What is up with advertising these days? It seems ridiculously ludacris that political campaign ads can say anything they want...but if I want to go on television and voice my displeasure with someone, I could be hit with more legal issues than Roger Clemens.
I watch my fair share of television, and I must say that I have not seen as much "mudlsinging" ads as I remember in the past. Perhaps it's because it is not down to the wire yet and candidates are only vying for delegates at this point. I really dont know much about the political realm and how it works, but the mudslinging has seemed to be at a minimum thus far.
Regarding the "Daisy" political ad we watched in class on Wednesday, is that considered the mudslinging form of advertising in 1964? Is showing a little girl picking pedals off a daisy in a field when a nuclear bomb explodes nearby too much? Did the ad help or hurt LBJ? Were more votes gained or lost because of it? To view the ad, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Week #5: Continued...
I went to Dr. Lambiase's blog and went a few classmates blogs. After briefly reading Katya's, I felt compelled to post again. I couldn't agree more with her blog.
School shootings are becoming too frequent. After the first major case at Columbine High in Littleton, CO stricter measures should have been taken.
Example. 9-11 was the worst attack on U.S. soil in history. Afterwards, you couldn't even take a shampoo bottle onboard an aircraft. Many more steps were taken to ensure safety and many are still in effect today.
After the recent shootings at Virginia Tech and now Northern Illionis, what will the goevernment do to help protect college students? And don't forget the shootings at other public places in recent past: malls, postal offices, office buildings.
Are guns too readily available in the United States? Or do more strict security measures need to be taken at locations where large gatherings of people is a frequent occurrence? Should metal detectors be mandatory at every mall, school, government building, office building, etc? Or is that going too far?
What can and should be done to reclaim the peace of mind that we are safe when we leave our homes?
School shootings are becoming too frequent. After the first major case at Columbine High in Littleton, CO stricter measures should have been taken.
Example. 9-11 was the worst attack on U.S. soil in history. Afterwards, you couldn't even take a shampoo bottle onboard an aircraft. Many more steps were taken to ensure safety and many are still in effect today.
After the recent shootings at Virginia Tech and now Northern Illionis, what will the goevernment do to help protect college students? And don't forget the shootings at other public places in recent past: malls, postal offices, office buildings.
Are guns too readily available in the United States? Or do more strict security measures need to be taken at locations where large gatherings of people is a frequent occurrence? Should metal detectors be mandatory at every mall, school, government building, office building, etc? Or is that going too far?
What can and should be done to reclaim the peace of mind that we are safe when we leave our homes?
Friday, February 15, 2008
Week #5: Whew! Almost Missed It!
Hmm... I often wonder where the time goes. As I sit here about to leave the confines of my apartment and venture into the blustery cold, I almost missed posting a blog this week! Where does the time go?!?
As we wrapped up 'Cosmopolitanism' (and not a moment too soon, I might add) I am wondering how someone arrives at the philosophical and sociological mindframe that Appiah presented himself as in his text. I just can't do it. Although I understand (most of) what he is saying, I cannot fathom putting myself into that state of mind to write such deep and opinionative statements.
But give Appiah credit. Some of what he said is not easy to say. It took a lot of guts and pride to hang himself and his views out there on the line like he did. I have to admit, I did not enjoy reading 'Cosmopolitanism,' but I think it's healthy for us (humans) to experience someone's point of view on how the world should "operate" every once in a while. It keeps us in check. Even though I did not enjoy reading the text, I think more about others now. And more about utilitarianism vs. cosmopolitanism. Which idea is best? IS there a best?
I DO hope Gower's text is a little more enjoyable for me, but I hope the excitement of reading philosophical claims remains. I guess we'll find out! And now I guess we'll discover just how cold and miserable it really is outside.
As we wrapped up 'Cosmopolitanism' (and not a moment too soon, I might add) I am wondering how someone arrives at the philosophical and sociological mindframe that Appiah presented himself as in his text. I just can't do it. Although I understand (most of) what he is saying, I cannot fathom putting myself into that state of mind to write such deep and opinionative statements.
But give Appiah credit. Some of what he said is not easy to say. It took a lot of guts and pride to hang himself and his views out there on the line like he did. I have to admit, I did not enjoy reading 'Cosmopolitanism,' but I think it's healthy for us (humans) to experience someone's point of view on how the world should "operate" every once in a while. It keeps us in check. Even though I did not enjoy reading the text, I think more about others now. And more about utilitarianism vs. cosmopolitanism. Which idea is best? IS there a best?
