Reece Frazier
13 May 2010
FD4
FD4 - Free Speech: A richer global community
Censorship dates back to the beginning of ruling bodies of power. Limiting free speech was, and is, often a venue for controlling a population. By limiting the flow of information, a government was able to paint a picture – propaganda – for their citizens in whatever light they chose. In America, most individuals view propaganda as being unacceptable. However, such a viewpoint is not always shared. In ancient times, and even today, the restriction of information and ideas was considered to be a public service, for the sake of, “shaping the character of people.” This was considered essential to proper governance. Countries, like China and North Korea, continue to practice an extreme interpretation of this idea today, limiting virtually all free speech and controlling every avenue of information. On the other hand, there are other countries which implement varied levels of prohibited speech. The United States of America, from its very foundation, remains one of the few countries with the wholesome right to free speech. Although an individual or organization may hold true to mainstream dissenting ideas, they are allowed (in the U.S.), and even encouraged, to share their beliefs. With the flow and exchange of information, comes the spurring of new ideas, ultimately allowing for a richer global community. [THESIS] Access to free speech is essential to the growth, diversity and culture of Earth’s interdependent societies. [THESIS]
Dating back to beginnings of modern political revolution, writers and political theorists like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and even Benjamin Franklin shared ideas which caused some sort of dissidence toward the government in place. Quite often, these “free thinkers” were repressed in sharing their ideas with the widespread population, for, the rulers believed, if their ideas were circulated there would be anti-government pandemics – and frankly, they were right.
The American Revolution began in the mid-late eighteenth century. The colonists who inhabited North America had been ruled by foreign power since their home countries had sent them to explore and settle the newly discovered lands. These “foreign powers” levied taxes and dictated law which made many of the colonists unhappy. The recently inventing printing press allowed a means for mass production of the circulation of ideas. Prior to this revolutionary invention, ideas were exchanged through word of mouth and handwritten memoranda which was extremely limiting.
In present times, there are individuals who, like at the time of the colonial revolution who have extremeist perspectives that do not always sit well with the majority of the population. A commonly referenced individual is Ward Churchill. Mr. Churchill share’s his ideas with a very minute proportion of the population (keep in mind, our current population is approximately 309,151,303 versus 3,893,635 in 1790 – so a “minute” proportion greatly varies). Although the vast majority of individuals in the United States tend to disagree with Mr. Churchill’s ideas, our country’s foundation is based upon this very idea – the idea that he be allowed to share such dissenting ideas.
Our countries forefathers felt that it was quintessential that our right to speak freely be preserved throughout time and subsequently enacted the First Amendment. The amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law [ . . . ] abridging the freedom of speech [ . . .].” Although it is plausible that its placement be merely incidental, it would seem that the importance of the matter correlates its position within the Bill of Rights.
On September 11, 2001, a group of religious extremists attacked the United States by hijacking commercial aircraft and plunging them into national icons. Some argue (amongst them being Mr. Churchill) that it was indeed the United States’ own fault for what had happened – exclaiming that our capitalistic nature induced such a catastrophe. Although this idea may seem outlandish to most, Mr. Churchill’s discourse, may indeed be beneficial for society as a whole.
We live in an empire where our ideals, it seems, are what the rest of the world also has to enjoy. Unfortunately, outside these fifty states lies a much different world where the luxuries of running water, electricity, clothing, food, iPhones, computers, schools, and other items, which we deem a “necessity,” are hard to come by. There are those on the outside who seem to believe that our success is caused by their demise. While that is not particularly the issue at hand, this conviction, similar to that which Mr. Churchill follows, could allow for an unsuspecting individual to allow some thought into the matter. One could argue that we do indeed live in a global community and the riches of a few should ideally be shared with another – outside of one’s own nation. Exploiting those who are less fortunate, to get to the top, is not always appropriate. The preservation of Mr. Churchill’s right to speak freely, and share his ideas which are dangerously controversial, allow for such out-of-the-box thinking to exist; it is such extremist thinking that founded the United States of America. Without discord change is inhibited.
Opponents of free speech often argue that such rhetoric (like that of Mr. Churchill) is demoralizing for society and stains the names of people who died in vain. Although this may be true, the idea behind allowing the freedom to express one’s self does not question the validity or soundness of an idea, but rather, enforces that the person is allowed to speak at all. Classmate Kimberly Malott has commented that, “Ward Churchill is a character that does not seem to present any validity in any of his arguments [ . . . ] People with views should have evidence to fully support their claims prior to arguing with others that they should try to see their point first before viewing the actual valid evidence.” While Mr. Churchill tactical arguments may not deserve merit, his ideas spur thought, discussion, and even a few seconds of thought for those who have fallen.
Selecting which types of speech to regulate and not regulate would completely undermine the principle behind free speech. In 2005, the University of Hawaii invited Ward Churchill to speak. This caused a widespread uproar in allowing funds, public and private, to be used on someone who, according to Star-Bulletin journalist Craig Gima, “compared some Sept. 11, 2001 victims to a Nazi war criminal.”
Hawaii Senator Fred Hemmingway felt that the very idea of an individual with such ideas be allowed to speak at a University would ultimately lower private funding and discredit the University of Hawaii. Senator Hemmingway’s public disapproval of the University’s invitation solicited a very insightful response from then University President David McClain. McClain responded to the Sentor’s public outcry by reminding him, “Freedom of inquiry and of expression are what universities are all about, and freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy.”
When our country was founded, over three hundred years ago, the movers and shakers of the Revolution were outlaws – essentially committing treason. Their ideas, in of themselves, were criminal (although, in present day, the exchange of ideas is legal, however an attempt to overthrow the government not). With the right to freedom of speech and “extremist thought” comes the ability to share this with the government and speak freely about the things which (one feels) needs to change. This exchange of ideas will eventually bring change and new ideas.
Furthermore, those who wish to limit speech have attacked, time and again, ideas (such as Mr. Churchill’s) which make any demographic uncomfortable. Such a limitation is unfair, and would restrict progressive thought ultimately leaving society in the dark ages. Whenever change comes about, whether it be in women’s rights, the government’s ability to levy taxes, Wall Street legislation, or cuts to social services, someone is guaranteed to be uncomfortable or unwilling to change.
Classmate Natalie Choe shared her thoughts on the matter exclaiming that, "We are entitled to our own opinions. One of our most controversial freedoms is our freedom of speech, yet this same freedom often causes disagreements between people who hold opposing views. Although we are entitled to say whatever we want, Ward Churchill takes this freedom to the extreme." This argument is suspicious.
Indeed we are entitled to our own opinions, and yes, the first amendment is often the center to controversy and ultimately causes disagreements between people. Calling Ward Churchill's opinions an "extreme" use of this freedom is a questionable statement. This idea of an "extreme" can be applied to any use of the freedom. Individuals who disagreed with Mr. Churchill's statements may think that his speech was an "extreme," however, those who believed in what Mr. Churchill had to say could say the same about those who thought otherwise. The exercise of the right to freedom of speech cannot be granted only in part.
The exchange of new (or rather, "different") ideas and unpopular beliefs brings about new ideas, compassion, and dialogue about problems currently in place. Take the ideas of two extremists and blend them together – your product is essentially a balance between two ends of a spectrum. While this example is extremely idealized, a limitation on either end of the scale would produce a half-hearted and incomplete product. By the open sharing of ideas between people, the desires of our diverse global community can be met with compassion and compromise.
In the spirit of free speech, one must wonder –in countries where speech is been limited, and the culture submits to governmental control, who then is “right?” Would the cultural allowance to prohibit the flow of information be considered permissible? How does the impact of the ideas of Western societies, specifically the freedom of speech, affect third world countries. Are such “rights” actually “right?” We have developed over a few hundred year and concluded that out “god given right” is to be able to speak freely. However, China, with its expansive censorship, is in much better financial condition than the United States. Are we really on the right track?
Developing countries around the world have begun to accept the idea that in order to have a successful global community, one needs to open their ears to ideas outside of the norm. Free thinkers have made the world what it is today, and without the exchange of such outlandish perspective, the world would be stagnant and growth would be limited.
Works Cited
Natalie Choe. "Attacking Ward Churchill." Online Posting. 18 April 2010. Laulima Discussion. 13 May 2010. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.33517.201030/page/c2a89a6c-a93e-47dd-b419-873ef93bb50f].
Malott, Kimberly. "Attack Ward Churchill." Online Posting. 16 April 2010. Laulima Discussion. 24 April 2010. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.33517.201030/page/c2a89a6c-a93e-47dd-b419-873ef93bb50f].
Newth, Mette. "The Long History of Censorship." Beacon for Freedom of Expression. 2001 July. 24 April 2010. [http://www.beaconforfreedom.org/about_project/history.html]
"U.S. POPClock Projection." The United States Government. 2009 August 31. 24 April 2010. [http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html]
The United States Census Bureau. 24 April 2010. [http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1790b-02.pdf]
Log of Completed Activities
X Apr. 6t- Intro to Paper #4. Read the Guidelines for Paper #4. (Confirmation reply required.)
X Apr. 12M- Complete readings for paper #4. (Confirmation reply required.)
X Apr. 16F- Laulima Discussion: Attack Ward Churchill
X Apr. 21W- Laulima Discussion: Defend Ward Churchill
X Apr. 26M- RD4 due. [50 pts] Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)
X Apr. 30F- RD4 reviews due [50 pts] Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)
X May 5W-14F- FD4 due [150 pts] Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
A "Healthy" Control of Equality
Reece Frazier
May 10, 2010
FD5
The world we live in is filled with preferences. For genetic reasons, and others, we tend to prefer some things to others. Typically these preferences amount to nothing more than choosing to go on the highway versus the freeway, or getting soy milk rather than whole milk. These preferences, in this form, are generally harmless. However, preferences can turn into prejudice, and in its extreme form can become hatred. If every time someone thought or acted upon a prejudice toward another person, they were forced to pay a monetary dollar amount, the world would surely be rid of such nonsensical actions.
