Gun Control (why not since we talked about it)

I felt that we could have talked about his issue all day in class today but since we just had time to touch up on it I'd like to weigh out a few pro's and con's to this on-going issue. Name calling aside, regardless  if you're a bleeding heart, communist liberal or a right-wing God fearing nutjob, gun control is an important topic. Guns are a deadly weapon, they kill people plain and simple. A lot of innocent people die each year due to a gun related accident. There are many handguns and a lot of them aren't registered to legal owners mostly in inner cities. Its a big problem that many police departments are trying to battle, one way they are try to combat the issue is by a don't ask don't tell gun rebuy. A city in New Jersey offered $100 if you hand in a gun, doesn't matter if its illegal or unregistered and they had very good results with almost 1,000 guns being traded in for the cash. That's 1,000 less deadly weapons off the streets, its a good start but certainly more needs to be done. A case you can make for guns, and by guns I'll say handguns since they can be most concealed and most riffles are used for "hunting" is that they are used for protection. Many gun enthusiasts make the case for collecting and sport. Now, I am all for individual rights, more freedoms, and less government  but the fact that there are so many guns and so many people there needs to be a happy medium here. I am not against gun ownership, as a matter of fact I would like to soon apply for a handgun permit. But in doing so I will take a handgun safety course knowing full well they are not toys. I am also not against stricter laws in acquiring a handgun, with the amount of school shootings for example we need to come up with ways to better educate gun owners and maybe even better safety measures on the guns themselves. 

Rock legends diss Rihanna

Gene Simmons from the rock group Kiss and Tommy Lee from Motley Crue recently had some harsh words for pop star Rihanna. In their rant they rag on Rihanna for lip-syncing, apparently something that Gene Simmons has a hard time dealing with. Simmons was the more outspoken of the two in terms of bashing Rihanna but Lee did not disagree with his fellow musician. Here is the quote from Gene Simmons, "We're sick and tired of girls getting up there with dancers and karaoke tapes in back of them. No karaoke singers allowed. No fake bullshit. Leave that to Rihanna-Schimianna and everybody else whose name ends with an 'A.'" Pretty aggressive on his part. Tommy Lee wasn't as harsh towards her but didn't disagree either. "No disrespect to Rihanna, she's a great singer, but we're in a slump for some shit that has some personality and appeal beyond a bunch of pop stuff that's floating around out there," I'm glad he said that actually because I don't think I can bear watching another fucking award show that is just a little better than 'American Idol.' It's fucking pathetic to watch people go out and fucking karaoke with a bunch of lights and video. It's all completely watered down." Now I don't think its fair to single out Rihanna and in their defense they didn't, Simmons also made reference to Madonna about her lip-syncing during the Super Bowl but who's to say that Rihanna usually lip-syncs? In her defense maybe she does that one limited occasions due to a number of reasons. Why cancel a show when you can still preform for your fans with dance routines and you can lip-sync in the process. Personally I disagree 100% that any artist male or female should resort to lip-syncing, I feel that it takes the authenticity out of the art form. Was it right for them to bash her and other artist for doing that? You can make a case for both but I believe that they're aging bands long past their prime that will do whatever they can to create a buzz and stir things up. I do however agree with how they feel about lip-syncing in general, sings and playing music is an art. Not being able to do it live day in and day out and resort to"cheating" would anger most if not all who do this for a living.

current event post: US Soldier kills Afghan civilians

This was topic I had recently posted about but now that more details have emerged I would like to revisit this issue. So the reports are that this soldier who killed 16 unarmed Afghan civilians mostly women and children, was suffering from sever battle fatigue. To make matters worse his company witnessed a brutal attack on one of their fellow soldiers which may have been the breaking point for the suspected soldier who killed the civilians. This soldier was on his fourth Afghan tour wile also have a number of tours in Iraq. My question is should there be a limit on soldiers and the amount of combat tours they can have in a certain amount of time? I think there needs to be at the very least a review process by a clinical doctor to evaluate the mental and even physical condition of the soldiers who have seen heavy combat. This tragic event that cost the lives of innocent civilians seems like it could have been avoided  had there been a limit or review process. I'm not trying to take the soldier off the hook for what happened but there may have been a few warning signs that went unnoticed. The mental fatigue that is caused by high amount of stress that our soldiers face day in and day out and yet most of them are able to endure it and continue to serve their country is amazing. However they will take that stress home with them from the battlefield and I believe that is due to prolonged periods of deployment and recurring military tours. I'd like to get your feedback on this issue, its a serious one that I think we take for granted.  

