Christopher Lasch begins The Revolt of the Elites by stating that, “[once] it was the “revolt of the masses” that was held to threaten social order and the civilizing traditions of Western culture. In our time, however, the chief threat seems to come from those at the top of the social hierarchy, not the masses” (Lasch 203). This idea, that the elites are now more powerful, is also prevalent in other readings, Information Deprivation in an Information-Rich Society, by Gerbiner, and Big World: How Clear Channel Programs America, by Jeffrey Sharlet, share similar ideas of unequal power distribution. These three articles are primarily linked by the idea that the market that we had previously been operating on has changed from a national market to an international market; however, other comparisons can be made between these articles when looking at the transition from state control to private control and the dominating corporations and business people.
Firstly, there are many more dominating businesses and business people than there were only a few years ago. Christopher Lasch, author of The Revolt of the Elites, states that “[today] it is the elites, however- those who control the international flow of money and information, preside over the philanthropic foundations and institutions of higher learning, manage the instruments of cultural production and thus set the terms of public debate- that have lost faith in the values, or what remains of them, of the West;” (Lasch 203) meaning that a greater amount of power is in the hands of a smaller few. Lasch also makes it clear that “[the] general course of recent history no longer favors the leveling of social distinctions but runs more and more in the direction of a two-class society in which the favored few monopolize the advantages of money, education, and power” (Lasch 204). Ideas that Lasch also expresses in this article consist of the belief that the upper class separates everything in their lives from the lower class; they hire their own bodyguard as opposed to just relying on police and they send their children to private school instead of having them attend regular schooling (Lasch 193-201). The Revolt of the Elites presents an idea that there are elite people and elite businesses that have taken over every market, leaving very little chance for any competition.
The domination of corporations and single people has also been made clear by Jeffrey Sharlet and Gerbiner. Gerbiner, one of the authors of Information Deprivation in an Information-Rich Society, has made it clear that corporations are really starting to take over more than their product; “[…] much of the space in the American cultural house has been appropriated for corporate messages […] Atlanta, for example, is seriously considering renaming some of its streets and parks with corporate logos- ‘Coca-Cola Boulevard [and] Georgia Pacific Park’- to raise funds” (Gerbiner 186). Gerbiner further states that “[the] corporate voice booms across the land, individual expression, at best, trickles through tiny, constricted public circuits. This has allowed the affective right to free speech to be transferred from individuals to billion-dollar companies that, in effect, monopolize public communication”(Gerbiner 186). This information deprivation that Gerbiner writes about relates well to the power distribution that today’s society faces; only a few corporations give us the information that they wish us to know and understand. These ideas are also seen when looking at Jeffrey Sharlet’s reading, Big World: How Clear Channel Programs America. When looking at Clear Channel as an example of a dominant corporation, it can be seen that, “Clear Channel […] reaches roughly 200 million people, or more than 70 percent of the American public,” (Sharlet 193) proving that these corporations are controlling what people listen to and what information is made known, or regulated, on a daily basis. Sharlet says of Clear Channel, “[it is] an experiment. It is a giant and potentially unstable, more reliant on muscle than on financial finesse […],” (Sharlet 193) meaning that these corporations do not even need to be so profitable, that the size alone can defeat any competitors. Gerbiner and Sharlet both write of dominant corporations and people who seem to be more in control of information and public knowledge than any other source, these companies discussed are slowly taking over the public thoughts and opinions and replacing them with their own.
Secondly, the control in this world went from control of the state to control coming from the private sector. Given that Lasch’s article is written about the newfound power of the elites, and that power being taken away from other sources, the masses and the government, it is well suited that Gerbiner and Sharlet write of the control being stolen from the hands of the state and being placed in the hands of the elites. As stated in Information Deprivation an Information-Rich Society, “[in] the increasingly central spheres of communication and information, the shift from state to private power is especially marked and observable;” (Gerbiner et al 185) it is very clear that there has been a shift in the power holders and decision makers. It has also been seen that this new private control has more power over what information the public has access to: “[…] today there is a new form of censorship, structurally pervasive, grounded in private, concentrated control of the media, and generally undetectable in a direct and personal sense” (Gerbiner et al 186).
This power switch is also well depicted in the reading by Sharlet, Clear Channel has been proven to be an excellent example of a powerful information provider; “Clear Channel stations shrink playlists and recycle an even smaller number of songs” (Sharlet 194). As well, “[…] Clear Channel has made commercial radio nearly reporting-free, believing that its syndication of […] as many stations as possible fulfills its mandate to provide news and political diversity” (Sharlet 194). With the shrinking of playlists and the lack of reporting on these Clear Channel stations, it is left to one company to package the information that it feels is necessary to be known by the public, and to throw the rest away. Clear Channel has taken power away from every angle, media, government, and the masses and has turned itself into a private company that can push ideas and decisions towards their audience and take away the influence of the state. These two readings are, once again, well related to the topic of the diminishment of the masses and the rise of the elites in that the decision making power and the information relaying power has been passed from the state to the private corporations and elites.
