment.
If we go along with Anna's proposal each year in the presidential office is 7. I think that's steep so we'll say every year is equivalent to 3. So lets add 8 years of life onto what he already is--that would make him 79 with the extra stress put on him from the POW experience. If he became president, at the end of his first term, he'd be 91. That's pretty much dead, not to be harsh. At least that makes the vice presidential candidate an exciting pick, you'll never know when we'll really need him. Ouch.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Really? Asking for Comments About Someone's Death?
Ok so I'm not picking on any specific site right now, but it does anger me when I read a blog post about someone's death and then at the bottom it enthusiastically asks for comments! Seriously? What is there to comment about? This seems like a true disrespect for the person who has just lost their life. Who really cares what other people think about this person's death? Certainly not the person who died and certainly not friends and family of the person who died. This is plainly just a way of exploiting their death. Lets see what people can say about this intersection where someone died. "Oh I've almost got in an accident there." Really? That's not exactly the same as someone dying and it's not exactly benefiting anyone to hear about that.
I understand that this is probably just the standard way to set up a blog by adding the comment feature, despite the content of it. Still, there ought to be some filtering of comments in some way. If I were the friend or family of this person I would be offended by the passing comments of readers about their death. It's almost disgusting that people want to comment about it. This is one of the downfalls of blogs as I see it, an inability to distinguish important matters from unimportant matters, and sensative topics from selfish entertainment purposes.
I understand that this is probably just the standard way to set up a blog by adding the comment feature, despite the content of it. Still, there ought to be some filtering of comments in some way. If I were the friend or family of this person I would be offended by the passing comments of readers about their death. It's almost disgusting that people want to comment about it. This is one of the downfalls of blogs as I see it, an inability to distinguish important matters from unimportant matters, and sensative topics from selfish entertainment purposes.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Bloggers Should Be More Like The Middle Man
When the debate about the difference between journalists and bloggers occurs I find myself usually getting angry and a little offended. Maybe I'm being snobby, but I honestly think theres a big difference and there should be. And if others saw it the way I did maybe the two could co-exist pretty peacefully.
Journalism is a profession just like doctors, lawyers, accountants, and salespeople. Theres a reason I'm spending $30,000 a year on tuition and when someone tries to tell me my next door neighbor who never finished high school but could sign up for an online blogging site is essentially doing the same work as I am and their work is just as worthy, I get a little defensive. I understand that blogging is popular. If writers from the New York Times are blogging, it's got to be catching on.
I'm not saying that blogging is pointless or ineffective. I'm just saying maybe we need to make a place for bloggers that can be separate from journalists. Although the general public has information that publications often don't, I think theres still a need for professional journalists who know the consequences of their actions and are familiar with the steps journalists need to go through for the sake of the public.
I think that bloggers have an unmistakable job, one that they're already doing and one that I think is very important to the future of blogging and journalism. Most bloggers don't actually go out and do the reporting themselves. Instead they comment on stories that have already been broken, or state their own observations. Although Universal Hub links to other bloggers as well as publications, I believe they have the right idea.
Bloggers ought to bring readers to a place where they can get information from a variety of sources. They ought to present different locations of different articles that discuss similar subjects. If they have any personal information, they should share it, but people ought to know that these claims are not backed up by solid fact checking. Obviously the general public doesn't have access that journalists have. They might not understand all the ethical issues either. It's important to get information from bloggers but then journalists ought to double check these claims and put together a fuller more comprehensive piece on why and how something happened. Until then, let the discussion continue, but lets be more thoughtful about the process.
Journalism is a profession just like doctors, lawyers, accountants, and salespeople. Theres a reason I'm spending $30,000 a year on tuition and when someone tries to tell me my next door neighbor who never finished high school but could sign up for an online blogging site is essentially doing the same work as I am and their work is just as worthy, I get a little defensive. I understand that blogging is popular. If writers from the New York Times are blogging, it's got to be catching on.
I'm not saying that blogging is pointless or ineffective. I'm just saying maybe we need to make a place for bloggers that can be separate from journalists. Although the general public has information that publications often don't, I think theres still a need for professional journalists who know the consequences of their actions and are familiar with the steps journalists need to go through for the sake of the public.
