After reading the article "Everybody Loves Us" I couldn't help but laugh at how completely accurate the article really is. Canada is one of the most (if not the most) popular country in the world, but it is only seen that way by people who dont consider it to be their home and native land. Canada prides itself in being a country of freedom, security, beauty, and racial diversity, and these qualities is how other countries see us, but very few people pride themselves in simply being a Canadian citizen.
According to the artice, Canadians don't like our lack of independance from America's influence. As we are a very new country, of course we will have taken the influences of other countries to build what is our National Identity. While we have learned a lot from American influence, we are still our own country, with our own seperate identity. Another criticism Canadians had was the lack of integrity of our government systems. Sure there have been instances where our governments integrity has been questioned, but we are still a democratic country, which is in my opinion, a step above countries living under the rule of tyrants, and dictators. While our government has made some mistakes, they are still elected by us, and so their mistakes are also partially our mistakes. The last major criticism the article pointed out was our limited impact on world affairs. In my opinion, this is just another area that i take pride in as a Canadian citizen. Canada is a country known as a peace keeping country. We have no enemies, and have rarely participated in wars over the course of our history. The fact that we have limited impact on world affairs is not accurate in my opinion, i think that we just don't hear about Canada's impact, because it is one based on peace, and building relationships with other nations.
All of these "flaws" people of Canada are said to have seem to have no impact on the people who aspire to immagrate to Canada however, as the two main areas listed as Canada's most appealing features were our beautiful natural environment, and the quality of life here in Canada. As a Canadian citizen, I think it would be fairly accurate to say that these two areas are among the most taken advantage of aspects of our great country. There are many wonderful attributes of Canada that are ignored by her own people, but as long as there are people who continue to see her beauty, and remind us what a great country we are taking advantage of.
"The video shows an agitated Mr. Dziekanski throwing computer equipment in the airport greeting centre, a secure area, before police arrive". Is this enough justification for killing a man? Of course not. Mr. Dziekanski, a polish immigrant was tasered just seconds after being approached by the police in the Vancouver airport. In response to the article "Video of airport Taser death released" I feel the police used unecessary force against this man, and I also feel that there were many peaceful actions the police could have chose to use before resorting to tasering the man. The article talks about how Mr. Dziekanski "screamed and moaned in pain" and how the police did nothing about this, except for putting more force on the man keeping him to the ground. The police should have tended to their victim right away, especially if he was in such extreme pain. When the video of the incident was discovered, police knew they were in the wrong, as they tried to withhold the video from the man who created it. He took legal action however, and had his video returned to him. I think it is good that the video be released to the public, as it shows a serious flaw in the police force, and perhaps this negative publicity with encourage change in tasering rules and regulations.
In response to Jaime J. Weinman's article "The tabs: no men allowed", I agree with the problem, it is statistically proven that tabloids focus on women, and rarely talk about men. I think it is unnecessary however, that this happens, and don't agree with the reasoning behind it.
There are straightforward statistics in the article, proving the inequality in tabloids of male mentions compared to female mentions. The most mentioned female in the tabloid website TMZ is Britney Spears with 791 mentions. The most mentioned male on that same website was Mel Gibson, with only 67 mentions.
This is blatant gendered inequality, and according to the article, the columnists themselves are pointing this out. The reasoning behind it is apparently because most gossip readers are women, and writers are under the (false) impression that women prefer to read about other women.
Sure, sometimes women love seeing other (especially younger, and more beautiful) women doing something wrong and getting busted for it, but at the same time these women also may enjoy seeing the perfect men as less then perfect too. Rather than ruining the fantasy of these men, I think knowing their flaws could make the men seem more realistic, and within reach to these women, so I disagree with the writers' reasoning.
The article says "women who read these magazines, at least subconsciously, imagine themselves as part of this world" and I find it kind of hard to believe that women imagine themselves in this world, but don't want to hear the dirt on the men, especially men in couples. If they are with another woman, women tend to create their own reasoning as to why they are with this other woman, and not them. If there is something wrong with them, like they have a serious drug problem, that is a fairly good reasoning. But what do I know, I like a good Lindsay Lohan bashing as much as the next woman.
In response to the article "NBC executive slams Apple for 'killing music industry'", I would personally like to give Mathew Ingram a pat on the back for his position regarding NBC executive positions on Apple music purchases. I agree with Ingram when he says that Apple rescued the music industry from irrelevance, as the days of Napster and free downloads did rob a lot of money from them. Charging for songs online is a great way to satisfy peoples' need for convenience, as well as the ability to own one song by an artist instead of a whole album, which is potentially making the industry more money.