For years, people have been taught to treat minorities as something different – something not understood. This concept of different treatment has led to prejudices in various forms. We hold the door open for some people, while we let go for others. We scream obscenities at an Asian woman who drives obnoxiously, but merely raise a brow when a character from “The Hills” swerves into our lane. Then, there are those who go insofar as to persecute those of different skin colors, or of different cultural backgrounds, and even those with different tastes than that of our own.
In 2004, the US Federal Bureau of Investigations (“FBI”) reported that, “All states except Hawaii reported at least one hate crime last year.” The total reported for 2003 was 7,489 – finding that 1,200 of these crimes were based on sexual orientation! Several years later, the one state where a “hate crime” was not committed received a severe blow from its leading university’s head football coach.
University of Hawaii Football coach Greg McMackin was recently suspended for slurs regarding homosexuality. In a news conference he said, “We do something special at Notre Dame game and they get out and do this little cheer. This little faggot dance.” Following his commentary, coach McMackin was suspended for 30 days, and forced to take a 7% pay cut, amounting to more than $160,000 for his ‘gay slur.’ He later apologized, and committed to donate time toward the gay community. Although he has yet to follow through on his community service, this piece of recent history does show that monetary consequences for prejudicial comments has an impact. Surely, this penalty reminds McMackin to think twice before acting out in such a manner.
If indeed, individuals were punished, monetarily, for their derogatory remarks against minorities, or rather, negative remarks against anyone based on a certain characteristic, the behavior would surely disappear. Certain guidelines would of course need to be put in order. For example, these “penalties” would need to be reasonable and within the violator’s ability to pay, but severe enough to strike the individual in a way which would remind them not to do it again. If extreme amounts were imposed, the tortfeasor would most likely circumvent any payment at all. On the other hand, if the amount were too nominal, no one would care and continue on with the behavior.
Opponents of such a measure will argue that implementation and enforcement of this penalty system is virtually impossible. While that may be true, in part, this proposed system would come with a monitoring system similar to that of the novel “1984” by George Orwell. Cameras in every building, and the Thought Police, walking throughout every neighborhood, would surely catch all, if not most, infractions of this holistic system. Violators would receive a citation for each and every infraction. In a few years’ time, the enforcement system would be paid for, and the idea of discrimination could only be erased from the human mind.
In my Yearbook class in high school we had a “swear jar.” Every time someone exclaimed a profanity, they were forced to pay $1 and put it in the swear jar. This jar was then used to complete a community service project in the neighborhood (the source of the funds was usually left out when donated). Enforcement usually consisted of telling on your neighbor, and constant monitoring by the teacher’s aides. This communal system of “making the world a better place” was practical and the results were successful.
At the end of each year, over three years, the total amounts placed into the jar decreased, with the largest decrease being between the second and third years. This real-world test of a fiscal penalty system is proof that this system would ultimately work.
Although the world is filled with personal ideals of what it should be, and who should be in it, the idea of equality can be forced down people’s throats and extremist thinking, which inevitable leads to acts based on hate, can be eliminated. Working toward a system where people must (literally) pay for their actions would lead toward a more peaceful society where everyone is an equal. As dogs are trained to fetch, we too, as humans, can be trained to “think equal.”
Works Cited
Anderson, Curt. “FBI Reports More Than 7,400 Hate Crimes.” 22 Nov. 2004. Charlotte.com. 10 May 2010. [http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/10246350.htm].
Arab, Zahid. “University of Hawaii Coach Greg McMackin Suspended.” 31 July 2009. KHNL.com. 10 May 2010. [http://www.khnl.com/Global/story.asp?S=10830037].
Hasty, Mark. "Hawaii's Greg McMackin Apologizes for Gay Slur Aimed at Notre Dame." 30 July 2009. NCAA -- Fanhouse. 10 May 2010. [http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2009/07/30/hawaiis-greg-mcmackin-apologizes-for-gay-slur-aimed-at-notre-da/].
May 10, 2010
FD5
The world we live in is filled with preferences. For genetic reasons, and others, we tend to prefer some things to others. Typically these preferences amount to nothing more than choosing to go on the highway versus the freeway, or getting soy milk rather than whole milk. These preferences, in this form, are generally harmless. However, preferences can turn into prejudice, and in its extreme form can become hatred. If every time someone thought or acted upon a prejudice toward another person, they were forced to pay a monetary dollar amount, the world would surely be rid of such nonsensical actions.
For years, people have been taught to treat minorities as something different – something not understood. This concept of different treatment has led to prejudices in various forms. We hold the door open for some people, while we let go for others. We scream obscenities at an Asian woman who drives obnoxiously, but merely raise a brow when a character from “The Hills” swerves into our lane. Then, there are those who go insofar as to persecute those of different skin colors, or of different cultural backgrounds, and even those with different tastes than that of our own.
In 2004, the US Federal Bureau of Investigations (“FBI”) reported that, “All states except Hawaii reported at least one hate crime last year.” The total reported for 2003 was 7,489 – finding that 1,200 of these crimes were based on sexual orientation! Several years later, the one state where a “hate crime” was not committed received a severe blow from its leading university’s head football coach.
University of Hawaii Football coach Greg McMackin was recently suspended for slurs regarding homosexuality. In a news conference he said, “We do something special at Notre Dame game and they get out and do this little cheer. This little faggot dance.” Following his commentary, coach McMackin was suspended for 30 days, and forced to take a 7% pay cut, amounting to more than $160,000 for his ‘gay slur.’ He later apologized, and committed to donate time toward the gay community. Although he has yet to follow through on his community service, this piece of recent history does show that monetary consequences for prejudicial comments has an impact. Surely, this penalty reminds McMackin to think twice before acting out in such a manner.
If indeed, individuals were punished, monetarily, for their derogatory remarks against minorities, or rather, negative remarks against anyone based on a certain characteristic, the behavior would surely disappear. Certain guidelines would of course need to be put in order. For example, these “penalties” would need to be reasonable and within the violator’s ability to pay, but severe enough to strike the individual in a way which would remind them not to do it again. If extreme amounts were imposed, the tortfeasor would most likely circumvent any payment at all. On the other hand, if the amount were too nominal, no one would care and continue on with the behavior.
Opponents of such a measure will argue that implementation and enforcement of this penalty system is virtually impossible. While that may be true, in part, this proposed system would come with a monitoring system similar to that of the novel “1984” by George Orwell. Cameras in every building, and the Thought Police, walking throughout every neighborhood, would surely catch all, if not most, infractions of this holistic system. Violators would receive a citation for each and every infraction. In a few years’ time, the enforcement system would be paid for, and the idea of discrimination could only be erased from the human mind.
In my Yearbook class in high school we had a “swear jar.” Every time someone exclaimed a profanity, they were forced to pay $1 and put it in the swear jar. This jar was then used to complete a community service project in the neighborhood (the source of the funds was usually left out when donated). Enforcement usually consisted of telling on your neighbor, and constant monitoring by the teacher’s aides. This communal system of “making the world a better place” was practical and the results were successful.
At the end of each year, over three years, the total amounts placed into the jar decreased, with the largest decrease being between the second and third years. This real-world test of a fiscal penalty system is proof that this system would ultimately work.
Although the world is filled with personal ideals of what it should be, and who should be in it, the idea of equality can be forced down people’s throats and extremist thinking, which inevitable leads to acts based on hate, can be eliminated. Working toward a system where people must (literally) pay for their actions would lead toward a more peaceful society where everyone is an equal. As dogs are trained to fetch, we too, as humans, can be trained to “think equal.”
Works Cited
Anderson, Curt. “FBI Reports More Than 7,400 Hate Crimes.” 22 Nov. 2004. Charlotte.com. 10 May 2010. [http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/10246350.htm].
Arab, Zahid. “University of Hawaii Coach Greg McMackin Suspended.” 31 July 2009. KHNL.com. 10 May 2010. [http://www.khnl.com/Global/story.asp?S=10830037].
Hasty, Mark. "Hawaii's Greg McMackin Apologizes for Gay Slur Aimed at Notre Dame." 30 July 2009. NCAA -- Fanhouse. 10 May 2010. [http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2009/07/30/hawaiis-greg-mcmackin-apologizes-for-gay-slur-aimed-at-notre-da/].
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
RD 4 - Free Speech: A richer global community
Reece Frazier
27 April 2010
RD4
RD4 - Free Speech: A richer global community
Censorship dates back to the beginning of ruling bodies of power. Limiting free speech was, and is, often a venue for controlling a population. By limiting the flow of information, a government was able to paint a picture – propaganda – for their citizens in whatever light they chose. To most individuals propaganda is unacceptable. However, such a viewpoint is not always shared. In ancient times, which continue into today, the restriction of information and ideas was considered to be a public service, for the sake of, “shaping the character of people .” This was considered essential to proper governance. Countries, like China and North Korea, continue to practice an extreme interpretation of this idea today, limiting virtually all free speech and controlling every avenue of information. On the other hand, there are other countries which implement varied levels of prohibited speech. The United States of America, upon foundation and continuing into today, remains one of the few countries with the complete right to free speech. Although an individual or organization may hold true to mainstream dissenting ideas, they are allowed (in the U.S.), and even encouraged, to share their beliefs. With the flow and exchange of information, comes the spurring of new ideas, ultimately allowing for a richer global community. [THESIS] Access to free speech is essential to the growth, diversity and culture of Earth’s interdependent societies. [THESIS]
Dating back to beginnings of modern political revolution, writers and political theorists like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and even Benjamin Franklin shared ideas which caused some sort of dissidence toward the government in place. Quite often, these “free thinkers” were repressed in sharing their ideas with the widespread population, for, the rulers believed, if their ideas were circulated there would be anti-government pandemics – and frankly, they were right.