I DO hope Gower's text is a little more enjoyable for me, but I hope the excitement of reading philosophical claims remains. I guess we'll find out! And now I guess we'll discover just how cold and miserable it really is outside.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Week #4: Case Studies Revisited
In light of our class on Wednesday and the Dallas Cowboys case study we covered, I feel compelled to continue that discussion here.
As I said in class, I think the Cowboys organization approached this is the completely wrong way. By not saying anything (and not only that, they were refusing to comment on the issue) and not offering the public any information, in my opinion, that only created more doubt and controversy and brought more media attention to the situation than had they offered even just a tiny tid-bit of information regarding the incident.
When it comes to public figures and entities, the public wants information. The media do not tell the public what to think, but they do tell them what to think about. The public also wants simplicity.
I make reference here to one of the most famous felony jury cases in history, the O.J. Simpson case. The amount of evidence in that case was overwhelmingly in favor of the prosecution, however, their misguided and unplanned delieverance of the evidence to the jury caused the jury to misinterpret the importance of that evidence; the jury saw a detailed, in-depth presentation on too many factors to connect together. The prosecution needed a simple, thought-out process to present and the case may have been decided in a different manner. During a trial, a jury's sole purpose is to determine if the evidence presented proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendent is guilty. If there is any uncertainty, it is the jury's obligation to not indict him or her. In the O.J. Simpson case, the prosecution did not present their overwhelming evidence to the jury in a manner that would prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Same situation applies within the Dallas Cowboys incident, except in the reverse order. If the Cowboys (who are the best-known American football team in the world) would have offered a tiny amount of information in a simple and controlled manner, the situation would have been over then and there. Press coverage would have lasted one day. Instead, information was still coming out years later.
An example I brought up in class was the Dallas Stars organization earlier this season. Due to the fact that this is published and open for the world to see, I will not reiterate what I said about the Stars news release. However, to read the official news release from the Stars organization, CLICK HERE.
As I said in class, I think the Cowboys organization approached this is the completely wrong way. By not saying anything (and not only that, they were refusing to comment on the issue) and not offering the public any information, in my opinion, that only created more doubt and controversy and brought more media attention to the situation than had they offered even just a tiny tid-bit of information regarding the incident.
When it comes to public figures and entities, the public wants information. The media do not tell the public what to think, but they do tell them what to think about. The public also wants simplicity.
I make reference here to one of the most famous felony jury cases in history, the O.J. Simpson case. The amount of evidence in that case was overwhelmingly in favor of the prosecution, however, their misguided and unplanned delieverance of the evidence to the jury caused the jury to misinterpret the importance of that evidence; the jury saw a detailed, in-depth presentation on too many factors to connect together. The prosecution needed a simple, thought-out process to present and the case may have been decided in a different manner. During a trial, a jury's sole purpose is to determine if the evidence presented proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendent is guilty. If there is any uncertainty, it is the jury's obligation to not indict him or her. In the O.J. Simpson case, the prosecution did not present their overwhelming evidence to the jury in a manner that would prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Same situation applies within the Dallas Cowboys incident, except in the reverse order. If the Cowboys (who are the best-known American football team in the world) would have offered a tiny amount of information in a simple and controlled manner, the situation would have been over then and there. Press coverage would have lasted one day. Instead, information was still coming out years later.
An example I brought up in class was the Dallas Stars organization earlier this season. Due to the fact that this is published and open for the world to see, I will not reiterate what I said about the Stars news release. However, to read the official news release from the Stars organization, CLICK HERE.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Week #3: Ethics and Case Studies
After being in class and hearing about what case studies really are, I am very excited to begin one. To examine and understand why things happen they way they do is very interesting.
The Exxon oil spill in the Prince William Sound is extraordinary. I had no idea that to this day, promised recovery efforts have still not been implemented. Wildlife has not returned to the area. Many business collapsed and were promised assistance, only to never receive it. And now Exxon Mobil is making record amounts of profit each year because the gasoline industry is holding all consumers at ransom. How is it that the largest oil company in the world (Exxon Mobil) is recording billions of dollars of profits each year?
On Jan. 30, 2006, MSNBC.com reported that Exxon Mobil had achieved total profits in 2005 of $36.13 billion. Driving prices up on consumers to line their own pockets.
All this after what happened in Prince William Sound? And to this day, legal battles are still ensuing.
I am with Dr. Lambaise on this one. I won't buy gas there anymore. The oil and gas industry seems to be more despicable than the Enron scandal.
All the excuses and justifications of "the price of crude oil has gone up," and "oil producers are cutting production which, in turn, drives up prices" are ridiculous and insane.
