All things in this country point towards a Democratic swing in leadership when the ballots next go out to the populus. The New York Times interviewed Al Franken about his reasons for and dedication to his race for a seat in the Senate. As all Minnesotans remember, the state not long ago elected a 'professional' wrestler, Jesse Ventura just because he was something different. Hopefully Governor Ventura did not scare too many Minnesotans away from alternative choices for government leaders because Franken is a serious option that could be a great asset.
Franken, a Minnesota native, has an affection for home-state that he wants to represent in the Senate. Although Franken spent three decades out of Minnesota doing the comedy circuit on Saturday Night Live, stand-up, and even his own novels, his roots are in the Twin Cities.
Franken maintains his humor when out meeting the voters but has taken up a new face that attempts to prove his devotion and desire to the race for Senate. This new mix will keep his fans of many years on his side and is starting a buzz that will inspire new Franken fans to jump on the wagon. But the question remains, do entertainers belong in government? There definitely are the precedents, for better or worse. Al Franken will most likely prove to be one of the better precedents if elected.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Hate Speech & Fighting Words
What is the real difference between hate speech and fighting words? The emotion put into both kinds are the same- anger, hate, frustration. Yet, hate speech is partially protected under the First Amendment and fighting words receive receive absolutely no protection. Would it not make more sense to make both hurtful forms of speech unlawful?
Fighting words remain unlawful because their main purpose is to start a fight and whether or not a fight occurs, the speech is illegal. Hate speech is a form of self-expression but side-effects of hate speech many times include violence also. So even though hate speech is not intended to start a fisticuffs, a little bit of common sense must be employed to realize it is just as dangerous as fighting words.
How does the judicial system draw the line between these two dangerous forms of speech? How is it decided that one form is lawful and one is unlawful? Merely because one form is expression and used to learn and explore. Both forms, due to their similar outcomes, should receive the same amount of protection under the First Amendment. Whether this is full, partial, of none is up to those who decide such things.
Fighting words remain unlawful because their main purpose is to start a fight and whether or not a fight occurs, the speech is illegal. Hate speech is a form of self-expression but side-effects of hate speech many times include violence also. So even though hate speech is not intended to start a fisticuffs, a little bit of common sense must be employed to realize it is just as dangerous as fighting words.
How does the judicial system draw the line between these two dangerous forms of speech? How is it decided that one form is lawful and one is unlawful? Merely because one form is expression and used to learn and explore. Both forms, due to their similar outcomes, should receive the same amount of protection under the First Amendment. Whether this is full, partial, of none is up to those who decide such things.
Dove Onslaught
The viral advertising piece from Dove entitled Onslaught is a double-faced ploy. Adults realize that Dove is condemning the nasty tactics that the beauty industry has employed for years. These unfair portrayals of women and beauty have most certainly damaged the women's rights movement and created false ideals in a majority of young women. A child watching the advertisement may only see the erotic images and the 'ideal' figure that is thrown at an infinite rate at the young girl. Young children would still be seeing these beautiful people and maintain the same ideas concerning the individual, beauty, and society. It is not too difficult to imagine a child viewing this ad and seeing the images that are supposed to be read as negative as positive. This scenario would only enhance the beauty industry sales and profit Dove, which is owned by Unilever, a company that owns many other bathroom and beauty products.
The idea that one arm of a large company sells a product that another limb deems unhealthy and harmful is so underhanded it is almost laughable. One of a few options may explain why such a situation may occur. First, the company may be so large that when new campaigns are launched the ideals in said campaigns may not be thoroughly checked by existing branches. Second, the new venture may know about the contradictory branch, but just does not care or think that the consumers will care or know about it. Third, the two contradicting branches may be getting quotas and orders handed down from the mother company so that the almighty dollar overrules any objections. No matter the reason, such contradictions are harmful to consumers.