Lastly, it can be seen from The Revolt of the Elites, that we are now operating using a new market structure. Instead of sticking with a national business scope, there is a new international scope that today’s elites and big corporations are working with. Lasch writes that the new elites are now concerned with the operation of a system as a whole, rather than the operation of its single parts, as well, the elites are more concerned with their international counterparts rather than the masses of Americans (Lasch 203-212). Gerbiner compliments Lasch’s argument by stating that “[today], the power of huge, private economic enterprises is extended across national and international boundaries, influencing and directing economic resource decisions, political choices, and the production and dissemination of messages and images” (Gerbiner et al 185). Gerbiner furthers the argument made in the previous quotation by stating that these corporations are not only international but they have influence on many important political and economic decisions; “[the] American economy is now hostage to a relatively small number of giant private companies, with interlocking connections, that set the national agenda” (Gerbiner et al 185). Lasch and Gerbiner both come together in their separate articles in relaying the message of a new market; not only national, but international.
To conclude, it has primarily been seen that these articles are linked by the fact that the market that we had previously been operating with has changed from a national market to an international market. However, the correlation between the Lasch, Sharlet and Gerbiner readings can also be seen when examining the transition from state control to private control and the dominating corporations and business people. While completing this analysis it can be questioned whether this rise of elites is a positive step for society, or if we have taken a wrong turn and should be looking backwards towards change.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Friday, November 23, 2007
PEREZ HILTON
Who doesn’t love it? I’m talking about Perez Hilton’s website!!! It gives us the best dirt on all of our favorite celebrity friends with a quirky twist! I love how I can log on and see ten different pictures of Britney Spears in a car, and a different, funny, rude sarcastic comment following each. I think he is so successful off of this website because he gives people the part of the gossip magazines, everyday, for free! I’m going to admit, it’s a guilty pleasure… no one likes to say that they like to indulge themselves in the shortcomings of others, but sometimes it’s good to see that these celebrities do have flaws.
Taser Death At Airport
http://video.canada.com/Global_VideoContentHTML.aspx (video of the taser death)
I just don’t understand… how could this have happened in today’s society? Are we not a multicultural country, do we not have people that can understand and speak different languages when someone is clearly distraught? I was disturbed by this video, in more than one way it worked at destroying the friendly understanding Canadian image and helped to create one for us of hatred and violence. I couldn’t grasp, in my head, why this man needed to be tasered! He was lost, he was visibly confused and just needed help, and the only way he began to throw things was because people and security guards were treating him like an animal. If I was in a foreign country and could not speak the language and people were staring and pointing instead of attempt to help me I would be furious and humiliated! Humiliation causes people to act up, and I believe that these security guards and this airport were not taking this man seriously in the slightest. Next time I go to the Vancouver airport I’m going to walk in a straight line, keep to myself, and not say a word… with a story like this you can never know what could happen!!
I just don’t understand… how could this have happened in today’s society? Are we not a multicultural country, do we not have people that can understand and speak different languages when someone is clearly distraught? I was disturbed by this video, in more than one way it worked at destroying the friendly understanding Canadian image and helped to create one for us of hatred and violence. I couldn’t grasp, in my head, why this man needed to be tasered! He was lost, he was visibly confused and just needed help, and the only way he began to throw things was because people and security guards were treating him like an animal. If I was in a foreign country and could not speak the language and people were staring and pointing instead of attempt to help me I would be furious and humiliated! Humiliation causes people to act up, and I believe that these security guards and this airport were not taking this man seriously in the slightest. Next time I go to the Vancouver airport I’m going to walk in a straight line, keep to myself, and not say a word… with a story like this you can never know what could happen!!
Thursday, November 8, 2007
CCA #4
Effects of Interpersonal Communication and the Internet
Internet has taken away from hardcopy newspapers and magazines and paying for movies and music, but has it taken away from our many different relationships? Relationships have been affected by internet and internet communication, and it seems the more you use it, the higher the risk of being affected. This analysis will explore the negative effects that computer communication has on relationships and on people in general.