More set backs in Afghanistan

Setting aside my personal belief that the United States never should have invaded Afghanistan, it appears what little progress we have made is all but gone. With recent events such as a US Army General burning dozens of copies of the Qur'an and most recently a "rogue" US soldier that shot and killed 16 Afghan civilians, mostly women and children. All that we seem to be accomplishing over there is further enraging the Afghan population which in turn will put more and more US soldiers at risk of reprisal attacks. Its hard to believe that we have been at war in Afghanistan since October of 2001. In 2009 at top US military intelligence official stated that, “The Taliban retains the required partnerships to sustain support, fuel legitimacy and bolster capacity.” In other words, the Taliban's numbers aren't decreasing but rather are possibly increasing. Our military has been trying to build the trust of the Afghan locals in villages but with these continued setbacks we will continue to face an uphill battle. The US has already distanced themselves from the most recent killing of civilians by labeling the soldier as "rogue." But that to the Afghan people means absolutely nothing because this isn't the first time something this has happened. It seems that we are making mistake after mistake with trying to build trust and gain support from the Afghan people, only to further anger them. How many more innocent civilians have to die before this war becomes totally pointless, if it isn't already? I really feel for our men and women how put their lives on the line for this country as I feel their country isn't doing the same for them.

12 Angry Men

Juror 1/foreman: Seemed to be caught up in his duties, tried to accommodate his fellow jurors. My take on him is that he was a good man, an honest man who tried the best he can at whatever he was doing. 

Juror 2: At first he came off very weak and timid, his small stature established him as the weakest of the group. He did grow a little stronger as the movie went on, showing that he could back up his opinions and not be run over by certain jurors.

Juror 3: The most volatile character in the movie. In the very beginning when the jurors were leaving the bench in the court house, this character looked at the defendant as he was walking away, a look that had "guilty verdict" all over it. A blue collar business owner who goes to great lengths to prove guilt but won't hear anything otherwise. We later discover this character to be broken, dealing with a conflict with his own son. Probably a good man but harboring an issue in which he saw the defendant as his own son.

Juror 4: Is probably one of my favorite characters. Smart and pays attention to the facts, displays a great deal of critical thinking. He's solid as a rock but also admits when he over looks something, like the marks on the upper nose caused by the wearing of glasses by a key witness. Clam and methodical.

Juror 5: Comes off as a the average working man but you realize he grew up in the slums just like the defendant. A character that didn't forget where he came from, plays a big role in how this story ends. His firsthand experience with witnessing knife fights as a youth helped convince the remaining jurors that maybe the defendant didn't stab his father the way it was presented by the prosecution.

Juror 6: The working man, wasn't dressed in a suit and tie, I believe he was a painter. Defended juror which established him as the "tough guy" of the group, I had thought juror 3 was the tough guy but he put that character in his place. He didn't offer much on the intellectual side but was grounded.

Juror 7: The baseball fan who's only care was to reach a verdict before the start of the Yankee game. Later we find out that we is a hard working salesman that earns a decent living. Through out the entire deliberation he takes doesn't take a true stance on either guilt or innocence. When he changes his vote to not guilty he can't honestly give a good reason.

Juror 8: Definitely the protagonist of the group. A true critical thinker who doesn't proclaim innocence but rather considers the possibility of a reasonable doubt. Doesn't get frustrated or intimidated especially when facing resistance. He's an architect and it shows in how he put together the possibility of a reasonable doubt. He shows there is value to a mans life.

Juror 9: The old wise man! He pays attention to detail, almost like he has a photographic memory. Extremely observant, his memory sheds a ton of light on the trial. At first he is thought of as an old man with nothing to offer in the deliberation but he turned out to be a pivotal juror that helps shape the outcome.

Juror 10: The older version of juror 3, was dead set on a voting guilty only to realize he's a bigot. Once he was exposed on his true reasons he cowered in the corner of the room, almost sitting in shame but maybe realization? Old white man in the 1950's with every bit of hate in his heart but you would tell it by looking at him.

Juror 11: The watchmaker from a European country. He was almost mocked by some jury members (3 and 10) but in turn made them look like the ignorant fools. For an immigrant he seemed to have a good understanding of American law.

Juror 12: The hotshot, wise-ass ad executive who flip-flopped from guilty to not guilty. He appeared smart and creative, using advertising lingo throughout the duration of the deliberation but turned out to be unassure of what to believe. Didn't have much of an interest at the beginning but became a little more involved. I think he relies on his sharp lingo talk and experience in the business work to get by but he struggled when trying to form his own opinion only to go back and forth. 