The idea that one arm of a large company sells a product that another limb deems unhealthy and harmful is so underhanded it is almost laughable. One of a few options may explain why such a situation may occur. First, the company may be so large that when new campaigns are launched the ideals in said campaigns may not be thoroughly checked by existing branches. Second, the new venture may know about the contradictory branch, but just does not care or think that the consumers will care or know about it. Third, the two contradicting branches may be getting quotas and orders handed down from the mother company so that the almighty dollar overrules any objections. No matter the reason, such contradictions are harmful to consumers.
Separation of Church & State
A recent New York City woman attempting to smuggle bushmeat (monkey) into the country has once again raised the issue of church and state. The woman's religion regularly eats bushmeat for their souls but the woman was still brought to court. This debate goes back to the founding of the country, even John Locke speculated on the different powers that the two entities hold. In times of war, certain citizens that have been drafted have pleaded ineligible due to religious beliefs. In times of peace, certain citizens claimed that they require illegal substances to enable communication with higher beings. Where may the legal system draw the line, where does one hold authority over another?
The precidents hold that in times of less stability religious rights are held in a lower regard, and when the country runs smoother religious special-treatment runs amok. This line tends to be the one that makes the most sense. As long as exceptions to the law for religion do not harm anyone, it only makes sense to not harm the defendant and allow them to practice their beliefs. A woman smuggling in bushmeat probably is not going to get anyone killed and the justice system should show some respect for personal beliefs and realize this.
The precidents hold that in times of less stability religious rights are held in a lower regard, and when the country runs smoother religious special-treatment runs amok. This line tends to be the one that makes the most sense. As long as exceptions to the law for religion do not harm anyone, it only makes sense to not harm the defendant and allow them to practice their beliefs. A woman smuggling in bushmeat probably is not going to get anyone killed and the justice system should show some respect for personal beliefs and realize this.
About a month ago, Mark Zuckerberg announced an innovative new advertising campaign that was to be used on the internet socializing site, Facebook. The new idea for advertising would have advertisements paired up with pictures and names of friends on Facebook that enjoy or purchase whatever the ad was selling. The problem is an old New York law that finds placing real people into advertisements without payment or consent unlawful. What is truely alarming is that there is only one law in place in this country that challenges such blatent privacy breaches. If a large companny such as Facebook wants to start putting people's pictures onto advertisements without payment or consent, more people need to stand up, despite the popularity of the company.
Every year the money invested into advertising, both virtual and in the material world, increases. It is true that consumers become desensitized to certain forms of advertising and new forms need to be utilized, but to what point? The line must be drawn so that personal privacy is protected. The driving power of capitalism and the almightly dollar has the force to trample the individual if the general population allows it to. But the general population must not allow it to, for the sake of personal freedoms.
Every year the money invested into advertising, both virtual and in the material world, increases. It is true that consumers become desensitized to certain forms of advertising and new forms need to be utilized, but to what point? The line must be drawn so that personal privacy is protected. The driving power of capitalism and the almightly dollar has the force to trample the individual if the general population allows it to. But the general population must not allow it to, for the sake of personal freedoms.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
An Insult to Women and the African-American Communities
A recent article from the New York Times raised a couple of alarming arguments. The author, Katharine Q. Seelye, postulates that because Oprah Winfrey officially endorsed Democratic Presidential Nominee Barack Obama, voting women and African-Americans would follow suit and place their trust in Obama as well. To assume that Oprah's audience and fans would so blindly vote for a candidate that she approves of is purely insulting. True, some of Oprah's audience may blindly follow her anywhere due to some blind obedience, but another assumption would prove that many of her fans are smart enough to choose their own President. Instead of just presenting the facts of the story, Seelye presents these broad and false assumptions either because she vainly hopes them to be true or she is trying to convince her audience that overlaps with Oprah's audience to choose Obama on their ballots.
To assume that women and African-Americans would blindly fall into line and follow Oprah is hurtful and demeaning. Both groups of people faught for, and are still fighting, the equality and rights that they now enjoy. By simplifying their thought processes so thoroughly, Seelye actually sets women and African-Americans back in their fight for equality in today's world. Such assumptions about Oprah and Obama have been made in many facets of mass media and every time it is irresponsible journalistically and harmful culturally.