Relationships have clearly been affected in many different ways by the internet, some positive and some negative. “In one survey, approximately 25 percent of the respondents who used the internet regularly reported spending less time talking in person and on the phone with friends and family members;” (Sevigny, et al, 209)proving to be a negative effect of online communication. People do spend less time communicating in these ways since the internet is quick and easy. For example, I have some friends who never use the phone now because they can talk to me and ten other people at the same time on MSN. In talking to ten people at the same time the level of understanding and intimacy in each conversation goes down. Another negative about online chatting would be that people tend to feel safer saying whatever comes to mind while chatting online as opposed to face-to-face. It’s almost like there’s some kind of rule that tells people that they can be meaner, bolder or even completely different than they normally are; internet gives a false sense of security. Internet, in many ways, is a very positive advancement, but with these issues it takes away from the amount and quality of non-electronic communication.
People themselves have benefit in many ways from the internet, people learn more from the internet because of the easily accessible learning materials, as well, work can be completed at a faster pace with the internet. But, in some ways, internet has proven to have negative effects on some individuals. In a recent survey “[people who use internet regularly] tended to feel more lonely and depressed as their online communication increased;” (Sevigny, et al, 209) showing that maybe everything being within fingertips reach takes away important, necessary day-to-day interactions. It has been proven that leisure time and time spent with friends and family have decreased with regular internet users (Sevigny, et al, 209). For example, I have some friends who’d much rather play around on the computer than go out like they used to, in this way, internet is a shame. Internet has many benefits and the downfalls are usually overlooked, one of those downfalls, unfortunately being the unhappiness of some individuals.
Internet has many benefits that can be seen clearly at almost any time you like, but the negative aspects are usually overlooked, like a persons’ diminishing relationships and happiness. These, I believe can be avoided in how one chooses to use the internet and how big of a priority it is in their life. Internet affects, for the most part, each and every one of us daily, what is it doing to you?
Internet has taken away from hardcopy newspapers and magazines and paying for movies and music, but has it taken away from our many different relationships? Relationships have been affected by internet and internet communication, and it seems the more you use it, the higher the risk of being affected. This analysis will explore the negative effects that computer communication has on relationships and on people in general.
Relationships have clearly been affected in many different ways by the internet, some positive and some negative. “In one survey, approximately 25 percent of the respondents who used the internet regularly reported spending less time talking in person and on the phone with friends and family members;” (Sevigny, et al, 209)proving to be a negative effect of online communication. People do spend less time communicating in these ways since the internet is quick and easy. For example, I have some friends who never use the phone now because they can talk to me and ten other people at the same time on MSN. In talking to ten people at the same time the level of understanding and intimacy in each conversation goes down. Another negative about online chatting would be that people tend to feel safer saying whatever comes to mind while chatting online as opposed to face-to-face. It’s almost like there’s some kind of rule that tells people that they can be meaner, bolder or even completely different than they normally are; internet gives a false sense of security. Internet, in many ways, is a very positive advancement, but with these issues it takes away from the amount and quality of non-electronic communication.
People themselves have benefit in many ways from the internet, people learn more from the internet because of the easily accessible learning materials, as well, work can be completed at a faster pace with the internet. But, in some ways, internet has proven to have negative effects on some individuals. In a recent survey “[people who use internet regularly] tended to feel more lonely and depressed as their online communication increased;” (Sevigny, et al, 209) showing that maybe everything being within fingertips reach takes away important, necessary day-to-day interactions. It has been proven that leisure time and time spent with friends and family have decreased with regular internet users (Sevigny, et al, 209). For example, I have some friends who’d much rather play around on the computer than go out like they used to, in this way, internet is a shame. Internet has many benefits and the downfalls are usually overlooked, one of those downfalls, unfortunately being the unhappiness of some individuals.
Internet has many benefits that can be seen clearly at almost any time you like, but the negative aspects are usually overlooked, like a persons’ diminishing relationships and happiness. These, I believe can be avoided in how one chooses to use the internet and how big of a priority it is in their life. Internet affects, for the most part, each and every one of us daily, what is it doing to you?
CCA #3
Misconceptions about Communication
There are many misconceptions about communication, these misconceptions are what cause problems between different communicators. There are, in my opinion, two main misconceptions that tend to cause the most disagreements between two parties. These misconceptions would include ‘communication is simple’ and ‘more communication is always better’.
Many think and would agree that communication is simple because most people, pretty easily, learn the basics of a language from their parents. In reality, yes those who have been exposed to it can learn the basics, but communication, as seen in Understanding Human Communication, is much more than words itself. Communication can be seen everywhere in life, and it appears in many different forms and many different difficulty levels. This is why when we see an important political speech or even an acceptance speech at the Oscars, people have carefully put their words together, or even had someone else do it for them. When I watch the Oscars and I see an actor or actress with a speech that has put some thought put into it, you feel they are more intelligent and grateful than someone who tries to come up with something off the top of their head; showing that communication is something that needs to be worked at. “… [Even] the most inept of us can learn to be more effective with training and practice, and those who are talented can always become better,” (Sevigny, et al, 29) this shows that communication is ever evolving and proves that it’s not as simple as it would appear.