Billboard in Utah draws both controversy and praise

A small group of Utah citizens purchased add space for a Billboard which reads, BOMB IRAN. At first glance it would appear to be a pro-war message advocating military force against Iran but at a closer look this is what the entire billboard reads; Support the Troops (Troops is crossed out) followed by Military Industrial Complex. BOMB IRAN in big bold letters. on the bottom is WAR (which is also crossed out) To me this a brilliant message of not only being anti-war but anti big military and especially against force with Iran. The last thing we need to do is engage in yet another war. I think the message is strong with the billboard but since the billboard is on a highway I wonder if people will fully get the true message? Most cars will be speeding by with only "BOMB IRAN" standing out and I'm sure a lot of people won't notice the rest of the billboard. If that is the case this could have a negative effect and might come off the wrong way. I'm interested to hear what you guys think, do any of us really get to dissect a billboard when we're driving along a highway? Is it even possible to do so when driving at higher speeds? Our attention is to be on the road so most of us might not even notice a lot of billboards regardless. Or do you think a billboard like that would draw instant attention? I think the bold lettering of BOMB IRAN is very smart since it will instantly attract most peoples attention, you might even have to drive past it a few more times to fully read the sign but a level of interest has been established, therefore proving the effectiveness of the billboard. Here's the link to the article I found online.  http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t3#/video/us/2012/02/26/dnt-bomb-iran-billboard.ksl
It's a pretty strong message considering you don't see much in terms of anti-war and anti big military/government. Maybe this would be a billboard you would see in California or New York but coming from Utah only shows more and more people are speaking up against our constant military involvement.

"Killer at Large" Journal entry

I believe most of us would agree that most if not all of today's processed foods is food we should not be putting in our bodies on a regular basis. With out a doubt people of all ages, especially teens, are eating these foods at an alarming rate. What I took away most from this video was the relationship between the food companies and congress. This is nothing new to me however, the stranglehold that these lobbyist have on our political system is disgusting. Money is king in this country and this video proves it with its insightful look into how our agricultural and health agencies are run and their logic behind its processes. The general public is being grossly manipulated by not only the food companies but to a large degree the government, thanks to congressman who are in the pockets of these companies and their lobbyist. The media will share some of this blame as well, as they choose to suppress information on exactly what is in the foods we eat. They'll be quick to talk about how gas prices are on the rise or how much money a blockbuster film is grossing but try finding consistent national coverage on this topic. Some might even argue that's its capitalism that is the root of the evil but I argue rather that its corporatism that is the problem; Killer at Large did a nice job of exposing that. George Carlin said it best, "this country was bought and paid for a long time ago, folks." I see it even clearer now. A great example of the rapid change of how we eat can be linked directly to Earl Butz who was appointed by President Richard Nixon in 1971 as the head of the Department of Agriculture. His mantra to farmers was, "get big or get out" This saw a huge decline in the small, family farmer and increase in mega agribusiness corporations. I am all for less government and more individual freedoms but corporatism as helped create this false illusion that parents are being undermined by having their decisions on what they can or can not feed their children. A perfect example is in the case of vending machines in schools, which I personally this is an absolute joke. Governor Schwarzenegger does what he feels was his duty as a publicly elected official and signed a bill that banned vending machines in public schools in his state. And not all vending machines were banned but the contents were replaced by healthier options. What these lobbyist will then do is create a panic targeted at parents that make them think the government is telling them what to do and how to raise their kids. As we saw in the video some parents even handed out "banned" junk foods to their kids at school. All in all this was an interesting and thought provoking video which only reassured my complete lack of faith in our current system. But I'd like to remain somewhat optimistic, we can change it. Its just going to take a lot of effort and a lot more awareness.

The role of PR in marketing and advertising

I came across an interesting article about the role of public relations and advertising. Message Control plays a key part in how, when, and where an advertisement is run in all forms of marketing. There is also a flip side to message control and that once the message has been ran, whats next in uncontrollable, ultimately the media will decide the fate of the information and if its newsworthy. Today, TV advertisements have a shorter shelf life than say a press release archived on the internet. But that might not but true much longer as more and more websites are containing commercial content and in terms of shaping public opinion it is huge due to the influence of the web on today's culture. I truly believe that commercial content on the web will be the new medium in which advertisement will be broadcast in the next five to ten years. Archived press released content will always be available on the web but as commercials begin to dominate the web, a press lease may soon become a thing of the past. Another powerful tool in shaping public opinion is through implied endorsement. As creative an advertisement may be someone still paid some amount of money to have a message directly filtered to a consumer. Public Relations can also play a big role for say, smaller companies who can't shell out the big dollars of most corporations. But even some corporations still take advantage of PR third party advertising as this will save a company money because they are not paying to have an advertisement placed but rather a publication is freely giving space to a story about the company. Many corporations will spend exuberant amounts of money on advertising and most have the money to do that. If those companies combine both methods of advertising I believe their influence on shaping public opinion will be even greater. I was able to get a really good understanding of how these advertisements come to be, understanding this helps to understand how a company markets to consumers and their intentions. In today's culture advertising has an ever greater effect because of the internet. If someone wants to create a website but might not have enough funds to do so, simply allow other companies to advertise through banners on your site. That alone could pay for the site to run itself.    