To assume that women and African-Americans would blindly fall into line and follow Oprah is hurtful and demeaning. Both groups of people faught for, and are still fighting, the equality and rights that they now enjoy. By simplifying their thought processes so thoroughly, Seelye actually sets women and African-Americans back in their fight for equality in today's world. Such assumptions about Oprah and Obama have been made in many facets of mass media and every time it is irresponsible journalistically and harmful culturally.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
The Rise of Cable TV News
The ability for everyday people to access news easily and constantly leads back to the creation of CNN in 1980 by Ted Turner. This new concept of 'all news, all the time' placed a new power into the hands of average citizens, no matter what country the television viewing was done. CNN provides reliable news with constant updates, thanks to its nearly 4,000 news professionals stationed around the world.
Because the breaking news on CNN airs nearly live or completely live, corporations do not have time to approve of or influence angles of stories. This factor puts CNN far ahead of regular news broadcasts done by major network stations. The immediate response and coverage of breaking news may then be better broadcast to the audiences around the globe. All the facts are covered and biases remain at arms length.
Since the success of CNN in the later 80's, one by one, other companies have created and succeeded with 24 hour news channels. CNN was undoubtedly the influence for Fox News, MSNBC, and other, lesser known or more specialized news channels.
All day news broadcasting started out as cable television channels but has evolved into entire companies that have a sole purpose or finding and reporting everything of relevance to the audience. These companies are large in revenues and personnel, and have a large influence over the what the average news-gathering human knows about current events.
Because the breaking news on CNN airs nearly live or completely live, corporations do not have time to approve of or influence angles of stories. This factor puts CNN far ahead of regular news broadcasts done by major network stations. The immediate response and coverage of breaking news may then be better broadcast to the audiences around the globe. All the facts are covered and biases remain at arms length.
Since the success of CNN in the later 80's, one by one, other companies have created and succeeded with 24 hour news channels. CNN was undoubtedly the influence for Fox News, MSNBC, and other, lesser known or more specialized news channels.
All day news broadcasting started out as cable television channels but has evolved into entire companies that have a sole purpose or finding and reporting everything of relevance to the audience. These companies are large in revenues and personnel, and have a large influence over the what the average news-gathering human knows about current events.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Fire Season in California
Dry season rages in full swing for California and the Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has declared a state of emergency. The rest of the nation wonders why New Orleans gets rebuilt, but a better question is why residents of the wildfire region keep on returning to their homes only to be evacuated again. Every year of recent memory brings back images of school closings, homes burning, highways blocked, and other images that could be mistaken as wartime photos. Yet residents always return, bringing the kids and family dog right back into the fire pit. It is a mistake.
Deciding to live in such a forsaken land is not only foolish, it's also stubborn. Buildings lost and rebuilt yearly inflate the cost of living for the rest of the nation. The wildfires that could be left to burn wildly instead require over a thousand firemen, drawn from all across the nation, to battle the flames that threaten multi-million dollar homes. Foolish. Tax dollars from all Ameican citizens get thrown into fighting these fires that should burn to reinvigorate nature and life in the forests.
When a quarter million people from San Diego County have to be evacuated for fear of their lives, why do they move back when the flames are finally quenched? Basic instinct of any organism is to survive and produce sucessful offspring. For other species that walk this planet, if a habitat becomes dangerous and threatens reproductive success, a new home must be found. It would seem that the stubbornness of the residents that could change their fates and don't is actually a backwards step in evolution. The time has come for the residents of these fire prone areas to cut their loses and settle down somewhere more hospitable.
Deciding to live in such a forsaken land is not only foolish, it's also stubborn. Buildings lost and rebuilt yearly inflate the cost of living for the rest of the nation. The wildfires that could be left to burn wildly instead require over a thousand firemen, drawn from all across the nation, to battle the flames that threaten multi-million dollar homes. Foolish. Tax dollars from all Ameican citizens get thrown into fighting these fires that should burn to reinvigorate nature and life in the forests.