The American Revolution began in the mid-late eighteenth century. The colonists who inhabited North America had been ruled by foreign power since their home countries had sent them to explore and settle the newly discovered lands. These “foreign powers” levied taxes and dictated law which made many of the colonists unhappy. The recently inventing printing press allowed a means for mass production of the circulation of ideas. Prior to this revolutionary invention, ideas were exchanged through word of mouth and handwritten memoranda which was extremely limiting.
In present times, there are individuals who, like at the time of the colonial revolution who have extremeist perspectives that do not always sit well with the majority of the population. A commonly referenced individual is Ward Churchill. Mr. Churchill share’s his ideas with a very minute proportion of the population (keep in mind, our current population is approximately 309,151,303 versus 3,893,635 in 1790 – so a “minute” proportion greatly varies). Although the vast majority of individuals in the United States tend to disagree with Mr. Churchill’s ideas, our country’s foundation is based upon this very idea – the idea that he be allowed to share such dissenting ideas.
Our countries forefathers felt that it was quintessential that our right to speak freely be preserved throughout time and subsequently enacted the First Amendment. The amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law [ . . . ] abridging the freedom of speech [ . . .].” Although it is plausible that its placement be merely incidental, it would seem that the importance of the matter correlates its position within the Bill of Rights.
On September 11, 2001, a group of religious extremists attacked the United States by hijacking commercial aircraft and plunging them into national icons. Some argue (amongst them being Mr. Churchill) that it was indeed the United States’ own fault for what had happened – exclaiming that our capitalistic nature induced such a catastrophe. Although this idea may seem outlandish to most, Mr. Churchill’s discourse, may indeed be beneficial for society as a whole.
We live in an empire where our ideals, it seems, are what the rest of the world also has to enjoy. Unfortunately, outside these fifty states lies a much different world where the luxuries of running water, electricity, clothing, food, iPhones, computers, schools, and other items, which we deem a “necessity,” are hard to come by. There are those on the outside who seem to believe that our success is caused by their demise. While that is not particularly the issue at hand, this conviction, similar to that which Mr. Churchill follows, could allow for an unsuspecting individual to allow some thought into the matter. One could argue that we do indeed live in a global community and the riches of a few should ideally be shared with another – outside of one’s own nation. Exploiting those who are less fortunate, to get to the top, is not always appropriate. The preservation of Mr. Churchill’s right to speak freely, and share his ideas which are dangerously controversial, allow for such out-of-the-box thinking to exist; it is such extremist thinking that founded the United States of America. Without discord change is inhibited.
Opponents of free speech often argue that such rhetoric (like that of Mr. Churchill) is demoralizing for society and stains the names of people who died in vain. Although this may be true, the idea behind allowing the freedom to express one’s self does not question the validity or soundness of an idea, but rather, enforces that the person is allowed to speak at all. Classmate Kimberly Malott has commented that, “Ward Churchill is a character that does not seem to present any validity in any of his arguments [ . . . ] People with views should have evidence to fully support their claims prior to arguing with others that they should try to see their point first before viewing the actual valid evidence.” While Mr. Churchill tactical arguments may not deserve merit, his ideas spur thought, discussion, and even a few seconds of thought for those who have fallen.
Selecting which types of speech to regulate and not regulate would completely undermine the principle behind free speech. In 2005, the University of Hawaii invited Ward Churchill to speak. This caused a widespread uproar in allowing funds, public and private, to be used on someone who, according to Star-Bulletin journalist Craig Gima, “compared some Sept. 11, 2001 victims to a Nazi war criminal.”
Hawaii Senator Fred Hemmingway felt that the very idea of an individual with such ideas be allowed to speak at a University would ultimately lower private funding and discredit the University of Hawaii. Senator Hemmingway’s public disapproval of the University’s invitation solicited a very insightful response from then University President David McClain. McClain responded to the Sentor’s public outcry by reminding him, “Freedom of inquiry and of expression are what universities are all about, and freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy.”
When our country was founded, over three hundred years ago, the movers and shakers of the Revolution were outlaws – essentially committing treason. Their ideas, in of themselves, were criminal (although, in present day, the exchange of ideas is legal, however an attempt to overthrow the government not). With the right to freedom of speech and “extremist thought” comes the ability to share this with the government and speak freely about the things which (one feels) needs to change. This exchange of ideas will eventually bring change and new ideas.
Furthermore, those who wish to limit speech have attacked, time and again, ideas (such as Mr. Churchill’s) which make any demographic uncomfortable. Such a limitation is unfair, and would restrict progressive thought ultimately leaving society in the dark ages. Whenever change comes about, whether it be in women’s rights, the government’s ability to levy taxes, Wall Street legislation, or cuts to social services, someone is guaranteed to be uncomfortable or unwilling to change.
The sharing of new ideas and unpopular beliefs brings about new ideas, compassion, and dialogue about problems currently in place. Take the ideas of two extremists and blend them together – your product is essentially a balance between two ends of a spectrum. While this example is extremely idealized, a limitation on either end of the scale would produce a half-hearted and incomplete product. By the open sharing of ideas between people, the desires of our diverse global community can be met with compassion and compromise.
In the spirit of free speech, one must wonder –in countries where speech is been limited, and the culture submits to governmental control, who then is “right?” Would the cultural allowance to prohibit the flow of information be considered permissible? How does the impact of the ideas of Western societies, specifically the freedom of speech, affect third world countries. Are such “rights” actually “right?” We have developed over a few hundred year and concluded that out “god given right” is to be able to speak freely. However, China, with its expansive censorship, is in much better financial condition than the United States. Are we really on the right track?
Developing countries around the world have begun to accept the idea that in order to have a successful global community, one needs to open their ears to ideas outside of the norm. Free thinkers have made the world what it is today, and without the exchange of such outlandish perspective, the world would be stagnant and growth would be limited.
Works Cited
Malott, Kimberly . "Attack Ward Churchill." Online Posting. 26 April 2010. Laulima Discussion. 24 April 2010. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.33517.201030/page/c2a89a6c-a93e-47dd-b419-873ef93bb50f].
Newth, Mette. "The Long History of Censorship." Beacon for Freedom of Expression. 2001 July. 24 April 2010. [http://www.beaconforfreedom.org/about_project/history.html]
"U.S. POPClock Projection." The United States Government. 2009 August 31. 24 April 2010. [http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html]
The United States Census Bureau. 24 April 2010. [http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1790b-02.pdf]
27 April 2010
RD4
RD4 - Free Speech: A richer global community
Censorship dates back to the beginning of ruling bodies of power. Limiting free speech was, and is, often a venue for controlling a population. By limiting the flow of information, a government was able to paint a picture – propaganda – for their citizens in whatever light they chose. To most individuals propaganda is unacceptable. However, such a viewpoint is not always shared. In ancient times, which continue into today, the restriction of information and ideas was considered to be a public service, for the sake of, “shaping the character of people .” This was considered essential to proper governance. Countries, like China and North Korea, continue to practice an extreme interpretation of this idea today, limiting virtually all free speech and controlling every avenue of information. On the other hand, there are other countries which implement varied levels of prohibited speech. The United States of America, upon foundation and continuing into today, remains one of the few countries with the complete right to free speech. Although an individual or organization may hold true to mainstream dissenting ideas, they are allowed (in the U.S.), and even encouraged, to share their beliefs. With the flow and exchange of information, comes the spurring of new ideas, ultimately allowing for a richer global community. [THESIS] Access to free speech is essential to the growth, diversity and culture of Earth’s interdependent societies. [THESIS]
Dating back to beginnings of modern political revolution, writers and political theorists like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and even Benjamin Franklin shared ideas which caused some sort of dissidence toward the government in place. Quite often, these “free thinkers” were repressed in sharing their ideas with the widespread population, for, the rulers believed, if their ideas were circulated there would be anti-government pandemics – and frankly, they were right.
The American Revolution began in the mid-late eighteenth century. The colonists who inhabited North America had been ruled by foreign power since their home countries had sent them to explore and settle the newly discovered lands. These “foreign powers” levied taxes and dictated law which made many of the colonists unhappy. The recently inventing printing press allowed a means for mass production of the circulation of ideas. Prior to this revolutionary invention, ideas were exchanged through word of mouth and handwritten memoranda which was extremely limiting.
In present times, there are individuals who, like at the time of the colonial revolution who have extremeist perspectives that do not always sit well with the majority of the population. A commonly referenced individual is Ward Churchill. Mr. Churchill share’s his ideas with a very minute proportion of the population (keep in mind, our current population is approximately 309,151,303 versus 3,893,635 in 1790 – so a “minute” proportion greatly varies). Although the vast majority of individuals in the United States tend to disagree with Mr. Churchill’s ideas, our country’s foundation is based upon this very idea – the idea that he be allowed to share such dissenting ideas.
Our countries forefathers felt that it was quintessential that our right to speak freely be preserved throughout time and subsequently enacted the First Amendment. The amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law [ . . . ] abridging the freedom of speech [ . . .].” Although it is plausible that its placement be merely incidental, it would seem that the importance of the matter correlates its position within the Bill of Rights.
On September 11, 2001, a group of religious extremists attacked the United States by hijacking commercial aircraft and plunging them into national icons. Some argue (amongst them being Mr. Churchill) that it was indeed the United States’ own fault for what had happened – exclaiming that our capitalistic nature induced such a catastrophe. Although this idea may seem outlandish to most, Mr. Churchill’s discourse, may indeed be beneficial for society as a whole.
We live in an empire where our ideals, it seems, are what the rest of the world also has to enjoy. Unfortunately, outside these fifty states lies a much different world where the luxuries of running water, electricity, clothing, food, iPhones, computers, schools, and other items, which we deem a “necessity,” are hard to come by. There are those on the outside who seem to believe that our success is caused by their demise. While that is not particularly the issue at hand, this conviction, similar to that which Mr. Churchill follows, could allow for an unsuspecting individual to allow some thought into the matter. One could argue that we do indeed live in a global community and the riches of a few should ideally be shared with another – outside of one’s own nation. Exploiting those who are less fortunate, to get to the top, is not always appropriate. The preservation of Mr. Churchill’s right to speak freely, and share his ideas which are dangerously controversial, allow for such out-of-the-box thinking to exist; it is such extremist thinking that founded the United States of America. Without discord change is inhibited.
