S T R I K E !!

S - Stupid

T - Time Wasting

R - Ridiculous

I - Irrational

K - Killing Education

E - Excessive

That pretty much summarizes my views on strikes !!

I am totally against strikes, mainly because I went through it last year when there was a strike by Ontario's community college professors and students did not go to school for almost three weeks. That only caused us harm because it was almost the end of the year and we lost so much time and did not cover a lot of the material that was meant to be covered. Were we even to blame? NOPE! the students just got caught in the middle of a ridiculous issue between the government and the community college professors who were not too satisfied with their salaries and decided to go on strike! Were the outcomes helpful? Not at all... I believe they were given a very small portion of a raise. Was it worth cancelling classes for three weeks? ABSOLUTLY NOT!

Here's a video that shows the protest of McGill students due to the increase in tuition.


As discussed in class, this somehow relates to the article we read in tutorial about the bullied boy who wore pink and was harassed, threatened, beaten up and was called a homosexual. Two students decided to take action as they believed that this was an unjust act. Therefore, they took a stand for a good outcome. Similarly, the students at McGill University have decided that they need to work together as a group and protest for the tuitions to be reduced. Working together as a group/crowd gives better results.
For this situation, I also believe that this would not shed any light on the government in lowering tutition fees. They simply don't care! To them, this is how they see it... if you don't want to pay tuition fees, don't go to school! It's as simple as that! Like the article entitled A dishonest student movement states "Whereas a workers’ strike has the potential to place pressure upon employers through the withholding of services, what does a student strike aim to withhold? The pleasure of seeing angry students walking the halls? Or perhaps the insightful commentary first-year students provide in a principles of economics class? Or is it the half-eaten portions of poutine strewn about the cafeteria that will be missed?" It really would not result in a good outcome if students were to go on strike. It will only cause harm to themselves as they will miss classes and therefore put a pause on their education plans.

Personally, I believe that strikes are pointless unless it was a workers' strike, then that is different and those strikes do indeed have an aim; school strikes do not!


Work Cited:
http://www.phawker.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/strike.jpg

http://www.macleans.ca/education/postsecondary/article.jsp?content=20071113_192033_10056&page=2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlFZeFlMOrg

http://www.cpcml.ca/images2007/050316montreal-students1.jpg

Taser: Legal or illegal?

Was it justifiable for a Taser to be used in the Robert Dziekanski case? In my opinion, I think not. I am sure there were other ways in which Robert Dziekanski could’ve been captured. For anyone who doesn’t know what a Taser is and what it does, this might help!

Now that we know what a Taser is, we can begin to identify whether this case was justifiable or not.


No one knows what Dziekanski was feeling because he could not speak English, so wouldn't it make sense if the police or anyone at the airport could have brought someone who is Russian to try to help them understand why Dziekanski was so agitated and what he actually needed? Maybe the fact of him being at the airport for more than 10 hours with no food, water and did not speak English contributed to him losing his actions. But imagine for a second that you were in his situation, what would you have done? Yes, everyone might act differently in situations like these and maybe Dziekanski acted in a unreasonable way but we can't judge unless we were in that same situation! However, did this give the RCMP the right to Taser Dziekanski to the point where he was killed? Personally...I don't think so. I think that there must have been other methods that could've been used in approaching this situation.

To me, it's not the issue of the Taser being used, it's more the idea that he was tackled down, tasered, and as the RCMP saw him dying, they did not help in giving him CPR or something to try and save his life. They did not try to calm him down, but instead, used force and killed the man.

In the youtube video shown above, Dr. John Butt believes that the Tazer was not the primary factor that killed him, but it was more the fact that he was agitated and tired. Although that may be true, I still think that the Taser did have something to do with it as well. It added on to the fact that he was agitated already. And keeping that in mind, why would the police Taser him when they could fully see that he was agitated and not normal?! Also, how can Dr. Butt make such an assumption? It has been proven that there were other deaths because of the Taser as the reporter mentioned in the video. Therefore, there is a huge chance that it really was the Taser that caused Dziekanski's death.


Here's a full video at the Vancouver Airport of Robert Dziekanski's Taser Death. . .

It truly is tragic and I must say that I am quite ashamed of the RCMP for causing harm to this human being.

Work Cited:
http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/media.canada.com/1fd7df5f-ce32-4170-8bbe-95bbc214da27/chairtosscopy.jpg?size=l

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=03824bfe-b406-45c0-b439-b3708b8b7282&k=15023

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CR_k-dTnDU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBDcnO6gsK4

http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2007-w45/img.65974_t.jpg

Gossip Girls vs. Gossip Boys?!

Who hooked up with who? Who broke up with who? Who went off to Las Vegas and got married while being intoxicated?

I bet you wanna know the answers to all those! Well, here's how you could.. open up a random page in People's magazine and you'll find all the answers you're looking for!

But no seriously, i was thinking about this issue and I really wanted to find an answer to why female celebrities and their gossip are more publicized or why female readers love to read gossip associated with females more & here's what i came up with...

