Midterm Assignment-Group Presentation 11/10/10

Good evening dear followers. So this past Wednesday evening my group (which consisted of Janet, Kristen and myself) presented our Wikipedia article to the class. I was surprised by the lack of information found on Wikipedia on our topic of Euthanasia. I mean on one hand Wikipedia did do its job in giving a brief overview of the topic for one to have some general knowledge of the subject but that was it. I was quite surprised that no one on the Wikipedia article of Euthanasia ever mentioned any recent cases; for example the case of Terri Schiavo. The Terri Schiavo case drew such huge media attention that it is absurd they left it out of their entries. For those that don't know the Terri Schiavo case was a legal battle between the parents and husband of Terri Schiavo that lasted several years from 1998-2005. The issue at hand was whether the equipment that had been used to sustain Terri's life since 1990 should be disconnected (specifically a feeding tube), thereby allowing her to die in March of 2005.

Doing some research on our own, my group had come to find some very interesting facts about euthanasia. The term Euthanasia originated from the Greek word for "good death." It is the act or practice of ending the life of a person either by lethal injection or the suspension of medical treatment.  Because of this, many view euthanasia as simply bringing relief by alleviating pain and suffering. The word has also been applied to situations when a decision is made to refrain from exercising "heroic" measures in an end-of-life situation.


I was also surprised that Wikipedia didn't mention all the types of Euthanasia, except for PAD and Assisted Euthanasia. Ones that they missed mentioning are:Voluntary Euthanasia - When a competent person makes a voluntary and enduring request to be helped to die. Involuntary Euthanasia - To end a person's life without their knowledge or consent. Active Euthanasia - To end a person's life by use of drugs, whether by oneself or with the aid of a physician. Passive Euthanasia - To end a person life by not taking the necessary and ordinary action to maintain life. This can be done by withdrawing water, food, drugs, medical or surgical procedures.
Physician-Assisted Suicide - Suicide accomplished with the aid of a medical doctor intentionally providing a person with an overdose of prescription medication. Assisted Suicide - Suicide accomplished with the aid of another person.

Overall as a group we came to the conclusion that Wikipedia is a good source when you want a bit of information on a topic or can be used as a starting point for research, but that it is. It is not detailed enough to be used to write a high-school or college-level research paper. It seems to have missing information, sometimes dead links, and sometimes sends you on a wild goose chase in search of information. Because most anyone can edit most Wikipedia articles, mistakes can and do happen. In conclusion, more information is being shared like never before. Whether it's new technology delivered on cell phones, or Wikipedia, the promise of a whole new world of information is at our fingertips. 

Reading Assignment #9--Slade's Made To Break pgs.186-330

Good evening dear followers. So this week I finally finished reading, "Made To Break" by Giles Slade. So in the end of this book I have learned for consumers, having the latest shiny, new gadget has become a way to "either feed one's pride or reduce one's shame," creating a self consciousness about being out of fashion and a tendency to evaluate others based on their possessions that has continued to this day. The book's final chapter, "Cell Phones and E-Waste," is perhaps the most disturbing to me. "Among its revelations: By 2002, more than 130 million still-working cell phones had been "retired" in the U.S." (p.263) "Today, about 250,000 tons of discarded but still usable cell phones sit in stockpiles in America, awaiting disposal" (p.264). Cell phones, Slade suggests, "have become the avant-garde of a fast-growing trend toward throwaway electronic products." And their lifespan is still declining. In Japan, where cell phone penetration is especially high, cell phones are discarded within a year in favor of newer models.

The increasingly short lifespan of digital devices; from computers to televisions and cell phones, is creating an avalanche of electronic consumer waste that threatens to overwhelm the world's landfills with a toxic soup of permanent biological toxins such as arsenic, lead, nickel and zinc. "When e-waste is burned anywhere in the world, dioxins, furans and other pollutants are released into the air, with potentially disastrous health consequences around the globe. When e-waste is buried in landfills, PBTs eventually seep into the groundwater, poisoning it," Slade writes.  

Slade also examines the ways consumers use consumer electronics to shape their identities. For adolescents, cell phones are a way young people create communities outside of their family, Slade writes, citing research by sociologist Rich Ling. Ling's eye-opening study of adolescents describes in vivid detail teens' comparisons of cell phones to clothing; that certain brands of cell phones imply "coolness" while others are considered dated and conformist.

But it is cell phones' small size that makes them a toxic hazard to be reckoned with, Slade continues in Made to Break's brief ending about what can be done to resolve the problem of discarded consumer electronics. Taking apart tiny components to recover their parts isn't worth the effort, and so most cell phones are simply thrown away, ultimately finding their way into incinerators and landfills. Slade says in one interview about Made to Break, "A lot of really sophisticated people devoted a lot of time and thought to developing this system" of constant consumption. "We need to look at the problem creatively and rethink it. Our whole economy is based on buying, trashing and buying again. We need to rethink industrial design."