Opponents of free speech often argue that such rhetoric (like that of Mr. Churchill) is demoralizing for society and stains the names of people who died in vain. Although this may be true, the idea behind allowing the freedom to express one’s self does not question the validity or soundness of an idea, but rather, enforces that the person is allowed to speak at all. Classmate Kimberly Malott has commented that, “Ward Churchill is a character that does not seem to present any validity in any of his arguments [ . . . ] People with views should have evidence to fully support their claims prior to arguing with others that they should try to see their point first before viewing the actual valid evidence.” While Mr. Churchill tactical arguments may not deserve merit, his ideas spur thought, discussion, and even a few seconds of thought for those who have fallen.
Selecting which types of speech to regulate and not regulate would completely undermine the principle behind free speech. In 2005, the University of Hawaii invited Ward Churchill to speak. This caused a widespread uproar in allowing funds, public and private, to be used on someone who, according to Star-Bulletin journalist Craig Gima, “compared some Sept. 11, 2001 victims to a Nazi war criminal.”
Hawaii Senator Fred Hemmingway felt that the very idea of an individual with such ideas be allowed to speak at a University would ultimately lower private funding and discredit the University of Hawaii. Senator Hemmingway’s public disapproval of the University’s invitation solicited a very insightful response from then University President David McClain. McClain responded to the Sentor’s public outcry by reminding him, “Freedom of inquiry and of expression are what universities are all about, and freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy.”
When our country was founded, over three hundred years ago, the movers and shakers of the Revolution were outlaws – essentially committing treason. Their ideas, in of themselves, were criminal (although, in present day, the exchange of ideas is legal, however an attempt to overthrow the government not). With the right to freedom of speech and “extremist thought” comes the ability to share this with the government and speak freely about the things which (one feels) needs to change. This exchange of ideas will eventually bring change and new ideas.
Furthermore, those who wish to limit speech have attacked, time and again, ideas (such as Mr. Churchill’s) which make any demographic uncomfortable. Such a limitation is unfair, and would restrict progressive thought ultimately leaving society in the dark ages. Whenever change comes about, whether it be in women’s rights, the government’s ability to levy taxes, Wall Street legislation, or cuts to social services, someone is guaranteed to be uncomfortable or unwilling to change.
The sharing of new ideas and unpopular beliefs brings about new ideas, compassion, and dialogue about problems currently in place. Take the ideas of two extremists and blend them together – your product is essentially a balance between two ends of a spectrum. While this example is extremely idealized, a limitation on either end of the scale would produce a half-hearted and incomplete product. By the open sharing of ideas between people, the desires of our diverse global community can be met with compassion and compromise.
In the spirit of free speech, one must wonder –in countries where speech is been limited, and the culture submits to governmental control, who then is “right?” Would the cultural allowance to prohibit the flow of information be considered permissible? How does the impact of the ideas of Western societies, specifically the freedom of speech, affect third world countries. Are such “rights” actually “right?” We have developed over a few hundred year and concluded that out “god given right” is to be able to speak freely. However, China, with its expansive censorship, is in much better financial condition than the United States. Are we really on the right track?
Developing countries around the world have begun to accept the idea that in order to have a successful global community, one needs to open their ears to ideas outside of the norm. Free thinkers have made the world what it is today, and without the exchange of such outlandish perspective, the world would be stagnant and growth would be limited.
Works Cited
Malott, Kimberly . "Attack Ward Churchill." Online Posting. 26 April 2010. Laulima Discussion. 24 April 2010. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.33517.201030/page/c2a89a6c-a93e-47dd-b419-873ef93bb50f].
Newth, Mette. "The Long History of Censorship." Beacon for Freedom of Expression. 2001 July. 24 April 2010. [http://www.beaconforfreedom.org/about_project/history.html]
"U.S. POPClock Projection." The United States Government. 2009 August 31. 24 April 2010. [http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html]
The United States Census Bureau. 24 April 2010. [http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1790b-02.pdf]
Monday, April 5, 2010
FD3 - The Simple Truth
5 April 2010
FD3
The Simple Truth
Today we embark upon a journey. A journey which will bring us up, throw us down, and involve many sharp turns. Most of us have already begun to think about tomorrow with hope, wonder, joy, and maybe a little hesitation. Life is an adventure and it begins here. We will be challenged in ways we never imagined. Our parents won’t always be there, and we’re frankly reminded that we must now truly begin to depend on “me.” Life will be a voyage, whose fate will be determined by our individual actions. When the going gets tough, we will be tempted to take the easy route and forget whom we really are. I challenge you, Kapiolani Community College Class of 2010 to this – no matter what happens, or how hard things get, don’t forget to be honest. Honest to each other and ourselves. [THESIS] The key to leading a truly happy, successful and carefree life is being honest. [THESIS]
Life is filled with relationships. We have already begun to foster many that will take us through out lives, and there are those, which are fleeting. One of the fundamental building blocks to any relationship is trust. Generally we like to begin our relationships with trust, but maintaining such idealism tends to be somewhat tedious. I once found myself between two best friends who were very close, and had been friends for years.
At one point in time, one of the friends lied to other about something rather mindless – I believe it has something to do with lunch plans. Several months, a dented car, and a bloody fist later, I found out that one was doing drugs and sleeping with a mutual friend behind the other’s back. Now I don’t anticipate that every lie will transcend into something as drastic as that, however I would like to emphasize that lying is the first bathroom break while you’re drinking. Once you start, it’s just that much easier to keep going.
On the other hand, if these two friends hadn’t lied and kept the trust going between them, they may have experienced a few moments of anger and frustration throughout their relationship, but they would still have each other and a friendship that just may have lasted a lifetime.
Based on personal experience (and research), it seems that many of us choose to lie when its convenient, or if the possibility of getting caught is slim. Professor Miriam Schulman at Santa Clara University explains the rationale behind this decision making process, “Most of us, I suspect, are utilitarians on the subject of truthfulness, deciding whether to lie based on the possible consequences: Trivial fibs that hurt no one are acceptable; whoppers that injure others are not.” I’m sure all of you understand how much truth there is to this.
I believe this is where most of us begin. We think, “Hey, if I tell my instructor my computer was broken, I’ll be able to go out tonight and make up my homework later.” Now, with experience, we all know that that single lie, will almost definitely lead to a second lie, as well as a third, fourth, and so on. This particular sequence is typical because once you make one lie it’s that much easier to rationalize another.
Recent history will show us that the consequences of a “white lie” weren’t always as simple as fleeting guilt. In “A Brief History of Lying” the BBC reported, “In English medieval courts truth was tested by ordeals of fire and water, on the basis a truthful person would be protected by God. Someone suspected of lying would have to carry a red-hot iron bar for nine paces. Alternatively he could opt to walk across nine red-hot ploughshares. Either way, if the suspect was burned then this was proof that he was lying and so could be promptly hung.” If such consequences were so severe today, I am almost 100% sure that the world would be a much better place.
Quite often we find that we make minute lies and expect the consequences to be nominal, if any, but one thing we usually forget is the lie itself. When building a relationship entrenched with lies, or even one sparsely covered in white lies, it becomes almost impossible to have a sustainable relationship without one lie or another surfacing. I have too many times told a white lie here or there and in a later conversation I have stumbled upon my very words. However, along those lines, one may more easily justify lying and extensive cover-ups for the sake of “the greater good.”
Many of us are often caught in situations where more immediate incentive is directed toward lying rather than telling the truth particularly when the lie may benefit a large group of people. Classmate January DeMello once shared, “Some people want to win at any cost and they will do whatever it takes to win…” Although, in the moment, the victory may be touching, the true feeling of success is therein unattainable. Hard work is something that can only be done, not imagined. The pressure of winning for a group is quite tempting, but is the burden of knowing that we didn’t win on our own merit truly worth the sacrifice?
For some people it may even be intuitive to lie rather than to tell the truth. I’ve met many people who lie about mindless things that wouldn’t really matter one way or another. These people have it worst, because they often are caught in webs of lies and deceit. Although these friends often have the best intentions in mind, we all know a friend or two who could tone down the exaggerations, and made up midnight escapades. We, as friends, will appreciate these people for that reason, but imagine living that life – to look inward and not know fiction from reality. This is probably the worst that could happen.
Now, I stand before you today and would like to remind you of the challenges before us. Life is long – life is hard. Our character is built upon our actions. Every step in life is a choice. As we venture out into the world, we will begin to realize that honesty is truly the best policy. We may be tempted to take the easy way out once in a while, but as college graduates we know that after hard work and sacrifice comes reaping the rewards. Relationships are built from the ground up with trust. Although those we lie to may not always know of or find out our fibs, we bare the burden of constant worry and hesitation. By being honest in all arenas of our life, we can expect long-lasting friendships, trustworthy relationships, and trust that would is just a little better place because we did out part.
Works Cited
"A Brief History of Lying." BBC News. 06 January 2002. 28 Mar 2010. [http://www2.hawaii.edu/~jamess/lying4a.htm].
DeMello, January. "Discussion 1." Online Posting. 03 Mar 2010. Laulima Discussion. 29 Mar 2010. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.33517.201030/page/c2a89a6c-a93e-47dd-b419-873ef93bb50f].
Schulman, Miram. "Truth and Consequences." Santa Clara University. Sping 1999. 28 March 2010. [http://www.webcitation.org/5iXHGiD2a].
Log of Completed Activities:
L-Mar. 9t- Intro to Paper #3. Read the Guidelines for Paper #3. (Confirmation reply required.)
X-Mar. 15M- Complete readings for paper #3. (Confirmation reply required.)
