Ever since we watched the video clip on Youtube of the girl from Miss Teen USA, I have been assiduously considering first of all why girls act the way they do, and secondly, why people find it so appealing and entertaining to watch. From where I stand personally, when I see someone acting unbelievably "stupid", I immediately assume that they are acting that way on purpose. In this case however, it is very apparent that this girl is completely serious with herself, which is the worst part of all. How have we allowed ourselves to grow up with such an obilivious attitude concerning the values of intelligence? The most upsetting part of this is the fact that it is girls who are getting pegged with this "dumb" image, when the truth is that we all contribute to the problem. So perhaps it is our own faults, not just the girls, but the weaknesses in all people who play to this and accept it as entertainment. When a girl acts unintelligent, more often than not, she will recieve attention for it. This sick sycophantic method plays to the way in which others seems to already perceive them, and the result is that sought-after focus. Whether it be a post on youtube.com, or a simple discussion among friends, energy is still being invested in it regardless. If young girls are then growing up in a world with that mindset, they may inturn not only see that way of behaving as "funny" themselves, but also adopt it into their own way of being. This is wrong on so many levels. We are essentailly allowing women to be demeaned, and for the girls who choose to take on that image, demeaning women themselves as well. This is destructive for those women who are intelligent and are now perceived with an image that is less than what they deserve. As for those who do not know any better, they will undeniably feel no need to become more intellectual, and the result is shown in the perfect example of Miss Teen Carolina USA.
I believe that beyond all of these circumstances, is the matter that this issue presents us with a greater perspective on a very important aspect of our society in this day and age. Although this issue impacts many people negatively, it allows us to become more aware of ourselves and our actions, so is perhaps not an entirely bad thing, The issue that this video-clip brings up is a perfect example of our societies overly competetive and somewhat self-destructive nature. I don't think anyone can deny that when someone is observed doing something "unintelligent," that is makes us either confounded with them or feel better about our own state of mind. The factor of intelligence plays to the ego of every person alive. It is human nature to feel competetive, but as a collective culture, we have come to rely too heavily on the downfalls of others for a boost in our opinions of ourselves. In a sense we get enjoyment and entertainment by seeing those who appear "less" than ourselves displayed, because we feel (inaccurately) superior- a terribly flawed way of viewing the world. This issue of comparing ourselves to others has been present for all of time, but never to this degree. It is only in the past 100 years that apparent intellectual abilities have become such a severve issue of gender equality. We have evolved from the days when men were distinguished as more capable than women because of physical abilities and control, power, etc., but this seems to be setting us back just as much. This tactic for discriminative correlation can never be very accurate though-intelligence exists as such a relative and expansive commodity and cannot be targeted to certain aspect of life, hence the phrase "everyone is smart in their own way."
Is their really anything we can do about this considering how much it is part of us? I believe that there isn't, not collectively anyways. This is not the kind of thing that we can come together for and tackle through public awareness. In fact it really requires nothing other than altering our mindsets on an individual basis. There will never be a way to prevent people from circulating stories and images of unequivocally "harmless" girls doing stupid things, the only thing we have the ability to do is acknowledge why it is we find these things entertaining, and perhaps that will be enough to allow us to come to terms with the fact that it wrong. The same applies to those who are circulating such content, and the "dumb girls" who are acting as fuel for the fire. They need to realize that it is not an acceptable way to be "entertaining" and consider that they are not only hurting themselves. And finally, I personally believe that it is the responsibilty of all of us as members of a collective society, to make education, (........especially in the Iraq and such as South Africa......) even more of an ideal than it is now, so that we will no longer have this issue an we can build our future!!
For Miss South Carolina's rebuttle to her answer click here., and to see just how much people can do with material like this- watch.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
The High Cost of Low Price
A verdict has been made for Stratford's East End and I am so glad!! We have declined to allow the amendment of Walmart setting up location in our town, but that may not be final, and the degree to which it has already sabotaged so many other small towns in our nation is appalling. The argument concerning Stratford place among all of this has been going on for several years now, and in my opinion could not have come to close on a better note.