I think that bloggers have an unmistakable job, one that they're already doing and one that I think is very important to the future of blogging and journalism. Most bloggers don't actually go out and do the reporting themselves. Instead they comment on stories that have already been broken, or state their own observations. Although Universal Hub links to other bloggers as well as publications, I believe they have the right idea.
Bloggers ought to bring readers to a place where they can get information from a variety of sources. They ought to present different locations of different articles that discuss similar subjects. If they have any personal information, they should share it, but people ought to know that these claims are not backed up by solid fact checking. Obviously the general public doesn't have access that journalists have. They might not understand all the ethical issues either. It's important to get information from bloggers but then journalists ought to double check these claims and put together a fuller more comprehensive piece on why and how something happened. Until then, let the discussion continue, but lets be more thoughtful about the process.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
The ONLY Good Thing About John McCain
You've read it in the papers and the magazines, the right hates McCain. Well obviously not the entire right, actually the majority must like him for him to have became the only possible GOP party nominate. But there is truth to the statement that much of the right dislike him. He's not appealing in his speech, he doesn't have strong stances, and is criticized for not being a true republican.
I, much like other republicans around the country, am extremely disappointed in this race. I have become what Barack Obama calls a "Obamacan"--a person who converts from the republican party to Obama. I don't necessarily believe in his position, I believe in his character and faith in the ability to change things. The republican candidates turned out to be duds, I couldn't connect with even one of them. My sister, a staunch republican, always says that the worst republican in the white house is better than the best democrat because he will always do things in line with the parties beliefs. I don't know how much I believe that, I'm not even sure if I'll vote in this upcoming election. Not because I don't think it's important, but simply because I don't want to vote for someone who I don't like. Pretty simple.
The one issue that I disagree with Obama on and actually agree with McCain is on the war. Many people argue about whether we should have gone to war in the first place. I think this argument is irrelevant at this point. We're there and if we leave now, the result will be disastrous. McCain's ad on the war is actually insipiring so I thought I'd give him some props...just a little not a lot.
I, much like other republicans around the country, am extremely disappointed in this race. I have become what Barack Obama calls a "Obamacan"--a person who converts from the republican party to Obama. I don't necessarily believe in his position, I believe in his character and faith in the ability to change things. The republican candidates turned out to be duds, I couldn't connect with even one of them. My sister, a staunch republican, always says that the worst republican in the white house is better than the best democrat because he will always do things in line with the parties beliefs. I don't know how much I believe that, I'm not even sure if I'll vote in this upcoming election. Not because I don't think it's important, but simply because I don't want to vote for someone who I don't like. Pretty simple.
The one issue that I disagree with Obama on and actually agree with McCain is on the war. Many people argue about whether we should have gone to war in the first place. I think this argument is irrelevant at this point. We're there and if we leave now, the result will be disastrous. McCain's ad on the war is actually insipiring so I thought I'd give him some props...just a little not a lot.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Raise Your Hand If You Hate Hillary
Ok so you probably think I'm about to bash Hillary Clinton. I'm not. I'm not her biggest fan but my views are definitely irrelevant to the topic. I want to talk about what seems to be the strange phenomenon of the love/hate Hillary relationship. Never have I seen anyone so loved and then on the other extreme so hated by people. Hillary's supporters would probably walk out in front of a bus for her, and her opposition would gladly push her in front of one.
My sister seems to fall in the later category and I sentimentally thought of her when I saw this sign on facebook on the bumper sticker application. Anyone but Hillary seems to be a battle cry that a large population loudly shout. It's unfortunately a topic that can bring Democrats and Republicans together, at a time when red states and blue states seem to define the country. It begs the question of how Hillary is going to overcome her Achilles heel, that population that will literary vote for anyone but her.
As much as my feminist side might want to cry "sexism!" I don't think it's the case. I don't think that Hillary being a woman is what makes those who hate her hate her. I think it's a different quality, that X factor as they say. Most haters of Hillary claim to hate her because of an overall feeling of sleaziness, that they would hate just as much in a man.