X-Mar. 18T- Laulima Discussion #1
X-Mar. 19F- Laulima Discussion #2
Mar 22-26: Spring Recess
X-Mar. 29M- RD3 due [50 pts] (Confirmation reply required.)
X-Apr. 1T- RD3 reviews due [50 pts] Review the checklist for evaluating RDs. (No confirmation required.)
Apr 2F- Holiday: Good Friday
X-Apr. 5-12- FD3 due [125 pts] (Confirmation reply required.)
FD3
The Simple Truth
Today we embark upon a journey. A journey which will bring us up, throw us down, and involve many sharp turns. Most of us have already begun to think about tomorrow with hope, wonder, joy, and maybe a little hesitation. Life is an adventure and it begins here. We will be challenged in ways we never imagined. Our parents won’t always be there, and we’re frankly reminded that we must now truly begin to depend on “me.” Life will be a voyage, whose fate will be determined by our individual actions. When the going gets tough, we will be tempted to take the easy route and forget whom we really are. I challenge you, Kapiolani Community College Class of 2010 to this – no matter what happens, or how hard things get, don’t forget to be honest. Honest to each other and ourselves. [THESIS] The key to leading a truly happy, successful and carefree life is being honest. [THESIS]
Life is filled with relationships. We have already begun to foster many that will take us through out lives, and there are those, which are fleeting. One of the fundamental building blocks to any relationship is trust. Generally we like to begin our relationships with trust, but maintaining such idealism tends to be somewhat tedious. I once found myself between two best friends who were very close, and had been friends for years.
At one point in time, one of the friends lied to other about something rather mindless – I believe it has something to do with lunch plans. Several months, a dented car, and a bloody fist later, I found out that one was doing drugs and sleeping with a mutual friend behind the other’s back. Now I don’t anticipate that every lie will transcend into something as drastic as that, however I would like to emphasize that lying is the first bathroom break while you’re drinking. Once you start, it’s just that much easier to keep going.
On the other hand, if these two friends hadn’t lied and kept the trust going between them, they may have experienced a few moments of anger and frustration throughout their relationship, but they would still have each other and a friendship that just may have lasted a lifetime.
Based on personal experience (and research), it seems that many of us choose to lie when its convenient, or if the possibility of getting caught is slim. Professor Miriam Schulman at Santa Clara University explains the rationale behind this decision making process, “Most of us, I suspect, are utilitarians on the subject of truthfulness, deciding whether to lie based on the possible consequences: Trivial fibs that hurt no one are acceptable; whoppers that injure others are not.” I’m sure all of you understand how much truth there is to this.
I believe this is where most of us begin. We think, “Hey, if I tell my instructor my computer was broken, I’ll be able to go out tonight and make up my homework later.” Now, with experience, we all know that that single lie, will almost definitely lead to a second lie, as well as a third, fourth, and so on. This particular sequence is typical because once you make one lie it’s that much easier to rationalize another.
Recent history will show us that the consequences of a “white lie” weren’t always as simple as fleeting guilt. In “A Brief History of Lying” the BBC reported, “In English medieval courts truth was tested by ordeals of fire and water, on the basis a truthful person would be protected by God. Someone suspected of lying would have to carry a red-hot iron bar for nine paces. Alternatively he could opt to walk across nine red-hot ploughshares. Either way, if the suspect was burned then this was proof that he was lying and so could be promptly hung.” If such consequences were so severe today, I am almost 100% sure that the world would be a much better place.
Quite often we find that we make minute lies and expect the consequences to be nominal, if any, but one thing we usually forget is the lie itself. When building a relationship entrenched with lies, or even one sparsely covered in white lies, it becomes almost impossible to have a sustainable relationship without one lie or another surfacing. I have too many times told a white lie here or there and in a later conversation I have stumbled upon my very words. However, along those lines, one may more easily justify lying and extensive cover-ups for the sake of “the greater good.”
Many of us are often caught in situations where more immediate incentive is directed toward lying rather than telling the truth particularly when the lie may benefit a large group of people. Classmate January DeMello once shared, “Some people want to win at any cost and they will do whatever it takes to win…” Although, in the moment, the victory may be touching, the true feeling of success is therein unattainable. Hard work is something that can only be done, not imagined. The pressure of winning for a group is quite tempting, but is the burden of knowing that we didn’t win on our own merit truly worth the sacrifice?
For some people it may even be intuitive to lie rather than to tell the truth. I’ve met many people who lie about mindless things that wouldn’t really matter one way or another. These people have it worst, because they often are caught in webs of lies and deceit. Although these friends often have the best intentions in mind, we all know a friend or two who could tone down the exaggerations, and made up midnight escapades. We, as friends, will appreciate these people for that reason, but imagine living that life – to look inward and not know fiction from reality. This is probably the worst that could happen.
Now, I stand before you today and would like to remind you of the challenges before us. Life is long – life is hard. Our character is built upon our actions. Every step in life is a choice. As we venture out into the world, we will begin to realize that honesty is truly the best policy. We may be tempted to take the easy way out once in a while, but as college graduates we know that after hard work and sacrifice comes reaping the rewards. Relationships are built from the ground up with trust. Although those we lie to may not always know of or find out our fibs, we bare the burden of constant worry and hesitation. By being honest in all arenas of our life, we can expect long-lasting friendships, trustworthy relationships, and trust that would is just a little better place because we did out part.
Works Cited
"A Brief History of Lying." BBC News. 06 January 2002. 28 Mar 2010. [http://www2.hawaii.edu/~jamess/lying4a.htm].
DeMello, January. "Discussion 1." Online Posting. 03 Mar 2010. Laulima Discussion. 29 Mar 2010. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.33517.201030/page/c2a89a6c-a93e-47dd-b419-873ef93bb50f].
Schulman, Miram. "Truth and Consequences." Santa Clara University. Sping 1999. 28 March 2010. [http://www.webcitation.org/5iXHGiD2a].
Log of Completed Activities:
L-Mar. 9t- Intro to Paper #3. Read the Guidelines for Paper #3. (Confirmation reply required.)
X-Mar. 15M- Complete readings for paper #3. (Confirmation reply required.)
X-Mar. 18T- Laulima Discussion #1
X-Mar. 19F- Laulima Discussion #2
Mar 22-26: Spring Recess
X-Mar. 29M- RD3 due [50 pts] (Confirmation reply required.)
X-Apr. 1T- RD3 reviews due [50 pts] Review the checklist for evaluating RDs. (No confirmation required.)
Apr 2F- Holiday: Good Friday
X-Apr. 5-12- FD3 due [125 pts] (Confirmation reply required.)
Thursday, April 1, 2010
RD3 - The Simple Truth
Reece Frazier
1 April 2010
RD3
The Simple Truth
Today we embark upon a journey. A journey which will bring us up, throw us down, and involve many sharp turns. Most of us have already begun to think about tomorrow with hope, wonder, joy, and maybe a little hesitation. Life is an adventure and it begins here. We will be challenged in ways we never imagined. Our parents won’t always be there, and we’re frankly reminded that we must now truly begin to depend on “me.” Life will be a voyage, whose fate will be determined by our individual actions. When the going gets tough, we will be tempted to take the easy route and forget whom we really are. I challenge you, Kapiolani Community College Class of 2010 to this – no matter what happens, or how hard things get, don’t forget to be honest. Honest to each other and ourselves. [THESIS] The key to leading a truly happy, successful and carefree life is being honest. [THESIS]
Life is filled with relationships. We have already begun to foster many that will take us through out lives, and there are those, which are fleeting. One of the fundamental building blocks to any relationship is trust. Generally we like to begin our relationships with trust, but maintaining that default can be somewhat cumbersome. I once found myself between two best friends. They were very close and had been friends for years.
At one point in time, one of the friends lied to other about something rather mindless – I believe it has something to do with where he went for lunch. Several months, a dented car, and a bloody fist later, I discovered that one was doing drugs and sleeping with a mutual friend behind the other’s back. Now I don’t anticipate that every lie will transcend into something as drastic as this, I would like to emphasize that lying is the first bathroom break while you’re drinking. Once you start, it’s just that much easier to keep going.
On the other hand, if these two friends hadn’t lied and kept the trust going between them, they may have experienced a few moments of anger and frustration, but they would still have each other and friendship that just may have lasted a lifetime.
Based on personal experience (and research), it seems that many of us choose to lie when its convenient, or if possible negative consequences are undetected. Professor Miriam Schulman at Santa Clara University explains the rationale behind this decision making process, “Most of us, I suspect, are utilitarians on the subject of truthfulness, deciding whether to lie based on the possible consequences: Trivial fibs that hurt no one are acceptable; whoppers that injure others are not.”
I believe this is where most of us begin. We think, “Hey, if I tell my instructor my computer was broken, I’ll be able to go out tonight and make up my homework later.” Now, I’m sure all of you know that that single lie, will almost definitely lead to a second lie, as well as a third, fourth, and so on. This particular sequence is typical because once you make one lie, its that much easier to rationalize another one.
Recent history will show us that the consequences of a “white lie” weren’t always as simple as fleeting guilt. In “A Brief History of Lying” the BBC reported, “In English medieval courts truth was tested by ordeals of fire and water, on the basis a truthful person would be protected by God. Someone suspected of lying would have to carry a red-hot iron bar for nine paces. Alternatively he could opt to walk across nine red-hot ploughshares. Either way, if the suspect was burned then this was proof that he was lying and so could be promptly hung.” If such consequences were so severe today, I would highly expect for the world to be a filled with fewer lies.
Quite often we find that we make minute lies and expect the consequences to be nominal, if any, but one thing we usually forget is the lie itself. When building a relationship upon lies, it becomes almost impossible to have a sustainable relationship without one lie, or another surfacing. I have too many times told a white lie here and there and within a later conversation I have stumbled upon my very words.