Made to Break, though a very interesting read, seems to end suddenly with no solutions proposed for everyday Americans to deal with a huge problem that has taken a century to create and that shows no signs of abating. But Slade also strikes a note of optimism. Soon enough, he says, the sheer volume of waste of all kinds will compel a change. "This is the industrial challenge of the new century. We must welcome it." (p.281)

College Football Player Suspended For Tweeting.....

Good evening dear followers. While doing some research for a paper I have to write on football safety for my Occupational Health & Safety class I came across an interesting topic that I wanted your thoughts on. Last week Andre Kates, a junior at The University Of Indiana, who up until recently played for the football team has been suspended from it indefinitely. Kates questioned publicly on Twitter as to "why he wasn't playing more". In his first tweet on October 27th, he wrote that IU's coaches were "playing with my [expletive] career" and vowed to bust his [expletive] on special teams.

The next day, Kates tweeted: "People Say Dre You Actin Like OchoCinco I Say No Bro Im Getting My Point Across That My Coach Don't Want Me 2 Play!Then on Friday night, October 29th, hours before Indiana's home game with Northwestern, Kates tweeted: "I'm Suspended For The Game 2morrow For My Tweets, and Facebook Being Media Attention, and Also A Distraction Toward Him!"Kates didn't specify who "Him" is, although it's believed to be Hoosiers head coach Bill Lynch. At first he was suspended just for the one game, yet that did not stop Kates from continuing to rant and rave in his tweets.

Surprisingly so, on Sunday, October 31st, The University of Indiana, ended up suspending Kates indefinitely. A lot of coaches have cracked down on players use of social media lately and they are not taking criticism like Bill Lynch. What are your thoughts on this? Does what one tweet about constitute a suspension or dismissal from a collegiate sport?

Reading Assignment #8--Slade's Made To Break pgs. 83-185

Good afternoon dear followers. This week we were asked to read pages 83-185 in Slade's book entitled, "Made To Break". Chapter 4, "Radio, Radio", is a dramatic retelling of the struggle between two influential men in the broadcasting industry. Advances in broadcast technology and the invention of miniaturization result in the first disposable pocket radios. Slade notes that at this point in history, “product life spans were no longer left to chance but were created by plan” (113). The invention of nylon, electronic calculators, the atomic bomb, and the resulting public backlash dominate chapters 5, "The War And Postwar Progress" and 6, "The Fifties And Sixties". To illustrate the sense of how public intellectuals were raising awareness of these issues, Slade draws upon the seminal works of Norman Cousins, Vance Packard, and Marshall McLuhan to provide additional context to the increasingly widespread cultural understanding of advertising and media use in planned obsolescence.

In my opinion Slade uses this book to deliver some jarring environmental statistics, which have the desired effect on the reader. What are we going to do with the ever increasing products of consumer technology waste? How did we get ourselves into this mess in the first place? Why is it that the typical individual is unaware of this looming global catastrophe? What is the corporate, consumer, and government responsibility in all of this? Slade does not provide concrete answers for all of the questions he raises, but he does provide an effective historical summary of planned obsolescence and relates it to a series of suggestions and inevitabilities that he sees technological consumer culture affecting. Slade seems to recognize that blame and finger pointing will be ineffectual in galvanizing people into action. He asserts that only through equal awareness and action from consumers, corporations, and the government will we be able to address this issue effectively. We shall see how the conclusion of Slade's book pans out.

Reading Assignment #7--Slade's Made To Break pgs. 1-81

Hello dear followers. This week Professor Ferguson asked us to read a book by Giles Slade entitled, "Made To Break". After reading the first 3 chapters, I have decided that we as a people highly contribute to technological waste. In our world every day people throw away lots of valuable technology waste. We create a lot of waste and turn our world into a dirty place. According to Slade, we are always in search of the latest model; we in turn participate in what he calls, "the annual model change" (29). In 2004, 315 million working PCs were thrown out in North America alone, and in the following year over 100 million cell phones joined them on the trashheap. That's tons of electronic equipment with non-biogradable components and toxic waste-filling up garbage dumps around the world.

What drives this rush to trash? According to Slade, it obsolescence, rather than failure. Your last computer likely didn't wear out-you junked it because a faster, lighter, and spiffier one came out. We don’t repair things, we throw things away. It appears that a throw-away society. We throw away household appliances, cell phones, computers and yes, even cars rather than repair the broken item. Even when we want to repair or recycle an item we learn we can’t do it.

While American history is often portrayed as the history of innovation, it is also the history of waste. Made to Break is the history of an industrial strategy that has come to define this country; a strategy that has taught us to buy, throw away and buy again, and that now must change because we have run out of room to safely dump all our unwanted, used-up or obsolete possessions. This book examines the issue of "planned obsolescence" and its role in causing Americans to buy more products than what they could have done if companies were more committed to quality. Planned obsolescence leads to a product having a "death date." Slade's book also looks at how such developments as annual models of cars led to consumers getting rid of good vehicles for more trendy replacements. Both company advertising and consumer's love of the new have helped lead to an explosion in both sales of new products and also the amount of garbage that is disposed of every year. 