Walmart has had a history, ignored by many in favour of its business, for supporting and condoning many detrimental practices, and effects cities and communities in a less than favourable way. What I have been thinking about and would like to examine is the ripple effect that Walmart has, not only on communities, but on our economy as a whole. People need to see Walmart as more than just a store.
First and foremost is the issue of where Walmart gets its products from. Although it is not unheard of for most companies to implement foreign "cheap labour" to manufacture their products, the standards of Walmart's practices are far below "standard." There is very little supervision of foreign suppliers, and critics say that many many of Walmart items have been made using sweatshops and prison labour. In 1995, chinese activist Harry Wu, filed charges against Walmart contractors for knowingly using prison labour in Guangdong Province in China. It is not a rarity for teenagers in foreign countries work, in some cases, 80 hours per week, for a wage of $0.14 and hour. Foreign countries can benefit from factory work of the conditions are safe and reasonable, and if the pay is comparable to the countries standards. However this is not the case when it comes to Walmart, as they have no current monitoring conventions! If this is to continue, (which it most likely will considering the source) I believe someone out there must find a loop hole in the contracts to ensure that they are supervised by an organization such as Social Accountability International or the Fair Labour Association.
Those are only the terms applicable to other countries sadly enough, and when it comes to employees and workers on the North American end, things don't look up too much. We know this is at issue just as much, simply from the number of lawsuits that they have had, without even dealing with the specifics. Walmarts illegitimate practices include aspects such as poor working conditions, unacceptable low wages, very strong anti-union abidements, and they offer no health care, even for full time employees. From a study done in 2006 it was uncovered that on average, sales associates were paid approx. $10.11 per hour, for a 34 hour work week, equating to about 17,900 dollars annually. That is 20% lower than what other employees with comparable positions working for other companies are paid, and 10,000 dollars less than what a family of two living at the poverty line need for one year. As well in 2004, a study was done concerning the violation of child labour laws. There were 1 371 instances where underage workers were working either to late, for too many hours during the day, and even during school, as well as 60,767 missed breaks and 15 705 missed meal times. I think a quote from Sam Walton says enough, "I pay ow wages. I can take advantage of that. We're going to be successful, but the basis is a very low-wage, low benefit model of employment." Now why would any city with the best interest of its people in mind even consider that as an option for employment? The fact is that many people simply choose to be oblivious, or to not accept these facts,in order to ease their own conscience.
If those are not reasons enough for people to change their minds, then perhaps the ways in which it effects Canada and our cities as a whole would be. This is the ripple effect that I mentioned earlier. Stratford is agreeably a small town by comparison, which depends on our local development and longevity in order for it to flourish. For 6 months of the year, tourists provide a large part of the income for local business. For the rest of the year, stores manage to depend on local shoppers for their income. It is these local businesses that give Stratford its core, and artisan ship, and to put them in the way of harm by mean of the Roll-Back man would deprive our city of the spirit and life which its uniqueness. In a recent article for the London Free Press, it was explained that Stratford's retail surplus consists of about 300 million dollars annually, and the inconceivable reality that a Walmart in Stratford would have taken at least 17% of those profits, had they been given the OK from city council. The affects would result in a complete demolishment of our precious downtown core, and much of the character of Stratford would be thrown out as the big yellow smiley face came waltzing in. Not only is a Walmart detrimental to an individual community such as out own , but it is also abominable in terms of the impact on Canadian economy. Walmart is an American company, so we keep none of the gross profits from having a store like this in our province or nation for that matter. Now in argument, some might say that for the people who cannot afford to spend a lot of money, Walmart is a suitable solution, and for those who can choose otherwise to simply not shop there. Never-the-less, it is not that simple. If the economy of Stratford was to dwindle because of a Walmart, more people would be left in the position of needing to shop there, and again as more people shop there, the economy would continue to suffer. A cycle like this is very difficult to be removed from once immersed in, or perhaps even recognize at all from the inside.