Anyone But Hillary has a following, and a website that sells merchandise with catchy phrases such as "Life Takes Visa, Hillary Takes Cash." One t-shirt has pictures of all the other candidates with checked boxes next to them, surrounding the "Anyone But Hillary" campaign slogan. I find this strong opposition bewildering, and also very amusing. But more than anything I wonder how Hillary hopes to overcome this. Though the thought makes me cringe, if she does beat Obama in the Democratic campaign because of support from those who love her, how does she plan to combat whoever the Republican nomination is, since he will be someone besides Hillary? It seems to me that the country will finally pull together and muster up enough votes to keep her out of the white house.
Anyway heres an entertaining video from my new favorite "fake" southerners that I feel expresses the views of all too many Americans.
Refreshing and Hilarious Spin on Reporting
I'm originally from Maryland. Born and raised. In no way would I consider myself to be from the south. Maryland's region is technically called the mid-atlantic and I can distinctly see the difference from my home state and South Carolina, or Georgia, or Texas. Yet when I came up to school it was like a different world. I can't even count the number of times I saw someone or experienced something and felt the urge to take a picture for a friend back at home so they could understand that I wasn't in Kansas anymore.
I, unlike many friends from high school, needed to experience something different. I liked the environment and I thought the liberalness of Boston was pretty refreshing, especially coming from such a close minded culture. I've also always been interested in politics and current events. I consider myself pretty informed and educated on the topic, which was definitely a conscious decision.
Because of my background and my experiences, in my opinion, one of the big problems of the media today is a sense of elitism. That sounds kind of silly I know, since most broadcasters try to talk in a way that the common person would understand. But like Barack Obama said in a recent speech, politicians don't talk like regular folks. Neither do the press.
That's why I found it not only extremely amusing but also extremely pleasing to come across a form of youtube videos called Red State Updates with Jackie and Dunlap. These videos had short, funny reports on current events and politics. The two commentators are two southern hillbillies voicing their opinions. Some of the language is crude and possibly at times offensive (though unfortunately if these characters were real would probably be a lot more offensive). But what I find so intriguing about it is the level of understanding, relation, and interest this could spark in some people.
If you listen close enough, these two guys are actually talking about current events in politics. Those who are uninformed can listen to this for a laugh, and actually get some real information out of it. Their homepage says "Get Learned Up"--funny and true. There have been comments posted about those who are displeased and call the guys fake southerners. Maybe it's because I'm not quite from the south and can't necessarily call myself a southerner, but one thing I'm sure of is that %90 of kids I went to high school with would rather watch this clip than CNN's newscast any day.
I, unlike many friends from high school, needed to experience something different. I liked the environment and I thought the liberalness of Boston was pretty refreshing, especially coming from such a close minded culture. I've also always been interested in politics and current events. I consider myself pretty informed and educated on the topic, which was definitely a conscious decision.
Because of my background and my experiences, in my opinion, one of the big problems of the media today is a sense of elitism. That sounds kind of silly I know, since most broadcasters try to talk in a way that the common person would understand. But like Barack Obama said in a recent speech, politicians don't talk like regular folks. Neither do the press.
That's why I found it not only extremely amusing but also extremely pleasing to come across a form of youtube videos called Red State Updates with Jackie and Dunlap. These videos had short, funny reports on current events and politics. The two commentators are two southern hillbillies voicing their opinions. Some of the language is crude and possibly at times offensive (though unfortunately if these characters were real would probably be a lot more offensive). But what I find so intriguing about it is the level of understanding, relation, and interest this could spark in some people.
If you listen close enough, these two guys are actually talking about current events in politics. Those who are uninformed can listen to this for a laugh, and actually get some real information out of it. Their homepage says "Get Learned Up"--funny and true. There have been comments posted about those who are displeased and call the guys fake southerners. Maybe it's because I'm not quite from the south and can't necessarily call myself a southerner, but one thing I'm sure of is that %90 of kids I went to high school with would rather watch this clip than CNN's newscast any day.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Be Kind Rewind
I'm browsing The New York Times website today and stumble upon an article about a new movie coming out with Jack Black and Mos Def that is about a video rental store accidentally erasing all their videos. The article discuses the life of the VHS and how DVDs have come to permanently replace them. In essence, the movie is a nice memorabilia for the VHS, something entertaining to remember it by, hence the title "Be Kind Rewind."