More communication is not always better, Understanding Human Communication gives a good example of ‘talking a problem to death,’ this, in no way, ever helps anyone. When two people get into a fight, and wish to talk until it’s better, most of the time it the problem ends up being magnified. Sometimes people get carried away with verbal communication and try to speak out about something until it has been drowned out, when in reality, no communication or other forms should be shown. For example, with hurricane Katrina, all of the celebrities had something to say about how affairs should be handled, they aren’t professional communicators and they enjoy being in the spotlight, so was it really a good idea to put them all on TV to speak out? At a charity telethon, when Kanye West made rude comments about Bush, it was too much, but these things happen when someone is asked the same question constantly about the same thing or when someone has just been given too much opportunity to speak about one topic of one incident. If questions were more varied and focus was directed to more knowledgeable people of the situation, unnecessary comments would not have been made. Communication is one of the most important assets to our society, but when one form is used too much the outcome can be the opposite from what was desired.
Misconceptions about communication are understandable given that it is usually not a topic that most people give any thought. I believe that ‘communication is not simple’ and ‘more communication is not always better’ are the two biggest misconceptions because they are the ones that appear to occur most often. Misconceptions of communication are not obvious and tend to occur quite often if mistakes aren’t observed.
There are many misconceptions about communication, these misconceptions are what cause problems between different communicators. There are, in my opinion, two main misconceptions that tend to cause the most disagreements between two parties. These misconceptions would include ‘communication is simple’ and ‘more communication is always better’.
Many think and would agree that communication is simple because most people, pretty easily, learn the basics of a language from their parents. In reality, yes those who have been exposed to it can learn the basics, but communication, as seen in Understanding Human Communication, is much more than words itself. Communication can be seen everywhere in life, and it appears in many different forms and many different difficulty levels. This is why when we see an important political speech or even an acceptance speech at the Oscars, people have carefully put their words together, or even had someone else do it for them. When I watch the Oscars and I see an actor or actress with a speech that has put some thought put into it, you feel they are more intelligent and grateful than someone who tries to come up with something off the top of their head; showing that communication is something that needs to be worked at. “… [Even] the most inept of us can learn to be more effective with training and practice, and those who are talented can always become better,” (Sevigny, et al, 29) this shows that communication is ever evolving and proves that it’s not as simple as it would appear.
More communication is not always better, Understanding Human Communication gives a good example of ‘talking a problem to death,’ this, in no way, ever helps anyone. When two people get into a fight, and wish to talk until it’s better, most of the time it the problem ends up being magnified. Sometimes people get carried away with verbal communication and try to speak out about something until it has been drowned out, when in reality, no communication or other forms should be shown. For example, with hurricane Katrina, all of the celebrities had something to say about how affairs should be handled, they aren’t professional communicators and they enjoy being in the spotlight, so was it really a good idea to put them all on TV to speak out? At a charity telethon, when Kanye West made rude comments about Bush, it was too much, but these things happen when someone is asked the same question constantly about the same thing or when someone has just been given too much opportunity to speak about one topic of one incident. If questions were more varied and focus was directed to more knowledgeable people of the situation, unnecessary comments would not have been made. Communication is one of the most important assets to our society, but when one form is used too much the outcome can be the opposite from what was desired.
Misconceptions about communication are understandable given that it is usually not a topic that most people give any thought. I believe that ‘communication is not simple’ and ‘more communication is not always better’ are the two biggest misconceptions because they are the ones that appear to occur most often. Misconceptions of communication are not obvious and tend to occur quite often if mistakes aren’t observed.
Why Are Women Featured In Gossip Magazines More? I Get It!
Who reads more gossip magazines? Women or Men? Women. Who reads them more teenagers or adults? Teenagers. What do girls do almost as many times a day, in my opinion, as they speak (which is a lot)? Judge themselves, judge other girls and compare themselves to each other. Was that so hard? No. Girls want to read about other girls because it a) shows how they need to better themselves to be comparable to movie stars and actresses, or b) tells them that they are in some way better than that girl who has millions of adoring fans.
I’m going to have to disagree about the men not being in magazines, sure there aren’t many stories about them, but good gossip magazines usually find a way to put in a hot actor running with no shirt or playing football on the beach, coincidence? I think not! These magazines, cater to women, they cater to our need to judge and compare (I can’t believe I’m saying thisK) and they cater to our need for a break between gossip sessions (hence the half nude men).