Many of us are often caught in situations where it becomes quite easy to lie rather than tell the truth. Particularly when the lie may benefit a large group of people. Classmate January DeMello once shared, “Some people want to win at any cost and they will do whatever it takes to win…” Although, in the moment, the victory may be touching, the true feeling of success is therein unattainable. Hard work is something that can only be done, not imagined. The pressure of winning for a group is quite tempting, but is the burden of knowing that we didn’t win on our own merit truly worth the sacrifice?
For some people it may even be intuitive to lie rather than to tell the truth. I’ve met many people who lie about mindless things that wouldn’t really matter one way or another. These people have it worst, because they often are caught in webs of lies and deceit.
As we venture out into the world, we will begin to realize that honesty is truly the best policy. We may be tempted to take the easy way out once in a while, but as college graduates we know that after hard work and sacrifice we will reap the rewards. Relationships are built from the ground up with trust. Although those we lie to may not always know of or find out our fibs, we bare the burden of constant worry and walking on eggshells. By being honest in all arenas of our life, we can expect long-lasting friendships, trustworthy relationships, and a guilt-free time.
Works Cited
"A Brief History of Lying." BBC News. 06 January 2002. 28 Mar 2010. [http://www2.hawaii.edu/~jamess/lying4a.htm].
DeMello, January. "Discussion 1." Online Posting. 03 Mar 2010. Laulima Discussion. 29 Mar 2010. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.33517.201030/page/c2a89a6c-a93e-47dd-b419-873ef93bb50f].
Schulman, Miram. "Truth and Consequences." Santa Clara University. Sping 1999. 28 March 2010. [http://www.webcitation.org/5iXHGiD2a].
1 April 2010
RD3
The Simple Truth
Today we embark upon a journey. A journey which will bring us up, throw us down, and involve many sharp turns. Most of us have already begun to think about tomorrow with hope, wonder, joy, and maybe a little hesitation. Life is an adventure and it begins here. We will be challenged in ways we never imagined. Our parents won’t always be there, and we’re frankly reminded that we must now truly begin to depend on “me.” Life will be a voyage, whose fate will be determined by our individual actions. When the going gets tough, we will be tempted to take the easy route and forget whom we really are. I challenge you, Kapiolani Community College Class of 2010 to this – no matter what happens, or how hard things get, don’t forget to be honest. Honest to each other and ourselves. [THESIS] The key to leading a truly happy, successful and carefree life is being honest. [THESIS]
Life is filled with relationships. We have already begun to foster many that will take us through out lives, and there are those, which are fleeting. One of the fundamental building blocks to any relationship is trust. Generally we like to begin our relationships with trust, but maintaining that default can be somewhat cumbersome. I once found myself between two best friends. They were very close and had been friends for years.
At one point in time, one of the friends lied to other about something rather mindless – I believe it has something to do with where he went for lunch. Several months, a dented car, and a bloody fist later, I discovered that one was doing drugs and sleeping with a mutual friend behind the other’s back. Now I don’t anticipate that every lie will transcend into something as drastic as this, I would like to emphasize that lying is the first bathroom break while you’re drinking. Once you start, it’s just that much easier to keep going.
On the other hand, if these two friends hadn’t lied and kept the trust going between them, they may have experienced a few moments of anger and frustration, but they would still have each other and friendship that just may have lasted a lifetime.
Based on personal experience (and research), it seems that many of us choose to lie when its convenient, or if possible negative consequences are undetected. Professor Miriam Schulman at Santa Clara University explains the rationale behind this decision making process, “Most of us, I suspect, are utilitarians on the subject of truthfulness, deciding whether to lie based on the possible consequences: Trivial fibs that hurt no one are acceptable; whoppers that injure others are not.”
I believe this is where most of us begin. We think, “Hey, if I tell my instructor my computer was broken, I’ll be able to go out tonight and make up my homework later.” Now, I’m sure all of you know that that single lie, will almost definitely lead to a second lie, as well as a third, fourth, and so on. This particular sequence is typical because once you make one lie, its that much easier to rationalize another one.
Recent history will show us that the consequences of a “white lie” weren’t always as simple as fleeting guilt. In “A Brief History of Lying” the BBC reported, “In English medieval courts truth was tested by ordeals of fire and water, on the basis a truthful person would be protected by God. Someone suspected of lying would have to carry a red-hot iron bar for nine paces. Alternatively he could opt to walk across nine red-hot ploughshares. Either way, if the suspect was burned then this was proof that he was lying and so could be promptly hung.” If such consequences were so severe today, I would highly expect for the world to be a filled with fewer lies.
Quite often we find that we make minute lies and expect the consequences to be nominal, if any, but one thing we usually forget is the lie itself. When building a relationship upon lies, it becomes almost impossible to have a sustainable relationship without one lie, or another surfacing. I have too many times told a white lie here and there and within a later conversation I have stumbled upon my very words.
Many of us are often caught in situations where it becomes quite easy to lie rather than tell the truth. Particularly when the lie may benefit a large group of people. Classmate January DeMello once shared, “Some people want to win at any cost and they will do whatever it takes to win…” Although, in the moment, the victory may be touching, the true feeling of success is therein unattainable. Hard work is something that can only be done, not imagined. The pressure of winning for a group is quite tempting, but is the burden of knowing that we didn’t win on our own merit truly worth the sacrifice?
For some people it may even be intuitive to lie rather than to tell the truth. I’ve met many people who lie about mindless things that wouldn’t really matter one way or another. These people have it worst, because they often are caught in webs of lies and deceit.
As we venture out into the world, we will begin to realize that honesty is truly the best policy. We may be tempted to take the easy way out once in a while, but as college graduates we know that after hard work and sacrifice we will reap the rewards. Relationships are built from the ground up with trust. Although those we lie to may not always know of or find out our fibs, we bare the burden of constant worry and walking on eggshells. By being honest in all arenas of our life, we can expect long-lasting friendships, trustworthy relationships, and a guilt-free time.
Works Cited
"A Brief History of Lying." BBC News. 06 January 2002. 28 Mar 2010. [http://www2.hawaii.edu/~jamess/lying4a.htm].
DeMello, January. "Discussion 1." Online Posting. 03 Mar 2010. Laulima Discussion. 29 Mar 2010. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.33517.201030/page/c2a89a6c-a93e-47dd-b419-873ef93bb50f].
Schulman, Miram. "Truth and Consequences." Santa Clara University. Sping 1999. 28 March 2010. [http://www.webcitation.org/5iXHGiD2a].
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
FD2 - Pop Media and Advertisements (REVISED)
Reece Frazier
17 March 2010
FD2
Pop Media and Advertisements
The world is filled with advertisements. Some are big, while others are not easily recognizable as “ads.” Walking down a subway will surely yield several wall-sized advertisements showing off the latest fashions, or the must have videogame of the year. The pen left on a writing platform in the grocery store is almost expected to exclaim the best pizza delivery place in the neighborhood. Household refrigerators are overrun with magnets featuring (arguably) the best personal injury attorney in the state. From obvious and conventional displays to everyday household items, advertisements fill our lives with useful information that is sure to come in handy at one time or another. [THESIS] Through various mediums, advertisements have a positive impact on lives by fueling the economy and providing the public with otherwise unobtainable information. [THESIS]
Advertising, in its purest form, is the promotion of a good, service, or idea through the idealizing of a given subject. The largest venue for advertising is the media – television, newspapers, magazines, etc. Other methods of advertising include t-shirts, balloons, magnets on cars, pens, and blimps, amongst many other things. The methods of advertising have certainly evolved over the years taking on many unconventional forms. These alternate media for promotions will certainly continue to change; however their purpose will remain the same.
It is common knowledge that one of the primary reasons for advertising is to encourage an audience to buy things. Although this may seem rather self-indulgent on the part of companies touting their products, advertising informs consumers of a product’s features and benefits. The purpose of ads is to make a viewer want something. If an ad were to only, or even marginally, display the negative aspects of a product or service it would not be effective in its purpose.
Advertisers spend billions of dollars every year supporting their products, services, and messages, it can only be expected for these organizations to want to spread the good about their product. While this theory makes sense, it is plausible for advertisers to get out of control and make false claims or overshadow the negative aspects of products. Within the US, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is the governing body controlling the content of widespread advertising. This organization ensures that advertisers are “playing safe” and being held responsible for the ideas and images displayed in advertising.
Opponents of advertising argue that ad spots on television and in print media exhibit unrealistic fantasies and do not fully inform consumers of the product or service displayed. In all honesty this is true. However this idea, as an argument against advertising, is slippery slope and biased. Essentially, this viewpoint states that if ads don’t provide the audience with the negative aspects of the given subject they are effectively “bad.” This argument does not consider the purpose of advertising – to sell and to promote. An ad displaying solely the positive sides of a good or service is simply an ad.
Classmates Christopher Char and Kimberly Malott directly pointed at this idea in a classroom discussion on February 29, 2010. Christopher mentioned commented on FTC regulation, something many opponents feel is not adequately done, “If the FTC were allowed to regulate all ads in to telling the truth, the economy as a whole will suffer. Ads are meant to stimulate the economy.” Ads directly support the economy by informing consumers of products they can buy.
“Ads do help promote products which in turn entices the consumers to buy products. By not advertising to get consumers to buy and invest in products, how else will the world have any kind of currency going around? That is the only way I see products being able to be bought is through vigorous promotion of a product. Word about the product does help but it takes advertisement paid by mostly consumers to really get word out about the product,” explained Kimberly Malott in Christopher’s discussion. The use of ad through various medium ultimately support and stimulate the economy.
By promoting goods and services, advertising is an effective stimulator for the economy. The recent economic downturn had proved advertising to be invaluable. For example, Wal-Mart has used a series of television ads during this fiscal crisis to emphasize to viewers that shopping at Wal-Mart does indeed save money. The ads feature a wide variety of content, but throughout these ads is the consistent display of relatively large savings. These savings draw in many viewers to want to shop at Wal-Mart.