I find this movie very intriguing because, despite my youth, I find myself getting lost in trying to keep up with all these new technological advancements that are meant to make my life easier, and yet I feel like they are completely unneccesary. Of course I would prefer watch a DVD over VHS, the quality is nicer it's easier to "fast forward" or skip chapters (in DVD talk) theres no need to rewind or worry about the tape getting unraveled or have to wait while it did that weird "tracking" thing.
Sometimes I wonder though about the attitude of technology users today.
I just need an Ipod I can watch movies on. And I seriously do not have enough time to watch the half hour news at night so I have to watch it on a podcast. Don't even THINK that I have time in my busy schedule to rewind that VHS I have at my house...that's only used to prop up my plasma screen T.V.
So I know I sound like some old guy that had to walk to school five miles uphill in both directions in the snow, that yearns for the good old days when he got five channels on his black and white T.V. and they only came in when the antenna is at the exact right angle.
But I am not saying that at all. I love new technology especially when it makes my life easier because I am fairly lazy like most Americans. I also think that technology that enhances journalism is the best kind of technology because I'm a fan of journalism and of ways that journalism can draw in young people who don't want to buy the newspaper anymore. They need to be informed just as much as their whining grandparents.
I guess what I'm asking is for apple to not come out with a new version of itunes every couple of hours. That does NOT make my life easier. I spend a half hour *downloading a new version that happens to be able to read my mind and just know what songs I want in which playlists (*not an actual function). And maybe for my printer to only have three different functions (fax, copy, print) instead of 15. Then I won't have to take it to get fixed every time the printer gets confused about which function it's performing and decides to completely shut down instead.
And seriously lets have more things to honor past technologies that have long passed their expiration dates, like the VHS.
I find this movie very intriguing because, despite my youth, I find myself getting lost in trying to keep up with all these new technological advancements that are meant to make my life easier, and yet I feel like they are completely unneccesary. Of course I would prefer watch a DVD over VHS, the quality is nicer it's easier to "fast forward" or skip chapters (in DVD talk) theres no need to rewind or worry about the tape getting unraveled or have to wait while it did that weird "tracking" thing.
Sometimes I wonder though about the attitude of technology users today.
I just need an Ipod I can watch movies on. And I seriously do not have enough time to watch the half hour news at night so I have to watch it on a podcast. Don't even THINK that I have time in my busy schedule to rewind that VHS I have at my house...that's only used to prop up my plasma screen T.V.
So I know I sound like some old guy that had to walk to school five miles uphill in both directions in the snow, that yearns for the good old days when he got five channels on his black and white T.V. and they only came in when the antenna is at the exact right angle.
But I am not saying that at all. I love new technology especially when it makes my life easier because I am fairly lazy like most Americans. I also think that technology that enhances journalism is the best kind of technology because I'm a fan of journalism and of ways that journalism can draw in young people who don't want to buy the newspaper anymore. They need to be informed just as much as their whining grandparents.
I guess what I'm asking is for apple to not come out with a new version of itunes every couple of hours. That does NOT make my life easier. I spend a half hour *downloading a new version that happens to be able to read my mind and just know what songs I want in which playlists (*not an actual function). And maybe for my printer to only have three different functions (fax, copy, print) instead of 15. Then I won't have to take it to get fixed every time the printer gets confused about which function it's performing and decides to completely shut down instead.
And seriously lets have more things to honor past technologies that have long passed their expiration dates, like the VHS.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Clearing Up the Language of Laws Is Always Better
In a democratic country, it's important for the people and the government to be both advocates of freedom and advocates of justice, two things that are sometimes difficult to reconcile. For instance, it was important to define exceptions to the free speech amendment so people couldn't make others feel that their lives were in danger. Today in with the war on terrorism, it's hard to tell where that line is crossed by the government and how closely laws are followed.
Despite the issue of whether or not laws are being obeyed, clarity is a very important aspect in the making, or amendment of a law. For example, obviously for many medical and health related facilities there have been laws passed refraining from patients being forced into care.