Now, men do get featured in stories, but I’m going to have to say that their biggest stories are when they are involved with a new girl. I read gossip magazines for the gossip obviously but also for the fashion ideas and sometimes see how celebrities are not as perfect as they seem. It’s comforting to know that the beauty we see on TV is not real life beauty, no one can live up to that perfection and a lot of women are, I think, interested in knowing that.
So basically I think that women are featured more in those magazines because women read those magazines, maybe it’s catering to our selfish side? Maybe it’s catering to our insecure side? Maybe it helps us as it tells the truth.
I’m going to have to disagree about the men not being in magazines, sure there aren’t many stories about them, but good gossip magazines usually find a way to put in a hot actor running with no shirt or playing football on the beach, coincidence? I think not! These magazines, cater to women, they cater to our need to judge and compare (I can’t believe I’m saying thisK) and they cater to our need for a break between gossip sessions (hence the half nude men).
Now, men do get featured in stories, but I’m going to have to say that their biggest stories are when they are involved with a new girl. I read gossip magazines for the gossip obviously but also for the fashion ideas and sometimes see how celebrities are not as perfect as they seem. It’s comforting to know that the beauty we see on TV is not real life beauty, no one can live up to that perfection and a lot of women are, I think, interested in knowing that.
So basically I think that women are featured more in those magazines because women read those magazines, maybe it’s catering to our selfish side? Maybe it’s catering to our insecure side? Maybe it helps us as it tells the truth.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
What's Really Ruinning The Industry??
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9VOEl7vz7n8 (promo video for i-tunes music video)
I have to say that I completely disagree that i-tunes is responsible for ruining the music industry, before i-tunes I downloaded for free and since i-tunes has been introduced I have paid for more CD’s than I ever did before. Music is now cheaper and more easily accessible for everyone. Artists always complain about illegal downloading, well i-tunes provides a solution. Illegal downloading is never going to stop, the music industry, for the most part, just keeps getting greedier and greedier. Artists are supposed to be in this industry to share their talent, not to make 10 million a year when they already make 7 million a year, who needs that much money anyways? And with the amount of money that they have, when you read the tabloids anyways… none of them are happy! So, I’m pretty sure I-tunes isn’t ruining the industry, I think that some of the loose canons that they let into the industry are. Would the music industry not be a lot more respectable without Britney Spears as a member?? I know it’s all about the money, but maybe the music exec’s should think about the group of artists that they’ve hired under them who have made scenes, gone to rehab and come to be a little nutty as the cause of lost record sales and not blame the legal downloading system that a lot of people have come to love.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
A Good Way To Leave?
I hate to say it, but I think that I understand the grumpiness that some ex PM’s must feel when they are booted out of their spot as the country’s leader. From the video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=uJ77kN8Yh2Y) it is apparent that Jean Chretien is bitter towards his successor, but is it political reasons or is it solely because of ego damage? Being the leader of a country is a very powerful position and only a select few ever get to experience this kind of power, but getting thrown off your thrown by someone of the same party, especially if you’ve been working side by side with them, when the time runs out, maybe not the most favorable exit strategy. I, not being the most politically aware person in the world, would imagine the bitterness coming mostly from the social and egotistic shots of having someone else take over your job and criticize your work.
A Prime Minister, as I see it, goes from being in the newspapers daily, to nothing! Do people even care about ex PM’s unless it’s for a history project or when they write a controversial memoire? One is forced to ask, why would a ex PM even write a memoire? Why does anyone write a memoire? I think it’s to spark up conversation about their name, about their history and to bring them back into the public eye. One lesson that needs to be learned by a few people is that once you are out, you rarely come back in. And, is it really worth it, writing a book about it, bashing your old party and supporters to get one article written about you, one news minute spoken about you?
After you get your news minute or your article and have raised a fuss, is your reputation even made better? Or is it damaged? Do fifteen minutes of fame turn your whole career into a forgotten and only let the public remember your bitter defeat?
A Prime Minister, as I see it, goes from being in the newspapers daily, to nothing! Do people even care about ex PM’s unless it’s for a history project or when they write a controversial memoire? One is forced to ask, why would a ex PM even write a memoire? Why does anyone write a memoire? I think it’s to spark up conversation about their name, about their history and to bring them back into the public eye. One lesson that needs to be learned by a few people is that once you are out, you rarely come back in. And, is it really worth it, writing a book about it, bashing your old party and supporters to get one article written about you, one news minute spoken about you?