If a person likes just one song by an artist, they will either buy the whole album, or not. Having songs for individual sale allows the people who would not have purchased the album for the one song to have that one song, and pay specifically for it.
It is also true when Ingram points out that the industry has made far more from iTunes than it would have been able to make by itself in the online world. A partner as popular as iTunes is an excellent resource. According to answerbag.com, ipod has sold over 100 million ipods, meaning close to 100 million people must have ipods. If those 100 million people all purchase one song from iTunes, the music industry is going to get a very large amount of money.
Ingram's point comparing iTunes' refusal to pay a portion of their hardware sales to the network to TV manufacturers was absolutely brilliant. It is absolutely true that TV has sold a ton of hardware to people "eager to watch major network content" and if the industry wants a portion of hardware sales from iTunes, in the name of fairness, they would have to do the same for TV manufacturers.
In my opinion, NBC's decision to leave iTunes was not smart, and will potentially be devestating for the company. With recent developments like iTunes on cellphones as well as computers, iTUnes is even more accessible than it used to be, and its popularity is only growing.
Are ex-PMs way above normal society? According to the writer of this article they are, and really, I find it ridiculous. Don Murray puts Ex Prime Ministers on a pedestal as these supreme and bitter beings after being knocked out of parliament, and I think Murray's generalized portrayal of ex-PMs as egocentrical grumps is entirely unfair. We should not have to "deal" with ex-Prime Ministers, but allow them to leave office with dignity, so that they can live contently and in peace after their time serving our country.
Murray bases his article on the bitter things past PMs have said, including Mulroney's attack on Pierre Trudeau, and Chretien's attack on Paul Martin, but these politicians are given no benefit of the doubt. I've said bitter things in my life, but that doesn't by any means make me a bitter person. Of course there will be some resentment after a Prime Minister is forced to resign, but that will fade and the ex-PM will be able to return to normal in a normal society.
The article then moves on to discuss the traditional way that the French dealt with their ex-PMs. Their concept was simple. If the ex-PM went and stayed away quietly, they would be taken care of but that has changed.
The author of the article proposes a solution at the end of the article. He says to fix the grumpiness issue in ex-PMs, and that is to make them presidents of commissions. I disagree with this, because if a person is no longer adequate as the PM, I dont think they should be considered adequate to run the commissions of a country.
Putting a person in an authoritative position just to apease them, and avoid grumpiness is not a good idea. Instead, PM's just need to suck it up, and get over their massively inflated egos.
Well, this article certainly gives the childish explession "if you like it so much, why dont you marry it?" a whole new meaning. The idea is that by 2050, marriage with robots will be legalized, and and these vows could even be consumated. I however, find this notion mildly ridiculous, and some what insulting. As a catholic, my first issue with this concept is a religious one. If the main purpose of sex is for procreation, sex with robots should be considered a sin. I also find David Levy, an artificial intelligence researcher's, little faith in humanity and our intelligence mildly disturbing. He says "once you have a story like 'I had sex with a robot, and it was great!' appear someplace like Cosmo magazine, I'd expect many people to jumo on the bandwagon". I find this notion insulting, as just because Cosmo says something, doesn't mean humanity is going to fall over themselves and belieive it. Another argument of Levy's I had a problem with was his argument due to some research proving that students at times would become unusually attracted to a program named ELIZA. Attraction is not even close to love, and attraction in itself will not cause someone to marry. It is hard enough for man women to get their significant others to commit to marriage, and women are actually capable of loving the man who they marry, and the other way around. Personally, I completely beleive that saying "love and sex with robots are inevitable" are very highly presumtuous statements. Levy is right in arguing that psychologists have identified some reasons why people fall in love, and he says that "almost all of them could apply to human-robot relationships", but what about the reasons that can't apply? And who is to say that psychologists have identified all the reasons that people fall in love? Sure certian reasons can be programed into a robot, but all of these reasons are just that - programmed into the robot. There is a contradiction in Levy's theory, as he says that one reason people fall in love is if they know the other person likes them. Well if a person programs a robot to like them, woiuldn't they still be aware that the robot doesn't actually like them? And would this not in turn completely void that argument for Levy? Also, if we are simply programming these robots to be compatible with people, aren't we just creating the perfect stepford