Current Issue blog2: Whitney Houston. Tragic.

Yesterday we were saddened by the news of the death of Whitney Houston, one of the greatest voices to ever pick up a microphone. A truly blessed singer, a natural talent that may be unrivaled for decades to come. While I was never a fan of her's I always marveled how amazing her voice was. I consider her rendition of the National Anthem at the Super Bowl in 1991 as the greatest ever. Not only an accomplished singer but she had a very successful debut in acting when she stared with Kevin Costner in The Bodyguard. She seemed to have handled her rise to the top with relative ease, there was no limit to what she could achieve. Her highly publicized marriage to singer Bobby Brown seemed all but fitting but soon after things took a turn for the worst. Battles with drugs and alcohol, run in's with the law and rocky marriage spelled out a classic tail of a fall from grace. A reality television show about her family life with Bobby Brown gave the public a look into how much that fall from grace really was. I remember watching a couple of episodes and noticing the drastic effect drugs have played in both of their lives. It was sad to watch. She made few attempts at a full fledged comeback by preforming to sold out venues and a possible new album, but she had trouble getting though entire shows and worst of all that beautiful and magical voice started to fade. Even after a divorce from Bobby Brown, she still had her troubles with drugs and alcohol. While the exact details of her death have not yet been determined, there were reports by various news media outlets that reported the singer leaving an R&B Grammy party in Los Angles as "dazed" and "disoriented." One report was that she was displaying an "aggressive attitude" after leaving the venue. I am not going to speculate on the cause but taking into account her previous battle with drugs, there is no doubt a possibility they could have played a role in her untimely death. A tragedy in every sense of the word. I don't believe we'll hear a voice as wonderful as Whitney Houston's, not for a long time. Dead at the age of 48, she had so much life to live but sadly we are left with so many questions. RIP Whitney Houston. Your voice will echo for an eternity.

Journal 2 Advertising and Marketing

After reading these two articles, both of which were supported by facts and statistics, my first  impression was the article by Robert Liodice made the best argument. The argument by Margo Wootan, in my opinion brought a lot of valid points, there is no doubt that childhood obesity is a problem. She makes points about calories being too high in children's diets, the key roles marketing has played in the last 20 years, and the need for marketers to act more responsibly in this issue. The main issue I had with her argument were the guidelines purposed by CSPI, I felt that the restrictions were way to controlling, almost "Orwellian." Also Liodice pointed out a few contradictions, one that stood out was how the CSPI guidelines stated that the "parents bear the primary responsibility for feeding their children." But the proposed guidelines seem to ignore that statement. He also provided information on how  Nielson Media Research conducted a detailed study from 1993 to 2003 showing the number of food adds seen by children 12 years of age or younger have declined by 13%. Another point he makes is how the food and marketing industries have taken great steps in addressing the special concerns of children in relation to advertising, with the creation of the Children's Advertising Review Unit (CARU) This group is a self regulation arm of the Council of Better Business Bureaus. While I liked this argument better at first, I decided to reread both articles because the piece by Margo Wootan seemed to provide more information. After rereading the Liodice argument, I noticed that he has the title of CEO of the Association of National Advertisers. That had the "bias" bell ringing in my head, as apposed to Margo Wootan who is the Director of Nutrition Science for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit organization. There would be less of a bias on their part since they seem to provide studies for the public in a number of areas. The study by Nielson Media Research did show a 13% decrease in food ads shown to children 12 years or younger, but that doesn't show studies for children ages 13 to 17, which CSPI considers a child (anyone under the age of 18) For all we know there could have been an increase in ads for teenagers under the age of 18? Including my personal opinion that the regulation guidelines by CSPI are too extreme that doesn't mean they can't be rethought. I am a firm believer in the Constitution and especially the First Amendment but we do as a society bare at least some responsibility for what advertising can market to children. After reading these articles twice and also putting aside my personal beliefs on the First Amendment I felt that the best argument was presented by Margo Wootan. In terms of logic and analytical reasoning the Wootan article was stronger. (Now I could also go on as to say how I believe this a great opportunity for the free market to help with this problem but maybe I'll save that for my blog entry) : - ) 