I need to learn to rollerblade and ride my bike everywhere...
The Exxon oil spill in the Prince William Sound is extraordinary. I had no idea that to this day, promised recovery efforts have still not been implemented. Wildlife has not returned to the area. Many business collapsed and were promised assistance, only to never receive it. And now Exxon Mobil is making record amounts of profit each year because the gasoline industry is holding all consumers at ransom. How is it that the largest oil company in the world (Exxon Mobil) is recording billions of dollars of profits each year?
On Jan. 30, 2006, MSNBC.com reported that Exxon Mobil had achieved total profits in 2005 of $36.13 billion. Driving prices up on consumers to line their own pockets.
All this after what happened in Prince William Sound? And to this day, legal battles are still ensuing.
I am with Dr. Lambaise on this one. I won't buy gas there anymore. The oil and gas industry seems to be more despicable than the Enron scandal.
All the excuses and justifications of "the price of crude oil has gone up," and "oil producers are cutting production which, in turn, drives up prices" are ridiculous and insane.
I need to learn to rollerblade and ride my bike everywhere...
Friday, January 25, 2008
Week #2: Cosmopoli-what-ism?!?
Well, as I embark on my second post for the semester, I find myself a little dumbfounded at the ascendancy this book has over my suddenly shaken reading skills.
I am reading chapter 3 this weekend but I have to admit, it may be a little difficult without the knowledge of chapters 1 and 2. My eyes have seen every word in those two chapters, however my brain decided to not remain on the comprehension side of that equation. I find myself frequenting Webster's compilation some with words such as: loquacious, interlocutor, and voracious.
I did, however, find a few parts of the first few pages of this anarchic mess insightful.
Page 8 was the first that really caught my attention and I'm sure gave me that "wow, he just discovered something amazing" look. Here is what I read:
"...its image of the shattered mirror--each shard of which reflects one part of a complex truth from its own particular angle--seems to express exactly the conclusion of Burton's long exposure to the philosophies and the customs of many people and places: you will find parts of the truth (along with much error) everywhere and the whole truth nowhere. The deepest mistake, he supposed, is to think that your little shard of mirror can reflect the whole."
What a statement. What a theory to ponder. Everyone is going to see things differently. No one will ever discover a full truth. Everyone believes something different. The truth is not just one thing. It is a compilation of beliefs from every side of the earth and every culture. Assuming that your tiny part of the shattered mirror is THE one truth is nothing more than a wasted thought.
I am reading chapter 3 this weekend but I have to admit, it may be a little difficult without the knowledge of chapters 1 and 2. My eyes have seen every word in those two chapters, however my brain decided to not remain on the comprehension side of that equation. I find myself frequenting Webster's compilation some with words such as: loquacious, interlocutor, and voracious.
I did, however, find a few parts of the first few pages of this anarchic mess insightful.
Page 8 was the first that really caught my attention and I'm sure gave me that "wow, he just discovered something amazing" look. Here is what I read:
"...its image of the shattered mirror--each shard of which reflects one part of a complex truth from its own particular angle--seems to express exactly the conclusion of Burton's long exposure to the philosophies and the customs of many people and places: you will find parts of the truth (along with much error) everywhere and the whole truth nowhere. The deepest mistake, he supposed, is to think that your little shard of mirror can reflect the whole."
What a statement. What a theory to ponder. Everyone is going to see things differently. No one will ever discover a full truth. Everyone believes something different. The truth is not just one thing. It is a compilation of beliefs from every side of the earth and every culture. Assuming that your tiny part of the shattered mirror is THE one truth is nothing more than a wasted thought.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Week #1
After reading the article posted on Dr. Lambiase's blog regarding the current Roger Clemens scandal, I feel as if he is trying to rectify the situation in the wrong way. The media have so much power in our nation (especially with high-profile celebrities) that overexposure in the media is often misconstrued by the public as desperate measures for forgiveness without accepting guilt.
As far as how I believe my own personal beliefs will affect my decisions, I believe that my own morals and faith will protect me and guide me through any difficult ethical decisions. I stand by my morals and the way I was "brought up" by my parents and elders. I believe any person who trusts and believes in themselves as a human being can not go wrong in any decision, as long as the decision is based on and supported by that person's morals and norms.
As far as how I believe my own personal beliefs will affect my decisions, I believe that my own morals and faith will protect me and guide me through any difficult ethical decisions. I stand by my morals and the way I was "brought up" by my parents and elders. I believe any person who trusts and believes in themselves as a human being can not go wrong in any decision, as long as the decision is based on and supported by that person's morals and norms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
