Internet Rights

So I'm sitting in front of the Fox news right now after watching "So You Think You Can Dance" and the first story they mentioned had to do with Michelle Obama. It wasn't quite about her but about a Google Image of her. And the idea mentioned in the was free speech. Which of course, brought me to blog about it, seeing as we have paid so much attention to that right in class right now.

The story was about a disturbing image someone had posted on the internet, which had made it's way to google images as the number 1 photo. The picture is a really horrible and racist photo that has super-imposed a monkey and Michelle Obama's face. The issue of free speech came up with what people are allowed to post on the internet. One woman said that anyone should be allowed to post wahtever they want but if the person it is about does not like it they should be able to do something about this. Many people argued that this is infact Google's fault for letting this image be posted. But how can google monitor all of this?

With such a horrific picture free speech is once again brought up into our country, with a new media and all. It goes to show that even as times change, the rights we have will still come into play.
What do you think about the photo? Should it be allowed to stay there because of the public's right to free speech or should google or someone else have taken it down because it is so offensive? How can issues like this go about being solved?

A New Graduation Requirement?

Any graduation is always a scary, exciting, fun time. It means you get to move on, start a new section of your life, meet new people, etc. Everyone wants to graduate. There are always those few who don't and those few who unfortunately can't, but I've never in my life heard someone not being allowed to graduate because of their weight.

At Lincoln University in Oxford, Pa 25 students will not be able to graduate because as freshman they had BMIs over 30. I found this article explaining what Lincoln University has done. If you are obese as a freshman (i.e. had a BMI of over 30) and do not lose some weight you will not be able to graduate. As first glance, of course I was shocked. How could someone clearly discriminate against certain people? I then noticed that the students also had the choice to take a course if they didn't want to/couldn't lose the weight. This made a bit more sense. At least it isn't "lose weight or else". Still in shock I read on to find that the author of this article commended the idea. He thought it was harsh but great, saying "Congratulations on taking an unpopular but principled stance that reflects a commitment to the well-being of your students".

Now as I thought back over the article I became mildly conflicted. On one hand this is horrible discrimination and can really cause great depression and sadness in someone. Not being able to graduate is bad enough and now it's because of something that is probably very hard for the person to control? Not to mention pressure like this can cause eating disorders. Yet, on the other hand I get that the school wants their kids to be healthy. Graduation is a huge day so it can really get someone moving to help make themselves healthier. I just wish there was some other way they could do it without seeming so discriminant and without putting so much unneeded pressure on students who are already under so much pressure.

Memory Confusion

On wednesdays I've been going to a group after school that is working on re doing "Snowball", this camp-like program revolving around health, etc. Last wednesday we had a hypnotist come to our group sort of as a fun thing and to teach us some valuble lessons.

One thing she taught us was EFT. EFT stands for "Emotional Freedom Technique". This is a type of therapy hypnosis where you have a huge problem in your life and you can calm yourself down about it, allowing your emotions to center around other things, not just that (hence the freedom part).  She went through the process with us and I was following until she came to one point. The purpose of this one point was to "search" for a memory. Here she had us roll our eyes around and up and down, left and right. Her reasoning was that somewhere in your brain you have a memory that you need to bring up (and looking around you are "looking" for this memory )in order to complete the technique.

As she was talking about this I automatically referred back to the many conversations we've had in class about "memory is a construction". We talked over and over again about how you don't just have a file with your memory on it. You re-create it everytime you think it. So I sat there conflicted. Here I was supposedly "looking" for my memory, just "pulling it out of my brain" yet I re-create it everytime? This women (I sadly can not remember her name) was hypnotist of the year. She has used this technique for very serious problems and swears by it. Seeing all the progress she'd made I believe her. But I still wonder about the idea of memory.

Memory in the eyes of the hypnotist is treated as something to look back on. To help you forget, help you problem solve. By here in school we thought of it as a contruction. Are these two ideas completely different Is it possible it can be both??

Resident Priviledges or Plain Laziness?

I was watching the news a couple days ago, something I very rarely do and you could tell it was a slow news day - stories about random new police dogs and video games. But there was one story that interested me.

Apparently seats in Millenium Park are very valuable. Seats there are first come first serve and Chicago residents have been complaining that the good seats are going before they can get to them. They want priviledges because they are residents. At first I agreed. Yah, they live there why not? Until I heard their reasoning. In an article of the Sun-Times I found later on the same issue, a Chicagoan says "You have people from the suburbs who get there earlier and glom onto all the seats. ... They’re putting their blankets across rows and rows of chairs". In the news all these Chicagoans were saying how it's not fair that people from the Suburbs come up ridiculously early and take all the good seats. Ok. Come ON. If these people are driving an hour to Chicago to get their early and get good seats why can't someone who lives inside the city get their early enough to get their good seats? I understand their concern when they say that this is where their tax money is going and it's "not fair" but if people an hour away can get their so early why can't they?

The trial on this issue ended with my viewpoint winning because of Chicago's idea to treat all tourists as if they were Chicagoans but their were still some strong viewpoints on the other side. What do you think about this? Should the priviledge be their because they are paying the taxes or is it a free-for-all for whoever gets there first? Both points I think are very strong but in my opinion I just think the residents are thinking lazily (if that's possible). I'm all for their point on their tax paying but when it comes to getting there early I think they can do that. It's not that hard.

New Definition of "Kids Movie"?

Semi-recently I went to go see the movie "Where the Wild Things Are". The book seemed to attract more boys than girls so I had never actually read it as a young kid, but what drew me in was the artistic feel and intensity the trailers showed. It looked "cool".

Coming into the movie I had no idea what to expect. Yes, there was the feel that it would be intense in some aspects, but it came from a kids book, it shouldn't be anything TOO dramatic, right? Boy was I wrong. *spoilers within* The movie opens up to a sweet image of the little boy Max, building an igloo, only to end abruptly with yelling and the destroying of his sister's room when she abandons him for her friends, after they jump on his igloo. The audience quickly gets a feel for Max's imagination, but also for his anger and sadness he feels. Once Max is with the monsters we expect all good things would happen. Even they turn on him. I found myself cringing though deeply engaged the whole time. The movie had such strong elements of sadness and even scary scenes! Once the movie ended you could feel the emotion of everyone in the audience. It was just silence. We were all trying to digest it.

Even with the sad, scary, intense moments I fell in love with the movie. I could connect to the emotions, the movie was so strong and powerful. But then I float back to my original thoughts. Kid's movie? It was a kids book but with such intense scenes I couldn't even imagine a young child watching this.

With that I decided to check the trusty internet to see what people were saying. Surprised, I found articles contrasting my beliefs and saying that kids love it! And I even found one saying the movie is good for kids. This article addresses the question, "But what if that intensity, that asymmetry, is exactly why kids should see Wild Things?" It then goes on to explain that kids face all these hardships in life and are never prepared. The movie helps show them what they are up against in the world. In another article a man brought his 5 year old to the movie who sat there the whole time deeply interested and loved it. Then in a third I found addressed my concern when the actor who played Max said that kids said, "I don't want to listen to this" and that they "covered their ears or their eyes".

As I thought about it I started to agree with the first article. That maybe it's a good thing for kids to be introduced to an intense movie at a young age without the aspect of swear words, sexual content, or gruesome violence. But at the same time my heart gave out to any small child who saw the movie and  was frightened by the monsters and by Max's lashes out at his mother. If you've seen the movie what do you think about it? Kid friendly or artsy teenager friendly?

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/12/where-the-wild-things-are_0_n_317908.html&cp"