The language of the law however is often fuzzy as in the case for Virginia. Virginia, according to an article on washingtonpost.com has some of the toughest involuntary care of mental illness patients. It states that one has to be checked in if one is an "imminent danger to self of others." Yet there are no guidelines to who qualifies as an imminent danger, and how imminent danger is defined. In light of the Virginia Tech shootings, there has been pressure to clarify the language.
The new proposed amendment would say that in order for a person to be forced into care for a mental illness, that there must be "'a substantial likelihood'" that the person would cause 'serious physical harm to himself or herself.'" The bill has gotten bipartisan support, though there are of course some who oppose it as a threat to civil liberties. I think that this would be the opposite to a threat to civil liberties.
Language to clear up an already existing law, I believe is usually a positive thing, as long as it does not change the meaning of the law. I don't know who would argue that putting a person who is a substantial threat to others into a mental facility is unjust. Even a free society puts borders around freedom, many times that have to do with the protection of others' lives, otherwise no one would feel free.
Of course I am not necessarily an advocate of the government tapping phone calls. That obviously crosses the line. And I do not want to say that this amendment will perfect the law. There is no way to guarantee complete justice or complete freedom. The new wording is still unclear and does not necessarily solve the problem. It does however, take a step toward tightening up justice, and also insuring freedom.
Despite the issue of whether or not laws are being obeyed, clarity is a very important aspect in the making, or amendment of a law. For example, obviously for many medical and health related facilities there have been laws passed refraining from patients being forced into care.
The language of the law however is often fuzzy as in the case for Virginia. Virginia, according to an article on washingtonpost.com has some of the toughest involuntary care of mental illness patients. It states that one has to be checked in if one is an "imminent danger to self of others." Yet there are no guidelines to who qualifies as an imminent danger, and how imminent danger is defined. In light of the Virginia Tech shootings, there has been pressure to clarify the language.
The new proposed amendment would say that in order for a person to be forced into care for a mental illness, that there must be "'a substantial likelihood'" that the person would cause 'serious physical harm to himself or herself.'" The bill has gotten bipartisan support, though there are of course some who oppose it as a threat to civil liberties. I think that this would be the opposite to a threat to civil liberties.
Language to clear up an already existing law, I believe is usually a positive thing, as long as it does not change the meaning of the law. I don't know who would argue that putting a person who is a substantial threat to others into a mental facility is unjust. Even a free society puts borders around freedom, many times that have to do with the protection of others' lives, otherwise no one would feel free.
Of course I am not necessarily an advocate of the government tapping phone calls. That obviously crosses the line. And I do not want to say that this amendment will perfect the law. There is no way to guarantee complete justice or complete freedom. The new wording is still unclear and does not necessarily solve the problem. It does however, take a step toward tightening up justice, and also insuring freedom.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Obama Is My Homeboy
Barack Obama is too inexperienced. He's only popular because he's the "cool" candidate. MTV and Oprah endorse him; that's why he's got all the young people voting. Jeez young people are just sooo uninformed and Barack is just waaayy too naive about changing the way things are done in Washington.
So I agree with some of the above statements. Young people are often uninformed. And yes they are easily influenced by celebrity endorsements. Why else would Huckabee want to associate himself with Chuck Norris?
Barack Obama is also very young and less experienced in politics than the other candidates. He uses this to his advantage but it does have some serious draw backs.I understand that I shouldn't jump on the bandwagon just for the sake of it.
I'm also a registered Republican. I am very moderate and tend to lean more to the liberal side in social affairs and more to the conservative side for economic affairs. But in fear of abandonment from my father, I registered Republican. Even still, many of Barack Obama's views and solutions seem questionable to me and I wonder if he's being too hopeful.
But then I hear him on T.V. or on an Internet video and I can't help but love him. He makes me laugh, he does appeal to a younger audience, and best of all he seems like he's talking to me. I fell like I could hang out with him on the weekend and he could make me understand all the inner workings of something almost foreign to me...like the stock market (I'm a total stock market idiot). He just has that quality. I also read his book this summer which made me appreciate him as a person who has experienced personal struggle and yet has come to a point where he is confident in the person he has become and I respect self awareness, especially from an African American candidate.
