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.

Has Marriage Gone Out of Style?

Wed now, or forever hold your peace!!


After watching the video in the article titled Whither Marriage?, I started to think whether marriage is something right or wrong. No one should be forced into a marriage and everyone should have the right in deciding whether they want to get married and have children. Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman, and it's not meant to be broken unless there are legitimate reasons. In this generation, people have taken marriage as a joke! And it really bothers me. I guess you can say I am more of the traditional and old fashioned person, but in my opinion, marriage has always been a commitment between two people! Therefore, it requires a man AND a woman...speaking of that, I do not respect how Barbara Kay (Interviewer from the National Post) in the video is blaming women for wanting to stay single and not have children. First of all, it takes two people to get married and those people choose whether they want to have children or not! so I don't really see how this is only women's fault, men are to blame as well. Also, there's nothing wrong with getting married and not having kids. The world is being over populated anyway, so how are couples selfish in not having children?

Many women are afraid that if they get married, they might have to go through the whole heartbreaking divorce; but how will you know that you will be getting divorced? In my opinion, it's fate. You take chances and risks in life, so why not with marriage too?
Also, it should be noted, that in some religions, divorce is still only allowed when a sin is commited in the marriage or one of the spouse' passes away.

Personally, I don't think that age matters that much. A man and a woman should feel ready to settle and then decide on getting married. And if this means the couple are both over the age of 25, then there's nothing wrong with that as long as they are being responsable and waiting to see if they're right for each other to avoid divorce.
I was somewhat disappointed that the video only showed women's perspective on this issue, but then I found a video of a guy's opinion on marriage.


So to answer the big question: Does society suffer when marriage goes out of style?
Well, I believe that there will always be couples getting married and having children because that's a part of life and there will be those who would rather stay single. Personally, I don't think that marriage will go out of style!

I just thought this was a funny comic, so I thought I'd share! It just shows how technology has become such a big factor of our lives.


Work Cited:
http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/2007/09/091607_7.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqaW4nuNce4
http://www.myweddingvows.com/
http://67.119.111.9/AELDA/images/divorc2.gif
http://www.wordinfo.info/words/images/tech-marriage.gif

The Greatest Hamiltonian?

Who's entitled The Greatest Hamiltonian?

Hmm, well that's easy to answer....ME!

haha, of course I am only kidding. But really, what entitles someone to be awarded the "Greatest Hamiltonian" Award?

A good Hamiltonian, in my opinion, is someone who should hold characteristics such as these:

Caring, honesty, fairness, courage, patriotism, respect, responsibility, trustworthiness, and finally, assertion.

In caring, I mean one who's actually concerened about others and their opinions and feelings. He/she must also be honest and live up to anything they've done wrong. In addition to that, fairness plays a major role when it comes to a good Hamiltonian! Because we live in such a discriminating and racial society, one must be fair and treat everyone equally! Equality is key to having a better society.

Courage and assertion are somewhat related to each other... You must have the courage to stand up for yourself and others; therefore, your voice must be heard.

Patriotism means being proud of your country and defending it. Responsibility is quite significant when it comes to a great Hamiltonian. He/she must be responsible in taking care of work. They have duties in which they need to fulfill.

A good Hamiltonian must be respectful to others and oneself. This is what others call "the Golden Rule". You treat others exactly the same way you want to be treated!

Now, looking at The Greatest Hamiltonian, there are 50 nominees that are awaiting to be crowned the Greatest Hamiltonian, but who deserves the title? Well, I have already researched and carefully selected who my votes go to. But just to make it a little more interesting, let's play the guess who game!

This candidate:
-was born in 1910
-Is a leader and a visionary
-Died at the age of 95
-Shalom Village patron and board member
**Havent' guessed yet? Well, here's what's gonna give it away . . .
-A Holocaust survivor who came to Canada from Hungary with only a suitcase
-Built the Effort Trust Company
-Provided employment and quality housing for thousands of Hamiltonians.
-Ontario's largest landlord outside Toronto.

All these candidates have contributed to our society in endless ways, and whether they win this title or not, they are true Hamiltonians in the heart. However, personally, I believe that Arthur Weisz would be the candidate to win the "Greatest Hamitonian" title, because he came into Canada without having anything and built his way through into becoming Ontario's largest landlord outside Toronto. He built the Effort Trust Company and

sheltered countless Hamiltonians. In addition to that, he was a true survivor of the Holocaust.

In my eyes, Arthur Weisz, a true leader and visionary should be crowned "The Greatest Hamiltonian" !!

Work Cited:

http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=hamilton/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1143499813048&call_pageid=1135681909040&col=1140521646278

http://www.mcmaster.ca/ua/opr/nms/newsreleases/2004/convocation.html

http://www.fritziinc.com/tree/pafn752.htm

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A04E2DA103AF934A1575AC0A9669C8B63

http://www.shalomvillage.on.ca/gv_2006_06.pdf

http://www.canadiancrc.com/images/newspaper_logos/Hamilton_Spectator.gif

http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/images/hs/hs1399771_2.jpg

Should Your Daughters Get the HPV Vaccine?!

So you're sitting at the dinner table and your 10 year old daughter starts telling you how her and her friends are getting the HPV vaccine at school tomorrow... What's your first reaction to that?! Hmm, I am guessing 10 million thoughts would go through your mind; HPV vaccine? My TEN year old will be sexually active soon?!

Here's the big question though: Are these girls too young to get this shot?
Based on the article, Should Your Daughters Get the HPV Vaccine?, several parents believe that this age is too young to even know where the cervix is, let alone what HPV really is.
For anyone who doesn't know what the HPV vaccine is; here's a quick summary ; it's a drug that helps prevent a sexually transmitted virus that could lead to cancer. I was really anxious to know why girls need to be at that extremely young age to get this needle, so I did a little research and here's what I got...
The vaccine covers four HPV types and girls who have not been infected with any of those four types will get the full benefits of the vaccine. Therefore, the younger you are, the less sexually active you will be, which means you will less likely be infected with an HPV type.

Would I want my daughter to get the vaccine? It took me a while to come up with an answer because I was worried about what side effects this might have; however, I searched to find these side effects and I couldn't find any severe ones that might be harmful. This helped answer my question; although allowing girls to get this needle might encourage sexual intercourse, I would take that risk to protect my daughter from getting cancer. And yes, there's no actual guarantee of this vaccine working, but if I have the option of somewhat preventing cancer, then I definitely will allow it.

Some parents hesitate in allowing their daughters to get the vaccine because of the public eye. Yet, they never take into consideration what's in the best interest for their daughters. As discussed in class, empathy is the ability to see something through the eyes of someone else; therefore, in this case, the parents should be empathetic and experience the situation from their daughter's point of view rather than the perspective of the public. At the end of the day, it's your daughter that will be affected by this decision, not the public!

Looking back at the article, I believe that although society looks for the safety of young girls/women, it should still be the parents' decision for their daughters. I also believe that forcing the parents by having their daughters get the vaccine at school for free is not fair. If the society's main concern is the safety of young girls then this vaccine should be given for free rather than letting them pay over $400 for three doses over six months.

I just thought that this video is a great example as it outlines the views of the government, the parents and a 4th grader on this issue!

(From American Morning News-CNN)


Work Cited:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070914.whpv15/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home
http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV-vaccine.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9zcwW4mTP8

http://publicaffairs.uth.tmc.edu/hleader/gfx/2006art/hpv.jpg

http://images.parenthood.com/hpv-vaccine.jpg

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

Hello World.