wife or husband? This stepford theory has been tested with little success, so what chance does robotic marriage have? I also felt some sympathy for interracial and gay couples, as Levy uses them mearly as a means to express himself. He compares marriage to robots with marriage of interracial and gay couple, and i find this appauling. Gay and interracial couples have things in common. FOr one, the species involved; this is just not the case in robot marriages. I do agree with alot of the author's ethical issues that are brought up, and think that his arguments are weak, and unsupported. His example about a wife claiming to ahve a headache, sending her husband to have sex with his robot is absolutely absurd. This concept takes the romance out of sex, and takes both the romance and intamacy out of marriage. Ronald Arkin claims that "there's a real potential for intimacy here, where humans become psychologically and emotionally attatched to these devices in ways we wouldn't do a vibrator". Is this really a good thing? I have no issue with the fact that people may be having sex with robots in the future, in fact people are having sex with robots (well robotic equiptment anyway)even presently, but I have to consider the same point Arkin considered, being if we get this close to robots, what will happen to our social fabric? If people are in marriages with robots, infidelity is no longer an issue, as you can simply program your mechanical wife or husband to tolerate this infidelity. What will this do to morals? I was absolutely disgusted by the point considering pedaphilia, and prostitution. Letting pedophiles use children robots is like allowing pornography portraying pedaphilia, only much much worse. The whole concept is absolutely sickening. Arkin's question based on robot ethics, and what we should consider ethical treatment of these robots, but where will it end? Will robots be able to marry robots? And if a robot commits a crime, do we send them to trial? If a robot is malfunctional, should we have laws keeping it working? This article proves nothing more than the laziness of humanity. People no longer want to go out on dates, meet someone the old fashined way adn call them back for further dates, which could then lead to marriage. It is so much easier to buy a robotic bride, and skip the whole courting process. The whole notion of this article is completely ridiculous, and the fact that we are even seriously talking about this happening just shows how devestating the future for marriage is looking.
This video demonstrates the absurdity of robot-robot marriages, which would probably be one of the next steps after legalizing human-robot marriage. Yeara ago, people would have claimed marriage to robots absolutely impossible, but this article proves that this isn't the case anymore, for some people. with this in mind, who is to say robot-robot marriage will never happen?
As the liberals take up their seats in parliament with a majority government, Dalton McGuinty is they are given credit for their "carefully scripted election campaign that left little to chance". It worked though, didn't it? The liberal party is back for four more years, and a lot of that had to do with the campaign they chose. While the conservative party lost this election by a landslide, some of the reasons for this may not have been entirely fair. only 52% of eligible voters showed up to vote, leaving 48% of Canada's opinions unheard. This turnout was much lower then that of even 2004, which goes to say that politics is failing to reach people, especially the younger generations who are just recently becoming eligible to vote.
In my opinion, I think most of Canada knew what the results of this election would be, and I also don't believe when the liberals are thought to have had the upper hand on the election. Sure, Tory is following the footsteps of controversial Mike Harris, but with the right publicity I strongly believe that the Conservatives could have beaten this bad reputation, so I don't think people can use Mike Harris as an excuse. It is also said by Henry Jacek in the article that the "religious schools funding issue cost the Tories the election". I believe that there is some truth in this statement, however I also think this issue is being used as an excuse. Of the 52% that voted, perhaps the Conservative party just wasn't the most popular!
The Liberal party also faced controversy during the election process, but they did not allow that to lose them the election. Dalton McGuinty was faced with constant accusations that he was a promise-breaker, but he fought back and was able to portray himself as the defender of Ontario's public education system. He also promised 17.9 billion dollars in expenditures, which is fantastic, my only question is how much of that 17.9 billion dollars is coming out of my pocket?
There was also something new in elections this year, the proposal to change the electoral system from the current, to a mixed-member proportional system. I doubted the success of this referendum early on, and my hunch was correct. The referendum wasn't something people were very interested in. So our old methods are staying, and the new one died before it was even born, but whats so wrong with the old way of doing things anyway? Everything stays the same, at least for the next four years anyway, and I'm rather glad.
This youtube video is a parody, encouraging the public to leave John Tory alone!