My Formula:

-publicity (negative publicity) = gossip + women

women = gossip x trouble

gossip = trouble

therefore,

women = trouble x trouble

= (trouble)^2

*Trouble is the root of -publicity

therefore,

-publicity = (the square root of trouble)^2

-publicity = trouble

The point of my complicated yet interesting formula is that negative publicity only causes trouble!!!

So why is it that women celebrities are publicized more then male celebrities?
Well, women love to grab more attention then men. The article entitled The tabs: No Men Allowed suggests a possible reason for the imbalance in the celebrities coverage which is that women love to fantasize about male celebrities and if they were to hear something bad about them then that ruins the image of the male celebrity for the women readers. Therefore, they read gossip associated with female celebrities in order to view them as evil and bad. I guess this makes them feel better!

Hmm, I don't know about you, but I somewhat sense a little jealousy here. Maybe female readers are jealous of female celebrities because of their bodies, looks, or status, so what do women do best ?? Criticize and gossip! (It's ironic though cuz iIam a girl, yet iItotally agree with the fact that women love to gossip! haha)

This somehow relates to a topic that was discussed in class. Social factors shape the attitude and behaviour of genders. Women tend to talk more and express their emotions more. By women talking more, this leads to gossip.

Women may gossip about the way another female looks, talks, her fashion style or simply the way she communicates and acts around males (Let me tell you, this one is a biggy!). That's why we're known as "Drama Queens" because we take the smallest problem and turn it into something so huge when really it might be a stupid thing. We care too much about what others think and say about us and we tend to make every problem very personal.

Personally, I do enjoy reading and knowning about celebrity lives but I like to know about both genders. The main reason I even open these magazines or turn to the celebrity/entertainment page in the newspaper is because I enjoy seeing what celebrities are wearing!

As discussed in class and tutorial last week, the media knows what's hot and what's not. They know how to persuade people into buying these magazines and reading about hot and "cool" topics that will interest the readers. They know that most fan readers are females and therefore, they will have topics that will interest them most.

And I'll leave you off with a youtube video about Britney Spears!

Work Cited:
http://www.macleans.ca/culture/entertainment/article.jsp?content=2007112_111799_111799

http://cdn.channel.aol.com/aolr/britney-spears-bald-400a030207.jpg

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MMPH/262218~Paris-Hilton-Posters.jpg

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MMPH/261560~Lindsay-Lohan-Posters.jpg

http://finaff.ucsc.edu/CashTrain/images/scale2.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsyWlcQAy-Q

NBC or Apple...Who's side are YOU on?!

Do you listen to your music from iTunes? Do your friends use iTunes to get their music? I am pretty sure they do! Who doesn’t nowadays?!

It’s no secret that the sales of CD’s have decreased dramatically because of the illegal downloading, but who’s at fault here? Definitely not Apple! You may ask why? well, there are systems being used here other than Apple. The way it works is that people download music from Limewire for example, and play the songs using iTunes and may transfer them to their iPods. Therefore, Apple isn't even making that much money from all of this. Also, why would all the blame be on Apple? All the other downloading systems should be at fault as well.

NBC should not be attacking Apple just because it has become such a successful and a well-known downloading system. If you ask me, I sense a little hatred and jealously here!
I believe that Zucker was trying to win people over by pretty much crying and complaining about how NBC is not getting much profit. But by stating in an article entitled NBC executive slams Apple for "killing music industry that “Apple had refused to pay NBC a cut of its iPod hardware sales” is just plain out ridiculous. Why would Apple have to pay NBC for their hardware sales? If anything, it would make more sense for NBC to be paying Apple to sell their shows on iTunes.

Mathew Ingram made a good point saying “But a good one might have been to ask Zucker how much money NBC has gotten over the years from TV manufacturers, who have also (arguably) sold a ton of hardware to people eager to watch major network content”. It seems to me that NBC shouldn't be crying for money.
Personally, I believe that if the systems worked together and then split up the profit, then all those lawsuits and attacks could be avoided. Yes, I realize that the music industry and the downloading systems are all competitive but is there a better way to solve this problem?

Although downloading music, shows, and files are illegal, people are still going to do it and I don't think there is any possible way for anyone to be punished for this so called crime.

Work Cited:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/mingram

http://www.vpedal.com/images/apple_Itunes.jpg

http://cgpartnersllc.com/images/identity/nbc1.jpg

http://www.johnabbottphoto.com/images/corporate_Jeff_Zucker_NBC.jpg

China: Friend or Foe?

Hmm, could China rule over the world someday? Makes you wonder doesn’t it? Seeing as how it has already started attempting with such a small continent like Africa, I wouldn’t be surprised.

It’s quite evident that China is an incredibly powerful country and has many resources and superpowers that it does indeed have the ability to rule over Africa.

By China trying to become allies with Africa as well as build a government, this worries some because this involvement could result in terrible outcomes.
“China needs Africa’s natural resources to fuel its exponential economic growth” says Michel Cormier in the article Is China Becoming A Superpower In Africa?. Right there, we gain the information about China needing Africa’s natural resources; therefore, by targeting their natural resources first which will expand their economic growth, then it is likely that China won’t stop there, and will ask for more. China is simply bribing Africa and showering them with things like “investment, forgiving debt and hobnobbing with dictator” to benefit their own selves.
The advantage of the trade between the two countries could be beneficial in such way that it is helping Africa as it is a poor continent, and China is also gaining resources; however, it seems a little hazy seeing as how an enormous country as China would be involved with a really poor continent.
Other countries might get involved to compete for status within Africa, and this would eventually create antagonism and jeopardize relationships between countries that the UN has built.
This issue raises questions such as; will China’s involvement result in problems? Or will it help them gain more territory?