Reading Assignment #6--Dalby's The World And Wikipedia pgs. 114-225

Good evening dear followers. So this week's assignment for my Technology & Culture In America class was to finish reading Andrew Dalby's book: The World And Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality. While I was finishing reading this rather dull book I must say I began to become focused on the main title more and more; "how we are editing reality". In my opinion we edit reality everyday; whether it be websites such as Wikipedia, magazine cover shots such as Elle or Cosmo, or reality tv program footage such as The Jersey Shore or The Housewives Of New Jersey.

In regards to website editing like Wikipedia I found an interesting article online. Back in August of 2006 Stephen Colbert on an episode of The Colbert Report, "praised Wikipedia for "wikiality," the reality that exists if you make something up and enough people agree with you - it becomes reality" (newsvine.com). Colbert's subsequent examples to prove "wikiality" would cause chaos on the site, and lead an administrator to subsequently block his account. In his segment Colbert goes on to declare that he doesn't believe George Washington had slaves. "If I want to say he didn't that's my right, and now, thanks to Wikipedia *taps keyboard* it's also a fact"--says Stephen Colbert. By Colbert addressing this on his show I agree with him in the sense that he is saying people are too lazy to take the time to verify things, they just go with the first search engine hit that pops up. The point is that uncritical minds believe everything they read.

In regards to magazine advertising, it’s no surprise that advertisers, and marketers use the “art” of airbrushing photographs to alter what reality looks like and to convey a certain type of image. Covers of magazines show flawless actors, actresses, singers, and models. We’re all aware of this as consumers. We know these models don’t really look the way they are portrayed on the glossy pages, but for some reason we’re okay with it. We still go ahead and buy the products being advertised or the clothes being modeled. Then we get upset when the bathroom cabinet piles up with a collection of face washes that never really worked, cover –ups that advertise miracles and provide none and mascara that claims to never clump and does so after the first use. Still surprised that Vanessa Hudgens appears to have no zits as she advertises for Neutrogena’s skin clearing cleansers? Don’t be. Two words: Adobe Photoshop. This is how magazines edit reality.

One of the attractions of reality television is the supposed "reality" of it; unscripted and unplanned situations and reactions. One of the ethical problems of reality television is the fact that it isn't nearly as "real" as it pretends to be. At least in dramatic shows one can expect the audience to understand that what they see on the screen doesn't necessarily reflect the reality of the actors' lives; the same, however, cannot be said for heavily edited and contrived scenes on sees on reality shows. Why are we so intrigued by it; why do we have to watch? I suspect that people's ability and willingness to take pleasure in the suffering and humilitation of others may stem from the increasing separation we experience from others around us. The more distant we are from each other as individuals, the more readily we can objectify each other and fail to experience sympathy and empathy when others around us suffer. The fact that we are witnessing events not in front of us but rather on television, where everything is has an unreal and fictional air about it, probably aids in this process as well.

Whether it's Wikipedia, magazine covers, or reality tv shows--we edit reality everyday. Editing reality is a lot easier then you have been led to believe, anyone can do it, and that's the problem.

Solo Current Event Presentation-October 13, 2010

I presented a very interesting article for discussion for my solo current event presentation. I discussed the topic of "Should students, teachers be Facebook friends"? Facebook and other social networking sites are more popular than ever. Whether students and teachers should be "friends" on these sites has become a controversial topic. As Facebook, Twitter and others have grown in popularity, more and more U.S. teachers have reportedly being disciplined--even fired--for sharing photos and messages deemed inappropriate by their school system. I've been reading several cases of teachers having to resign or being suspended for writing inappropriate things on Facebook. A Massachusetts teacher was asked in August to resign after posting comments on her Facebook wall describing students as "germ bags" and parents as "snobby" and "arrogant". Although the teacher said she intended the comments for her close friends only, her privacy settings were open enough that others in her town could see what she had to say.

Where does the line between professional and personal life lie? In my opinion if you wouldn't say it in the classroom don't use it in some other media that may get out to students and parents. You can say those things privately all you want, but if it gets out to the wrong people or students and parents, then it becomes the school's business. Facebook can be a valuable tool for classrooms...but remember if teachers extend the classroom to cyberspace, the rules go with them. Having a school or class-related Facebook page (for clubs, sports, fundraising) could be a way for teachers to use the site professionally to cancel practice or send out reminders. It seems as if younger teachers in particular seem to have a hard time limiting Facebook correspondence. For teachers fresh out of college, social networking is a natural part of their world. In the end Facebook is not going away and it is a great way to communicate, teachers just need to know how to use it appropriately.