After you get your news minute or your article and have raised a fuss, is your reputation even made better? Or is it damaged? Do fifteen minutes of fame turn your whole career into a forgotten and only let the public remember your bitter defeat?
Saturday, October 20, 2007
CCA #2
Gender Differences in Non-Verbal Communication
Women and men have always been good at, and taken different approaches, to different things, including communicating. Women are better at understanding non-verbal communication and have more success at delivering it. Women are more frequently changing their facial expressions to partner with their mood than men are, as well; posture and gesture are more likely to change with feelings and the people that surround them.
Women and men have always been good at, and taken different approaches, to different things, including communicating. Women are better at understanding non-verbal communication and have more success at delivering it. Women are more frequently changing their facial expressions to partner with their mood than men are, as well; posture and gesture are more likely to change with feelings and the people that surround them.
A woman’s facial expression can very easily tell her mood and her feelings on a particular subject if interpreted the right way, men tend to show less emotion through their facial expressions. When I’m standing with a group of friends, both guys and girls, and one same emotion throughout the group is sparked by a comment made, it is much easier to see how the girls in the group feel as opposed to the guys. The girls will smile, look disgusted or get an angry look while usually I don’t see too obvious of a reaction from the guys. Facial expressions can be very important in any sort of communication and help to direct the next appropriate comment in the conversation.
Posture can tell a lot about how you feel about the person you are conversing with, “women interact at closer distances, both with men and with other women, than do men in same-sex conversations,” and “women gesture more frequently, whereas men use more expansive gestures”(Sevigny 181). It can be seen everyday on T.V, different talks shows interview men and women each day; when a man walks onstage there’s a handshake, when a woman walks onstage there’s a hug. I think that gestures are a huge part of communication; they let someone else how you feel about them and what they are saying.
To conclude, women are more frequently changing their facial expressions to partner with their mood than men are, as well; posture and gesture are more likely to change with feelings and the people that surround them. Women have excellent success with delivering non-verbal communication. This way of communicating is an asset for a person, it appeals to people and creates a sense that the person is confident with themselves.
CCA #1
Medias Affect on Societies Ability to Listen
Shortened movies, flashy magazines, and information overloaded newspaper paper pages - it’s where the media has taken us today. Media influences society everyday but, less obviously, it influences the population’s ability to listen like they used to. Today, it is easier to pay more attention and be more interested in listening when a visual is present, as well; people in today’s society are more inclined to stay interested in something for its entirety if that something is short and sweet.
People tend to pay more attention to a presentation or a lecture when one, even multiple, visual aids are present. “All-news networks, for instance, run headlines across the bottom of the screen, and sometimes weather forecasts across the top, while simultaneously an announcer is reading news items”(Sevigny 141). Added to that, when I watch a lecture or a presentation, it always seems more interesting and more informative when there’s more than one thing going on at once to interpret. When it causes you to think while you listen and watch, and to think about multiple things, it seems more informative and you feel as though you have learned more.
As well, the population has changed with respect to the length of time that they will pay attention to a certain form of entertainment or teaching because of the media. Today Hollywood puts out shorter movies than before, and is criticized harshly if it is too lengthy- there was an intermission at the theater when I went to see titanic. Because of the shorter lengths of programming in the media, people have a harder time listening and, for me, I find it hard sometimes to sit through a fifty minute class.
In conclusion, most recently, it is easier to pay more attention and be more interested in listening when a visual is used in a presentation. Also, people in today’s society are more inclined to stay interested in something for the length if it is straight to the point. Media, more and more, influences a person’s ability to be a quality listener in different areas of life. Listening is a major part of life and with this fairly new need for things to be as short as possible, it creates a sense of urgency in a lot of areas that should be explained more thoroughly than they have the chance to be.
Sex and Marriage with Robots? Are You Kidding?
Would your wife look like this? http://youtube.com/watch?v=lJZTWwy6eUw ... no pores in her skin? sharp movements? recorded voice?
At first when I saw this article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21271545/wid/11915829?GT1=10450) I was wondering what it could possibly have to say about marrying and being intimate with a robot and as soon as they got to “... once you have a story like ‘I had sex with a robot, and it was great!’ appear someplace like Cosmo magazine, I’d expect many people to jump on the bandwagon,” I was in shock. Clearly this scientist has never read Cosmo! Cosmo has articles like ‘His Nine Pleasure Triggers’ and ‘Feel Sexier Naked- Now’, not go be with an object that doesn’t carry a heartbeat or breathe. So, I continued with the article thinking a better argument would turn up to sway my decision…
Haven’t found one yet… next point says that what makes people fall in love -personality and having another be interested in them- can be PROGRAMMED into a robot! I don’t know if I’m alone in this, but even when a REAL guy is told to ask a girl out by one of her best friends I find it fake, let alone having someTHING be told by a computer chip. Why not just date the scientist who has the same personality as you? Then they started on the topic of sex and the programmed robot. At least sex toys are recognized as toys and not lovers- this makes a bit of sense to me. With these robots they are going to program them to vibrate and give them responses to blurt out during sex- all I can imagine is words being broken into their syllables by these robots while they try their hand at “sexy”.