When a quarter million people from San Diego County have to be evacuated for fear of their lives, why do they move back when the flames are finally quenched? Basic instinct of any organism is to survive and produce sucessful offspring. For other species that walk this planet, if a habitat becomes dangerous and threatens reproductive success, a new home must be found. It would seem that the stubbornness of the residents that could change their fates and don't is actually a backwards step in evolution. The time has come for the residents of these fire prone areas to cut their loses and settle down somewhere more hospitable.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
The Real Blame for File Sharing
This morning on my way out the front doors of Bailey Hall (St. Paul Campus) I picked up a copy of the Minesota Daily. Like always, the Daily contained many enlightening and and well put together columns. However, on the Editorials and Opinions page a University Student wrote in a Letter to the Editor that I could not ignore. In the letter the student claimed that the consumers are not to blame when it comes to file sharing. Instead, he inserts that the record companies should instead 'try to keep up with the changing technologies.' The argument made was so grossly undercooked that I had to laugh.
The author says that digital file sharing compares to the cassette tapes and VHS tapes a decade ago. In a way, he is correct. The actual software of file sharing programs was not intended to be a way to pirate music and movies, but just like with cassettes, the technology is abused and raped. Because you have the ability to download anything for free does not mean that the artist or creator has lost the artistic rights to that unique piece of intellectual property.
Instead of merely putting the blame on record companies because people love stuff for free, the population needs to realize that file sharing is theft. People need to pull their fingers out of their ears and stop screaming and face the music: the blame does not rest on corporations or policing agencies, it rests on us.
The author says that digital file sharing compares to the cassette tapes and VHS tapes a decade ago. In a way, he is correct. The actual software of file sharing programs was not intended to be a way to pirate music and movies, but just like with cassettes, the technology is abused and raped. Because you have the ability to download anything for free does not mean that the artist or creator has lost the artistic rights to that unique piece of intellectual property.
Instead of merely putting the blame on record companies because people love stuff for free, the population needs to realize that file sharing is theft. People need to pull their fingers out of their ears and stop screaming and face the music: the blame does not rest on corporations or policing agencies, it rests on us.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Iranian President Speaks at Columbia
This Monday Iraninan President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia University. He spoke to a large crowd that was mostly opposed to him and instead jeered at his words. Because of International laws and rules, Mr. Ahmadinejad was allowed to visit and speak. It would be censorship to not allow him to speak or to not have media coverage or the debate. As Americans, we must not censor anyone, just as a general rule, for that would lower our own morals. That said, what Mr. Ahmadinejad's statements referring to the Hollocaust as merely a theory and accusing America of secretly supporting terrorism should not be taken seriously. Instead of outright blocking what Mr. Ahmadinejad said, consumers of media need must take what he said with a grain of salt.
Columbia University had a good idea when they invited the Iranian President to the debate. However, the unfair treatment he received from both the moderator and Lee C. Bollinger, the president of Columbia University. Instead of lowering himself to the unfair attacks he received from the hosts, Mr. Ahmadinejad attacked America, freedom, the questions, and just about everything else. This of course allowed him to avoid answering the more difficult questions that he was asked, what he was most likely hoping to do. By treating him badly, the hosts of the debate merely allowed Mr. Ahmadinejad to ridicule Columbia, America, and avoiod pressing questions.
Columbia University had a good idea when they invited the Iranian President to the debate. However, the unfair treatment he received from both the moderator and Lee C. Bollinger, the president of Columbia University. Instead of lowering himself to the unfair attacks he received from the hosts, Mr. Ahmadinejad attacked America, freedom, the questions, and just about everything else. This of course allowed him to avoid answering the more difficult questions that he was asked, what he was most likely hoping to do. By treating him badly, the hosts of the debate merely allowed Mr. Ahmadinejad to ridicule Columbia, America, and avoiod pressing questions.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)