But I try my best to resist the charm and I tell myself to check out the other candidates, especially since I can't vote for Obama in the primaries. I read the other candidates websites, even watched their YouTube debates. Yet no one else gives me the feeling of such authenticity.
So I have finally come to accept that yes, despite all the surrounding hype, despite my inability to cast a vote for him in the primaries, Barack Obama is my homeboy. And yes I will probably buy the t-shirt, just like thousands of other students.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Banana Crisis
Sitting in my magazine class last week, I listened intently to the other students explain their ideas for our next stories. The girl sitting next to me was to go next. "Apparently the bananas that we eat may be going extinct," she said. Wait--what? bananas going extinct? Now that's interesting.
She went on to explain that she had heard from a member of Northeastern's Council for University Programs, or CUP, that Northeastern would be holding a banana awareness week because there is a banana crisis in effect. I couldn't help but laugh. Seriously banana awareness, like breast cancer awareness or hunger awareness? Do bananas really fall into the same category? One of the ideas CUP had for banana awareness week was to take away all the bananas on campus and have, in effect, a "banana blackout."
Recently Burger King did a similar thing in a commercial to promote the sandwich, The Whopper. They told all the costumers that day that ordered a whopper that it was discontinued. The people reacted as if someone has just told them they will have to amputate their left arm. And the reactions are real.
I'm guessing CUP hopes there to be a similar reaction to the banana blackout: pure chaos and anger all around. I'm not quite sure that the assumption that students value their fruits on the same level that they value their fatty, greasy meals is accurate.
In any case, I had to read up on this banana crisis right away. It was too funny to not tell my friends about it and you better believe I had to get my facts down before I did that. So I found an article on the BBC website which discussed the threat of disease and pests. Apparently if they are unable to encourage people to buy bananas that have been grown with the help of pesticides, or if they are unable to clone or find ways to adapt to other types of bananas that are not yet edible, bananas may be gone forever.
My teacher asked the student if she could contact any banana enthusiasts. I found this conversation extremely amusing. After leaving class however I began to think about life without bananas and, in all truthfullness, I came to the conclusion that it would be very saddening to see them go. My two year old niece absolutely loves bananas. What would I tell those innocent little eyes when she asked for a "nana pease?" What about life without banana splits? Or strawberry banana juice without bananas? All joking aside, lets hope this whole banana crisis is put to rest so we can all rest assured that our bananas are safe.
She went on to explain that she had heard from a member of Northeastern's Council for University Programs, or CUP, that Northeastern would be holding a banana awareness week because there is a banana crisis in effect. I couldn't help but laugh. Seriously banana awareness, like breast cancer awareness or hunger awareness? Do bananas really fall into the same category? One of the ideas CUP had for banana awareness week was to take away all the bananas on campus and have, in effect, a "banana blackout."
Recently Burger King did a similar thing in a commercial to promote the sandwich, The Whopper. They told all the costumers that day that ordered a whopper that it was discontinued. The people reacted as if someone has just told them they will have to amputate their left arm. And the reactions are real.
I'm guessing CUP hopes there to be a similar reaction to the banana blackout: pure chaos and anger all around. I'm not quite sure that the assumption that students value their fruits on the same level that they value their fatty, greasy meals is accurate.
In any case, I had to read up on this banana crisis right away. It was too funny to not tell my friends about it and you better believe I had to get my facts down before I did that. So I found an article on the BBC website which discussed the threat of disease and pests. Apparently if they are unable to encourage people to buy bananas that have been grown with the help of pesticides, or if they are unable to clone or find ways to adapt to other types of bananas that are not yet edible, bananas may be gone forever.
My teacher asked the student if she could contact any banana enthusiasts. I found this conversation extremely amusing. After leaving class however I began to think about life without bananas and, in all truthfullness, I came to the conclusion that it would be very saddening to see them go. My two year old niece absolutely loves bananas. What would I tell those innocent little eyes when she asked for a "nana pease?" What about life without banana splits? Or strawberry banana juice without bananas? All joking aside, lets hope this whole banana crisis is put to rest so we can all rest assured that our bananas are safe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)