Still no sign of a reasonable remark… this one just seems to be the weirdest one of them all. This reasoning is for the people who can’t find someone to love who loves them back. This one is for the people who are lonely and want to be made happier. “The main benefit of human-robot marriage could be to make people who otherwise could not get married happier,” – would that not make most people more depressed? If I can’t find someone to share my life with when I’m older, I’m sure as hell not going to buy ‘my prince charming’ at the local future shop! Is it even healthy for someone to form a personal intimate relationship with something that can’t think for itself? “it” being the main word. Will this not make a lot of people a lot more antisocial, assuming people actually fall for this kind of lifestyle.
My prediction for the future of robots is that they remain robots, not husbands or wives. Robots should and hopefully will remain as machinery to do jobs that humans don’t want and experiments with/on. If this does become a reality in 2050, as predicted, I’ll kick myself for thinking the idea was so ridiculous that society wouldn’t have it, but I sure won’t be taking a robot out for a night on the town.
*when i was writting this blog it wouldnt let me add pictures*
Would your wife look like this? http://youtube.com/watch?v=lJZTWwy6eUw ... no pores in her skin? sharp movements? recorded voice?
At first when I saw this article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21271545/wid/11915829?GT1=10450) I was wondering what it could possibly have to say about marrying and being intimate with a robot and as soon as they got to “... once you have a story like ‘I had sex with a robot, and it was great!’ appear someplace like Cosmo magazine, I’d expect many people to jump on the bandwagon,” I was in shock. Clearly this scientist has never read Cosmo! Cosmo has articles like ‘His Nine Pleasure Triggers’ and ‘Feel Sexier Naked- Now’, not go be with an object that doesn’t carry a heartbeat or breathe. So, I continued with the article thinking a better argument would turn up to sway my decision…
Haven’t found one yet… next point says that what makes people fall in love -personality and having another be interested in them- can be PROGRAMMED into a robot! I don’t know if I’m alone in this, but even when a REAL guy is told to ask a girl out by one of her best friends I find it fake, let alone having someTHING be told by a computer chip. Why not just date the scientist who has the same personality as you? Then they started on the topic of sex and the programmed robot. At least sex toys are recognized as toys and not lovers- this makes a bit of sense to me. With these robots they are going to program them to vibrate and give them responses to blurt out during sex- all I can imagine is words being broken into their syllables by these robots while they try their hand at “sexy”.
Still no sign of a reasonable remark… this one just seems to be the weirdest one of them all. This reasoning is for the people who can’t find someone to love who loves them back. This one is for the people who are lonely and want to be made happier. “The main benefit of human-robot marriage could be to make people who otherwise could not get married happier,” – would that not make most people more depressed? If I can’t find someone to share my life with when I’m older, I’m sure as hell not going to buy ‘my prince charming’ at the local future shop! Is it even healthy for someone to form a personal intimate relationship with something that can’t think for itself? “it” being the main word. Will this not make a lot of people a lot more antisocial, assuming people actually fall for this kind of lifestyle.
My prediction for the future of robots is that they remain robots, not husbands or wives. Robots should and hopefully will remain as machinery to do jobs that humans don’t want and experiments with/on. If this does become a reality in 2050, as predicted, I’ll kick myself for thinking the idea was so ridiculous that society wouldn’t have it, but I sure won’t be taking a robot out for a night on the town.