Current Issue blog: Why the US helped Libya but not Syria

Last night CNN reported that over 200 Syrian protesters were killed and hundreds more injured in what was the by far the bloodiest day since protests began. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's has labeled the protesters as, "armed criminal groups" and "thugs." So far the only armed criminal group appears to be the Syrian Government. Syria is going through a very similar situation that we saw with Libya when opposition groups who opposed  Moammar Gadhafi tried to overthrow the brutal dictator. Actually there isn't much of a difference in terms of the actions by both regimes, heavy force against the people which seems to be unrelenting. According to the Syrian opposition the number of people killed in a little over 15 months since the opposition began, is a staggering 7,398. The number of civilian deaths in the Libya opposition was between 5,000 and 7,000 with some estimates being over 12,000. Clearly almost identical situations between both regimes and its people. During the Libyan conflict the United States worked with the UN to impose an internal naval blockade, establish a no-fly zone and take military action (air support only) in the name of protecting the Libyan people. That resulted in the eventual topple of the Gadhafi regime along with his capture and death shortly after. However, with Syria the Obama administration has been rather apathetic. While President Obama has condemned the the violence "in the strongest possible terms" the US has only sought to increase the pressure on the Syrian regime in a targeted way. That has amounted to simply talk thus far. I find it very that strange that there has been very little involvement from both the UN and US. There has been extensive journalistic reporting from Syria from various international news sources, all documentation points to clear human rights violations.Yet UN and US intervention remains non existent. Personally I don't believe the United States needs to have a hand in every international conflict. We are conducting way too much nation building and have been for many years, but if we're going to vigorously help the Libyan people in the name of human rights than how come we stay silent with Syria? I'm interested in hearing your thoughts and opinions.

Critical Thinking Journal1 entry

1a) In the case of Michael, he claims to reason out capital punishment as a deterrent to murder and other violent crimes. However he’s becomes angry with his findings because it appears that he holds a personal belief in the use of capital punishment. His denial leads to his anger, both of which present a barrier to critical thinking. His comment on still being in favor of capital punishment because you still need to punish criminals is a lack of critical thinking because his barriers are preventing him from creative critical thinking and trying to find other ways to stop criminals from committing violent crimes.

1b) With Maria I think the barriers are very similar to that of Michael.  She appears to be struggling with her position on the issue of a woman adopting a husband’s last name in marriage analysis showing it to be nonsexist. She is engaging in resistance not critical thinking.  Maria seems to struggle with taking a tentative stand on the issue; rather she angrily accepts her research.

1c) Pete’s issue is that he is caught up in doublethink. He agrees and supports two arguments, one being that he believes that all cultures and cultural practices are equally valid and that people do not have the right to say that particular cultures practices are wrong.  He also believes its part of our Western culture to impose its beliefs and practices and that it is wrong to do that. His absence of analyzing any of the arguments about the issue might have left him in an unwittingly state of double standards.

1d) The issue that some people find it revolting to eat animals such as dogs, cats, or seagulls but see no harm in eating cows or chickens falls under ethnocentrism.  These people clearly show a lack of knowledge of other cultures and rely only on their personal opinions.  I could also make a case for ignorance as I feel it goes hand and hand with ethnocentrism in this case. We in the West consider a dog as, “man’s best friend” The perfect household pet. We are a culture feed on beef and red meat.  Cows and chickens serve as a source of food for us but in other cultures like India, cattle is considered sacred. I would personally find it unpleasant to eat dog meat but by no means would I find it revolting if another culture does. A perfect example being around my Italian family and eating lambs head, as it is considered a delegacy in Sicily. (It actually tastes pretty good too)

2) At first this question threw me of a little because I didn’t think there was anything wrong with the student’s critical thinking.  The student collected information, checked the syllabus, asked the teacher questions, took in the teachers point of view, and finally determined that the teacher was correct in lower his grade due to his poor attendance. So at first this was a bit of a puzzle to me, then I considered what got him in this position in the first place. The student clearly displayed a lack of understanding in the teacher’s initial reason for lowering his grade due to his absences. He should have a degree of logic that would enable him to understand both the teacher’s attendance policy and that by missing excessive classes it might have a negative effect on his grade.