From the beginning of time, marriage has been the ideal situation for all people, starting from a very young age. Little girls begin planning their weddings, as well as Barbie's wedding at around the same time. Why then are marriage rates dropping so drastically among Canadians, and is this entirely a bad thing? According to Barbara Kay of the National Post, it is. According to Kay, we are "drying up as a society", as Canadians are too concentrated on "privileges and pleasures". But why is putting yourself first, and taking advantages of what makes you happy a bad thing? As Ann Marie McQueen stated, single people aren’t anti-marriage, marriage is still a respected milestone in our society. The difference is that now people know what they want. We don’t want to settle for what we can live with, if we have the choice of waiting for that one person we can't live without. In my opinion I think it is perfectly fine for people to wait for marriage, as this is a choice that will hopefully be with you for the rest of your life. Kay argues, and states that people who claim to be "self-aware" are actually just being "selfish" but I don’t agree. We are living in a society that does not pressure single people to get married. We no longer have the financial need, and we no longer have the emotional need, people are getting married for their own reasons. Kay also argues that "true happiness is taking responsibility, is moving out of your parents home, is starting a family" and she does have a point, in that according to the host, married people say they are happier, but she also says that married people are more likely to suffer from depression, paranoia, and that married people are "slightly ill mentally". The other issue debated, is that of children. I think McQueen had it correct saying that people are having children for their own selfish reasons, and not those of society. Yes, the rate of child bearing is decreasing, but in a world already facing overpopulation, is that really so terrible? I don’t think so. My last point is that Kay states that "common law relationships are 450 times more likely to break up than marriage" but in my opinion, I feel it is better for people to break up while they are common law, than if they were to decide 5 years into marriage that they hated each other. Marriage is a sacred thing, and having children is a huge and exciting time in any individual’s life, but in my opinion, it isn’t killing anyone that people are waiting, or choosing to opt out of these milestones in their lives.
The UN created the Kyoto protocol with intentions on fixing the world that humanity has somehow managed to screw up. Canada signed this protocol along with 168 other countries and government groups, and all we had to do was cut down on greenhouse gas emissions by 6%. This isn’t the most difficult thing in the world, yet somehow we were still unable to accomplish this. While the protocol has the support of many Canadians, there are also those who don't support it. Stephan Harper is one of those who do not support the protocol, as some fear this protocol would affect our competition with the states regarding trade. As a result, instead of sticking with the protocol, Harper decided it would be best to set his eyes on a new idea, the Asia-Pacific partnership. Instead of aiming at reducing gas emissions by 6%, Harper wants to try for 60%. If Canada cannot achieve the reduction of 6%, what makes Harper think we can accomplish 60%? Harper suggests in the article that "there is an emerging consensus on the need for a new, effective and flexible climate change framework, one that commits all the world's major emitters to real targets and concrete action against global greenhouse-gas emissions", and he has a point, but if all the world needed was a climate change framework, Kyoto protocol would have us covered. It is my opinion that Harper is using this new partnership to avoid facing the fact that we were unable to comply with Kyoto’s regulations, and to once again follow in the footsteps of the United States.
"The Annex I countries' share of CO2 emissions in 1990. To come into force, the Kyoto protocol must have been ratified by so many countries as to account for 55 per cent of the emissions. Since the US (and Australia) do not intend to ratify, Russia must do so to make up the difference."
While the article "Should your daughter get the HPV vaccine?" raised many valid points regarding the controversial issue of a vaccine protecting from this common STD, but the father of two John Sexton had it right when he said ‘Hey, this is a different age'. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 47% of grade 9-12 students have reported having had sexual intercourse. Even with more then half of high school students remaining abstinent, the Kaiser Family Foundation approximates that four million teenagers per year are still contracting STDs. We have found a vaccine that could have potentially protected these young women from one of the most common STDs out there, so how can parents honestly disagree with this? It is understandable that some parents may be concerned with promiscuity becoming an issue among young women, but I can't see how this vaccine could possibly play a part in that. The argument is that "the vaccine might promote early sexual behaviour, or unsafe sex, by making teenagers feel they don't need to worry about infection or disease any more". This isn't accurate in my opinion, as there have already been many products exposed to young women preventing sexually transmitted diseases. The most common example would probably be birth control. Condoms are 99.9% effective, and they not only protect against STDs, but they protect against pregnancy as well. In my opinion, these would be far more of a concern for promiscuous behaviour then a vaccine, and you can find condoms at any of your local, family friendly drug stores. They are even advertised on TV as seen in the below video. If this is a socially accepted practice, I can't see why an effective, and potentially life saving vaccine can't be accepted also.
Forget hello world, lets try to be original people! How about... Test 1,2,3 and all that... Blog one for communication studies is underway. Yours Truly, Patricia