*when i was writting this blog it wouldnt let me add pictures*
Sunday, October 14, 2007
In Dalton McGuinty's Déjà Vu (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3Aocqn68LE&NR=1) he is accused of lying and breaking promises after being elected in 2003 and ending 8 years of conservative rule. I believe that a big reason for his majority win was because Tory was so back and forth on his own campaign. His stand on public funding for religious schools changed once people started criticizing him, this put him behind because what people are looking for in a politician during an election is consistency and reliability. If you can't be steady on your own beliefs how can you be steady on the beliefs of a province? Because of all the focus being on the religious schooling, focus from tax hikes and other broken promises by McGuinty were overlooked, this might have given him a false sense that he is backed by a lot of Ontarians- the major issues that would have put him in the hot seat were not put in the spotlight. I would hope (not that it is a problem for me YET) that McGuinty doesn't use this majority win to support raising taxes. This victory was a big win but had very low voter turnout, 52.6%, reasons for this have been mentioned to be because the election wasn’t exciting and didn’t deal with day to day issues. I would agree with this because people won’t take time out of their busy schedules to vote in an election that doesn’t seem to be focusing on anything of a heavy weight or that would be affecting them personally. McGuinty says that he will be focusing on health care, education, the economy, and helping the poor- but aren’t they all? The big question before the vote is who do we trust, and the big question after is do we REALLY trust him again? Time will only tell whether voters made the right decision, and if non-voters made the wrong one. ARE WE IN FOR A DEJA VIEW?
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
An Economic Decision or One of the Heart?
Shouldn't a decision as life altering as marriage be made as a careful one? Shouldn't the decision of who you will sleep beisde, eat with and merge incomes with be something that you are sure of? Shouldn't it be someone that you love with nothing less than your whole heart? "It's one of the only decisions in life that needs sometimes months to be sure of - and you'd want to be sure in a world where in 1998 2.2 million couples married and 1.1 million couples divorced,58 million couples were married, yet separated, and people between the ages of 25 to 39 make up 60% of all divorces. In the video, it is suggested that we are drying up as a society, i thought about it and was confused, but then I decided that there must be some witty analogy to go along with this statement- nope! Everything was about the kids, "people are having less children," "people aren't wanting to have children," "people are being selfish." Okay, I'm fine with the statements about not having as many children if any now, because it is fact, but how are people being selfish? Selfish to me would be if people were getting married and had children that they only sort of wanted, or had children that they didn't want at all. Anne- Marie ( seen in the video) was dead on when she said that society was more self aware now because of all the choice- marriage and children shouldn't be a hurried decision, it should be what YOU want! Barbra (also seen in the video) was far off when she started speaking of marriage being something that is right when you are in your twenties and having kids before you are thirty is what's right. With how far women have come in the past 100 years not one is going to fall for the idea that marriage and children are right at a certain time, people will make these life changing decisions when they are ready- not because it is economically correct.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
WHO TO CHOOSE??
I’ve never really understood it, just how can you designate someone to be the greatest someone at something that doesn’t have any guidelines or specific requirements, no separate categories and no real way of comparing competitors. I know you can say the smartest mathematician in the world, or the fastest runner or the highest jumper – because you’ve compared them to others in the same category, but how do you say the greatest Hamiltonian? In going through the different people who are up for the spot I got to thinking, how can you really judge this? One person has been to outer space, some politicians, some made their careers in the medical field, and the list goes on. How do you compare doctor’s accomplishments with an astronaut’s? Is it even possible? I wouldn’t even know how to begin to decide who would win. Maybe little designations like these are how society decides the importance of different professions and different qualities in people. Maybe this is how we tell not only which person we like best or who does the best for our world, but which kind of people we like best and which kind of people we value the most. I don’t believe that there is one best kind of person or that we can choose from a group of amazing candidates to say who the best is when they might not even have one similar quality shared between them.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
I WOULD SAVE... MY LEFT FOOT!
A vaccination to prevent four strings of HPV, two that cause 70% of cervical cancer and two that cause 90% of genital warts, why would you not sign your daughter up…yesterday? Some people these days are really living in a magical, fairy tale world, with their reasoning of not giving their daughter the vaccine being: “she’s too young to be sexually active,” “this needle will cause her to be sexually active,” or, “this needle will make her think she can have unprotected sex.”No offence, but can someone clue me in here? Have I fallen down a tree and been dumped into a world of cynicism? I really don’t think so. Parents, if your daughter is in grade six, seven, or eight and you haven’t had “the talk” with them, be sure that someone else has, maybe not as formally, or even in the right way, but she knows A LOT more than you think. If you think that holding back from this vaccine to protect her innocent little ears from the conversation about why she has to get this needle, you should take a check into reality, plus, how bad could some information, from a parent, be about sex? (I don’t know about you but “the talk” I got didn’t exactly make me want to go jump in the sac, it more so made me think that the cooties boys carried around were bigger than I could have ever imagined) If one talk NOW and one needle NOW could SAVE your daughter from cancer LATER, WHY is this decision so DIFFICULT? To quote a teacher interviewed in the Globe and Mail; ““If a doctor said, ‘I can give you a shot to help prevent cancer in your foot,' you wouldn't even think twice about it.” I would save my left foot, my right foot, as well as any other part of my body, no matter what kind of awkward conversation could be brought upon by it.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)