This supports the economy. Although these types of advertisements are remote, in that it isn’t too common to see these types of ads in the media, this is a bare example of advertisements boosting the economy. In a larger sense, the promotion of goods and services, especially things that individuals or organizations can buy, is encouragement to spend. This increase in spending stimulates the economy by increasing demand, job creation, etc.
There are many different types of other ads that serve purposes secondary to promoting consumer spending. Public service announcements are basically advertisements with a message. These ads, seen in print, on the web, on television, and on the radio, usually convey a message that is important for most people to know.
The Hawaii Meth Project has provided ads for the public regarding the negative effects of the use of methamphetamines (meth). In general these ads are rather grim and feature a young adult becoming addicted on meth. The grim features of this ad make it very unappealing to viewers and ultimately keep them away from meth. These ads are especially geared toward people who in a rural population, and are more prone to trying meth and becoming addicted to it. Without advertising, they would not be fully aware of the possible negative side effects of meth.
Ads highlight both good and bad things about a product, but particularly highlight the messages advertisers are trying to get across. The billions of dollars spent on advertising and the billions of dollars spent because of advertising are precious assets to the economy. While ads may seem biased they are generally effective and have a positive impact on society as a whole, particularly through increases in the economy as well as the spread of information throughout the world.
Works Cited
Char, Christopher. “No, Ads dont have a negative impact.” Online posting. 19 Feb 2010. Laulima Discussion. 5 March 2010. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.33517.201030/page/c2a89a6c-a93e-47dd-b419-873ef93bb50f].
Malott, Kimberly. “Re:No, Ads dont have a negative impact.” Online posting. 19 Feb 2010. Laulima Discussion. 5 March 2010. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.33517.201030/page/c2a89a6c-a93e-47dd-b419-873ef93bb50f].
_x_ Feb. 9t- Intro to Paper #2. Read the Guidelines for Paper #2. (Confirmation reply required.)
Feb 15M: Holiday: Presidents’ Day
_x_ Feb. 16t- Complete readings for paper #2. (Confirmation reply required.)
_x_ Feb 19F- Laulima Discussion: Ad Pros and Cons
_x_ Feb 26F- Laulima Discussion: Logical Fallacies Exercise
_x_ Mar. 1M – RD2 due [50 pts]. Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)
_x_ Mar. 4T- RD2 evaluations due [50 pts]. Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)
Mar 5F- No classes.
_x_ Mar. 8M- FD2 due [125 pts]. Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)
17 March 2010
FD2
Pop Media and Advertisements
The world is filled with advertisements. Some are big, while others are not easily recognizable as “ads.” Walking down a subway will surely yield several wall-sized advertisements showing off the latest fashions, or the must have videogame of the year. The pen left on a writing platform in the grocery store is almost expected to exclaim the best pizza delivery place in the neighborhood. Household refrigerators are overrun with magnets featuring (arguably) the best personal injury attorney in the state. From obvious and conventional displays to everyday household items, advertisements fill our lives with useful information that is sure to come in handy at one time or another. [THESIS] Through various mediums, advertisements have a positive impact on lives by fueling the economy and providing the public with otherwise unobtainable information. [THESIS]
Advertising, in its purest form, is the promotion of a good, service, or idea through the idealizing of a given subject. The largest venue for advertising is the media – television, newspapers, magazines, etc. Other methods of advertising include t-shirts, balloons, magnets on cars, pens, and blimps, amongst many other things. The methods of advertising have certainly evolved over the years taking on many unconventional forms. These alternate media for promotions will certainly continue to change; however their purpose will remain the same.
It is common knowledge that one of the primary reasons for advertising is to encourage an audience to buy things. Although this may seem rather self-indulgent on the part of companies touting their products, advertising informs consumers of a product’s features and benefits. The purpose of ads is to make a viewer want something. If an ad were to only, or even marginally, display the negative aspects of a product or service it would not be effective in its purpose.
Advertisers spend billions of dollars every year supporting their products, services, and messages, it can only be expected for these organizations to want to spread the good about their product. While this theory makes sense, it is plausible for advertisers to get out of control and make false claims or overshadow the negative aspects of products. Within the US, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is the governing body controlling the content of widespread advertising. This organization ensures that advertisers are “playing safe” and being held responsible for the ideas and images displayed in advertising.
Opponents of advertising argue that ad spots on television and in print media exhibit unrealistic fantasies and do not fully inform consumers of the product or service displayed. In all honesty this is true. However this idea, as an argument against advertising, is slippery slope and biased. Essentially, this viewpoint states that if ads don’t provide the audience with the negative aspects of the given subject they are effectively “bad.” This argument does not consider the purpose of advertising – to sell and to promote. An ad displaying solely the positive sides of a good or service is simply an ad.
Classmates Christopher Char and Kimberly Malott directly pointed at this idea in a classroom discussion on February 29, 2010. Christopher mentioned commented on FTC regulation, something many opponents feel is not adequately done, “If the FTC were allowed to regulate all ads in to telling the truth, the economy as a whole will suffer. Ads are meant to stimulate the economy.” Ads directly support the economy by informing consumers of products they can buy.
“Ads do help promote products which in turn entices the consumers to buy products. By not advertising to get consumers to buy and invest in products, how else will the world have any kind of currency going around? That is the only way I see products being able to be bought is through vigorous promotion of a product. Word about the product does help but it takes advertisement paid by mostly consumers to really get word out about the product,” explained Kimberly Malott in Christopher’s discussion. The use of ad through various medium ultimately support and stimulate the economy.
By promoting goods and services, advertising is an effective stimulator for the economy. The recent economic downturn had proved advertising to be invaluable. For example, Wal-Mart has used a series of television ads during this fiscal crisis to emphasize to viewers that shopping at Wal-Mart does indeed save money. The ads feature a wide variety of content, but throughout these ads is the consistent display of relatively large savings. These savings draw in many viewers to want to shop at Wal-Mart.
This supports the economy. Although these types of advertisements are remote, in that it isn’t too common to see these types of ads in the media, this is a bare example of advertisements boosting the economy. In a larger sense, the promotion of goods and services, especially things that individuals or organizations can buy, is encouragement to spend. This increase in spending stimulates the economy by increasing demand, job creation, etc.
There are many different types of other ads that serve purposes secondary to promoting consumer spending. Public service announcements are basically advertisements with a message. These ads, seen in print, on the web, on television, and on the radio, usually convey a message that is important for most people to know.
The Hawaii Meth Project has provided ads for the public regarding the negative effects of the use of methamphetamines (meth). In general these ads are rather grim and feature a young adult becoming addicted on meth. The grim features of this ad make it very unappealing to viewers and ultimately keep them away from meth. These ads are especially geared toward people who in a rural population, and are more prone to trying meth and becoming addicted to it. Without advertising, they would not be fully aware of the possible negative side effects of meth.
Ads highlight both good and bad things about a product, but particularly highlight the messages advertisers are trying to get across. The billions of dollars spent on advertising and the billions of dollars spent because of advertising are precious assets to the economy. While ads may seem biased they are generally effective and have a positive impact on society as a whole, particularly through increases in the economy as well as the spread of information throughout the world.
Works Cited
Char, Christopher. “No, Ads dont have a negative impact.” Online posting. 19 Feb 2010. Laulima Discussion. 5 March 2010. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.33517.201030/page/c2a89a6c-a93e-47dd-b419-873ef93bb50f].
Malott, Kimberly. “Re:No, Ads dont have a negative impact.” Online posting. 19 Feb 2010. Laulima Discussion. 5 March 2010. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.33517.201030/page/c2a89a6c-a93e-47dd-b419-873ef93bb50f].
_x_ Feb. 9t- Intro to Paper #2. Read the Guidelines for Paper #2. (Confirmation reply required.)
Feb 15M: Holiday: Presidents’ Day
_x_ Feb. 16t- Complete readings for paper #2. (Confirmation reply required.)
_x_ Feb 19F- Laulima Discussion: Ad Pros and Cons
_x_ Feb 26F- Laulima Discussion: Logical Fallacies Exercise
_x_ Mar. 1M – RD2 due [50 pts]. Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)
_x_ Mar. 4T- RD2 evaluations due [50 pts]. Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)
Mar 5F- No classes.
_x_ Mar. 8M- FD2 due [125 pts]. Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
FD2 - Pop Media and Advertisements
Reece Frazier
8 March 2010
FD2
Pop Media and Advertisements
The world is filled with advertisements. Some are big, while others are not easily recognizable as “ads.” Walking down a subway will surely yield several wall-sized advertisements showing off the latest fashions, or the must have videogame of the year. The pen left on a writing platform in the grocery store is almost expected to exclaim the best pizza delivery place in the neighborhood. Household refrigerators are overrun with magnets featuring (arguably) the best personal injury attorney in the state. From obvious and conventional displays to everyday household items, advertisements fill our lives with useful information that is sure to come in handy at one time or another. [THESIS] Through various mediums, advertisements have a positive impact on lives by fueling the economy and providing the public with otherwise unobtainable information. [THESIS]
Advertising, in its purest form, is the promotion of a good, service, or idea through the idealizing of a given subject. The largest venue for advertising is the media – television, newspapers, magazines, etc. Other methods of advertising include t-shirts, balloons, magnets on cars, pens, and blimps, amongst many other things. The methods of advertising have certainly evolved over the years taking on many unconventional forms. These alternate media for promotions will certainly continue to change; however their purpose will remain the same.
It is common knowledge that one of the primary reasons for advertising is to encourage an audience to buy things. Although this may seem rather self-indulgent on the part of companies touting their products, advertising informs consumers of a product’s features and benefits. The purpose of ads is to make a viewer want something. If an ad were to only display the negative aspects of a product or service it would not be effective in its purpose.
Advertisers spend billions of dollars every year supporting their products, services, and messages, it can only be expected for these organizations to want to spread the good about their product. While this theory makes sense it is plausible for advertisers to get out of control and make false claims or overshadow the negative aspects of products. Within the US, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is the governing body controlling the content of widespread advertising. This organization ensures that advertisers are “playing safe” and being help responsible for the ideas and images displayed in adertising.