This video does tell us how China is heling Africa. However, I did find another youtube video which I thought was more interesting and explains the situation quite well but unfortunatly the embedding was disabled by request. So here's the link: EuroNews-EN-Agora-China in Africa.

Work Cited:
http://www.digitalhooligans.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/china_flag_large.bmp

http://p.vtourist.com/1986315-South_African_flag-South_Africa.gif

http://www.cbc.ca/news/reportsfromabroad/cormier/20070214.html

http://english.people.com.cn/200611/07/images/1107_A01.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYTh66HQ5F0

I Now Pronounce you Husband and Robot!

Wow...one question pops to my mind when I read that title: WHAT'S NEXT!?

It's understandable that technology has advanced society in numerous and vast ways, but to me, it seems like it's taking a step backwards now. I believe people have taken it way too far this time to try and create robots who people can actually marry and have sex with. Machines are taking over our lives slowly, but it's ridiculous to know that someday we will hear in the news that someone got married to a robot. Think about it! How funny does that sound? How will your social life, let alone your whole life change? I would be quite shocked to hear that someone actually went along with this bizarre idea.

In the article Sex and marriage with robots? It could happen, it mentions briefly how this would benefit those who are unable to form relationships due to physical appearance or unpleasant personalities. Personally, I find that quite absurd. Wouldn't you rather stay single then marry a robot? I sure as hell would!

Also, don't you find it ironic how last week’s discussion was about marriage rates decreasing in society as there are more unmarried couple then married ones, and now we’re thinking about marriage with robots? In my opinion, I think this would cause a larger decrease in marriage rates.

Robots are for storing database information, not for loving!
This relates to Allan Turing’s theory, in that machines are matched up with human intelligence. Sure, that's logical, but the idea of having a human being marrying a robot is not getting into my head. Yes, maybe it can be proved that a machine can think because it’s programmed that way, but to have emotions and feelings the same way humans express their sensations and affection is impossible in my point of view.
Why are we playing with God’s creation? A man and a woman are meant to get married and have children; not a man and another man, or a man and animals, and certainly not a man and robots!

Here's an interesting video that I thought related to this topic.

Work Cited:
Alexandre Sévigny. Introduction to Communication. Revised Printing. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company: 2005, 2006.

http://www.areavoices.com/areascene/images/thumbnail/cbr3.jpg

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/ato/lowres/aton938l.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKCabPiYPRs

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0205/csmimg/p20a.jpg

Ontario Election 2007

To vote or not to vote... that is the question!

Although I am not a person who is really interested in voting and such, after researching about this new system, I believe that the MMP system is not only fair but it would also bring equality to society.

For anyone who doesn't know what the MMP is and how it works, here's a brief summary; it stands for Mixed-Member Proportional. Basically, it is one ballot, two votes: you vote for the local candidate of your choice, as well as the political party of your choice. Here's a video that will help explain it more by York University prof. Raphael:

This system has shown that it will provide more accurate results if people voted for it. Ontario’s current voting system usually gives one particular party more control and power than it actually deserves. While in the new MMP system, it relies on the share of votes each party obtains, which would guarantee each party winning a fair portion of seats. It is quite evident that the MMP system would offer Ontario voters the best of both worlds. Not only would they be getting limited representation but also, accurate and fair outcomes. Besides voting for your favoured candidate, you will also be voting for your favoured political party. The number of votes that each party will win, will establish the overall number of seats in the parliament. This new system would be very simple and rational. Simply look at the bar graph and it will become more clear of how this new system works!

As discussed in class, language reflects attitude and power. For people to start voting for this new system, choosing the right words would mean whether the message is received or not. Some people are not even aware of this new system. There shoud be more ways to inform people about this new system. Therefore, people need to use attitude and power to portray the right message in the right way. At the same time, people need to become more informational listeners. Listen carefully and understand the MMP system before judging prematurely that it's bad and will not work.

Personally, I support the MMP system as it is more accurate, simple, and fair! If you're still not sure whether you should support this system or not, maybe this will help: Ten Reasons To Vote For Mixed Members Proportional (PPM).
So on that note, to answer my question asked at the very beginning of this blog...Yes! Definitely vote for the Mixed Members Proportional (PPM) system!

Work Cited:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu7m8y8dHz4

http://voteformmp.ca/en/10_reasons

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071011.welectrefer11sb/BNStory/ontarioelection2007/home
http://www.decisionmaker.co.nz/images/Voting%20sign.png

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJCCGweAL3o

http://voteformmp.ca/how_mmp_works

Alder, B. Ronald, George Rodman ,and Alexandre Sévigny. Understanding Human Communication. Canadian Edition. Don Mills: Oxford, 2008.