Opponents of advertising argue that ad spots on television and in print media exhibit unrealistic fantasies and do not fully inform consumers of the product or service displayed. In all honesty this is true. However this idea, as an argument against advertising, is slippery slope and biased. Essentially this viewpoint states that if ads don’t provide the audience with the negative aspects of the given subject they are effectively “bad.” This argument does not consider the purpose of advertising – to sell and to promote. An ad displaying solely the positive sides of a good or service is simply an ad.
By promoting goods and services, advertising is an effective stimulator for the economy. The recent economic downturn had proved advertising to be invaluable. For example, Wal-Mart has used a series of television ads during this fiscal crisis to emphasize to viewers that shopping at Wal-Mart does indeed save money. The ads feature a wide variety of content, but throughout these ads is the consistent display of relatively large savings. These savings draw in many viewers to want to shop at Wal-Mart.
This, ultimately, supports the economy. Although these types of advertisements are remote in that it isn’t too common to see these types of ads in the media, this is an example of advertisements boosting the economy at the core. In a widespread sense, the promotion of goods and services, especially things that individuals or organizations can buy, is encouragement to spend. The push to buy stimulates the economy by increasing demand, job creation, etc.
Classmates Christopher Char and Kimberly Malott directly pointed at this idea in a classroom discussion on February 29, 2010. Christopher mentioned commented on FTC regulation, something many opponents feel is not adequately done, “If the FTC were allowed to regulate all ads in to telling the truth, the economy as a whole will suffer. Ads are meant to stimulate the economy.” Ads directly support the economy by informing consumers of products they can buy.
“Ads do help promote products which in turn entices the consumers to buy products. By not advertising to get consumers to buy and invest in products, how else will the world have any kind of currency going around? That is the only way I see products being able to be bought is through vigorous promotion of a product. Word about the product does help but it takes advertisement paid by mostly consumers to really get word out about the product,” explained Kimberly Malott in Christopher’s discussion. The use of ad through various medium ultimately support and stimulate the economy.
There are many different types of other ads that serve purposes secondary to promoting consumer spending. Public service announcements are generally accepted as being advertisements with a message. These ads, seen in print, on the web, on television, and on the radio, usually convey a message that is important for most people to know.
The Hawaii Meth Project has provided ads for the public regarding the negative effects of the use of methamphetamines (meth). In general these ads are rather grim and feature a young adult becoming addicted on meth. The grim features of this ad make it very unappealing to viewers and ultimately keep them away from meth. These ads are especially geared toward people who in a rural population, and are more prone to trying meth and becoming addicted to it. Without advertising, they would not be fully aware of the possible negative side effects of meth.
Ads show both good and bad, but particularly highlight the messages advertisers are trying to get across. The billions of dollars spent on advertising and the billions of dollars spend because of advertising are precious assets to the economy. While ads may seem biased they are generally effective and have a positive impact on society as a whole, particularly through increases in the economy as well as the spread of information throughout the world.
Works Cited
Char, Christopher. “No, Ads dont have a negative impact.” Online posting. 19 Feb 2010. Laulima Discussion. 5 March 2010. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.33517.201030/page/c2a89a6c-a93e-47dd-b419-873ef93bb50f].
Malott, Kimberly. “Re:No, Ads dont have a negative impact.” Online posting. 19 Feb 2010. Laulima Discussion. 5 March 2010. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.33517.201030/page/c2a89a6c-a93e-47dd-b419-873ef93bb50f].
_x_ Feb. 9t- Intro to Paper #2. Read the Guidelines for Paper #2. (Confirmation reply required.)
Feb 15M: Holiday: Presidents’ Day
_x_ Feb. 16t- Complete readings for paper #2. (Confirmation reply required.)
_x_ Feb 19F- Laulima Discussion: Ad Pros and Cons
_x_ Feb 26F- Laulima Discussion: Logical Fallacies Exercise
_x_ Mar. 1M – RD2 due [50 pts]. Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)
_x_ Mar. 4T- RD2 evaluations due [50 pts]. Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)
Mar 5F- No classes.
_x_ Mar. 8M- FD2 due [125 pts]. Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)
8 March 2010
FD2
Pop Media and Advertisements
The world is filled with advertisements. Some are big, while others are not easily recognizable as “ads.” Walking down a subway will surely yield several wall-sized advertisements showing off the latest fashions, or the must have videogame of the year. The pen left on a writing platform in the grocery store is almost expected to exclaim the best pizza delivery place in the neighborhood. Household refrigerators are overrun with magnets featuring (arguably) the best personal injury attorney in the state. From obvious and conventional displays to everyday household items, advertisements fill our lives with useful information that is sure to come in handy at one time or another. [THESIS] Through various mediums, advertisements have a positive impact on lives by fueling the economy and providing the public with otherwise unobtainable information. [THESIS]
Advertising, in its purest form, is the promotion of a good, service, or idea through the idealizing of a given subject. The largest venue for advertising is the media – television, newspapers, magazines, etc. Other methods of advertising include t-shirts, balloons, magnets on cars, pens, and blimps, amongst many other things. The methods of advertising have certainly evolved over the years taking on many unconventional forms. These alternate media for promotions will certainly continue to change; however their purpose will remain the same.
It is common knowledge that one of the primary reasons for advertising is to encourage an audience to buy things. Although this may seem rather self-indulgent on the part of companies touting their products, advertising informs consumers of a product’s features and benefits. The purpose of ads is to make a viewer want something. If an ad were to only display the negative aspects of a product or service it would not be effective in its purpose.
Advertisers spend billions of dollars every year supporting their products, services, and messages, it can only be expected for these organizations to want to spread the good about their product. While this theory makes sense it is plausible for advertisers to get out of control and make false claims or overshadow the negative aspects of products. Within the US, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is the governing body controlling the content of widespread advertising. This organization ensures that advertisers are “playing safe” and being help responsible for the ideas and images displayed in adertising.
Opponents of advertising argue that ad spots on television and in print media exhibit unrealistic fantasies and do not fully inform consumers of the product or service displayed. In all honesty this is true. However this idea, as an argument against advertising, is slippery slope and biased. Essentially this viewpoint states that if ads don’t provide the audience with the negative aspects of the given subject they are effectively “bad.” This argument does not consider the purpose of advertising – to sell and to promote. An ad displaying solely the positive sides of a good or service is simply an ad.
By promoting goods and services, advertising is an effective stimulator for the economy. The recent economic downturn had proved advertising to be invaluable. For example, Wal-Mart has used a series of television ads during this fiscal crisis to emphasize to viewers that shopping at Wal-Mart does indeed save money. The ads feature a wide variety of content, but throughout these ads is the consistent display of relatively large savings. These savings draw in many viewers to want to shop at Wal-Mart.
This, ultimately, supports the economy. Although these types of advertisements are remote in that it isn’t too common to see these types of ads in the media, this is an example of advertisements boosting the economy at the core. In a widespread sense, the promotion of goods and services, especially things that individuals or organizations can buy, is encouragement to spend. The push to buy stimulates the economy by increasing demand, job creation, etc.
Classmates Christopher Char and Kimberly Malott directly pointed at this idea in a classroom discussion on February 29, 2010. Christopher mentioned commented on FTC regulation, something many opponents feel is not adequately done, “If the FTC were allowed to regulate all ads in to telling the truth, the economy as a whole will suffer. Ads are meant to stimulate the economy.” Ads directly support the economy by informing consumers of products they can buy.
“Ads do help promote products which in turn entices the consumers to buy products. By not advertising to get consumers to buy and invest in products, how else will the world have any kind of currency going around? That is the only way I see products being able to be bought is through vigorous promotion of a product. Word about the product does help but it takes advertisement paid by mostly consumers to really get word out about the product,” explained Kimberly Malott in Christopher’s discussion. The use of ad through various medium ultimately support and stimulate the economy.
There are many different types of other ads that serve purposes secondary to promoting consumer spending. Public service announcements are generally accepted as being advertisements with a message. These ads, seen in print, on the web, on television, and on the radio, usually convey a message that is important for most people to know.
The Hawaii Meth Project has provided ads for the public regarding the negative effects of the use of methamphetamines (meth). In general these ads are rather grim and feature a young adult becoming addicted on meth. The grim features of this ad make it very unappealing to viewers and ultimately keep them away from meth. These ads are especially geared toward people who in a rural population, and are more prone to trying meth and becoming addicted to it. Without advertising, they would not be fully aware of the possible negative side effects of meth.
Ads show both good and bad, but particularly highlight the messages advertisers are trying to get across. The billions of dollars spent on advertising and the billions of dollars spend because of advertising are precious assets to the economy. While ads may seem biased they are generally effective and have a positive impact on society as a whole, particularly through increases in the economy as well as the spread of information throughout the world.
Works Cited
Char, Christopher. “No, Ads dont have a negative impact.” Online posting. 19 Feb 2010. Laulima Discussion. 5 March 2010. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.33517.201030/page/c2a89a6c-a93e-47dd-b419-873ef93bb50f].
Malott, Kimberly. “Re:No, Ads dont have a negative impact.” Online posting. 19 Feb 2010. Laulima Discussion. 5 March 2010. [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.33517.201030/page/c2a89a6c-a93e-47dd-b419-873ef93bb50f].
_x_ Feb. 9t- Intro to Paper #2. Read the Guidelines for Paper #2. (Confirmation reply required.)
Feb 15M: Holiday: Presidents’ Day
_x_ Feb. 16t- Complete readings for paper #2. (Confirmation reply required.)
_x_ Feb 19F- Laulima Discussion: Ad Pros and Cons
_x_ Feb 26F- Laulima Discussion: Logical Fallacies Exercise
_x_ Mar. 1M – RD2 due [50 pts]. Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)
_x_ Mar. 4T- RD2 evaluations due [50 pts]. Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)
Mar 5F- No classes.
_x_ Mar. 8M- FD2 due [125 pts]. Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)