When city council made their choice to finally dismiss Walmart's requests, not only did they do what was right for the betterment of the people in this community, they acknowledged that they were willing to stand up for the future of Stratford's character. It was also refreshing to experience change at the hands of the people, and this choice expressed the voice and opinion of many of the hardworking and dedicated people in this city. It is so appreciable when the needs of the people are a prime factor in the future of a place as unmatched in terms of uniqueness as the city we behold.More importantly because under many circumstances they are not taken into consideration. Stratford may not seem so wonderful after having lived here for one's entire life, but I can personally guarantee that each and every one of us would be devastated if we were to allow the wake of Walmart to decimate its beauty. I commend the heritage council for truly doing its job, and preserving everything that we can continue to call home!
For a short and entertaining take on the issue, visit youtube, or watch the movie WALMART: The High Cost of Low Price.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Democracy?
A few weeks ago on the tenth of October, a provincial election took place. This election was not only the standard provinicial election, but also a referendum to decide on whether or not the proposed mixed member proportional system would be more effective. The sad reality is that a shockingly low number of people actually cared to take the time to participate in democracy. Only 52% of eligible voters turned out to cast their vote. This means that when the Liberals won with 40 percent of the vote, they really only had 20 percent of the popular vote in their favour. As for the referendum, it was very poorly promoted and a significant number of people simply did not know what they would have been voting for.
With all of this in mind, there is clearly something wrong with the state of our country. For being considered one of the most educated countries in the world, we have a devastating voter turn out in comparison to the rest of the world. We are in the bottom 30%, compared to all other countries, with Belgium, and Australia having the highest. But what can we possibly do? It would seem an unimaginable feat to convince 48% of voters that they are not doing their part. I believe that the voting age should be lowered to 16 years of age; this wouldn't necessarily solve our problems indefinitely, but it would an unequivocal step in the right direction. At the age of sixteen one is legally allowed to drive a car, and live alone; both of which in my opinion require just as much responsibilty as casting a vote and having a say in the way this country is run. With civics as a mandatory part of the curriculum, I think it is ideal that we would be just as equipped with knowledge and information as any other eligible voter. To this day, no strategy has been effective enough to get the full majority of people to turn out during an election, so perhaps if a younger population was to turn out, the rest of the country would actually consider what they are jeopardizing by not speaking up. By no means should guilt be a reason to vote, but at this point it seems that not much is.
The laws and changes made by the government affect us just as substantially as the rest of society. Public schools, Universities, health care and many other public facilities are all funded and controlled largely by the government, which in turn controls what and how we as individuals are limited to. If we are expected to make huge decisions at this age concerning our future, then would it not make sense for us to have a say in our circumstances that are not determined by us, and are decided by the government? Our future is greatly influenced by the state of our country, which evolves and changes because of decisions made today, and we deserve to be part of that change. If we are the future, as cliche as that may be, then it is our vote that should be granted as part of that future.
These ideas seem reasonable and just, but in reality it is unlikely to ever come into the play of politics. A party would be unwilling to do anything that would compromise their party being predominent and in control. That is why affairs such as the referendum do not succeed. The government has no desire for change for the sake of change, whether or not it be a fairer representation, as they are already in the lead, and essentially have nothing to "gain". They would feel no need to push for a greater voter turn out, because the current voter turn out is allowing them to win the election. The fact remains that those are not good reasons to govern with an absense of change in mind. The government, nor the people should be happy with a status quo that serves those in power alone- the only way this can change is through the people who are voting today. For now the youth in this country can only hope that those who have the option of a say will make that say, keeping in mind the good of those who cannot , and when it comes time, that our generation will know enough to do the same.
If you haven't already, check out the election results.
With all of this in mind, there is clearly something wrong with the state of our country. For being considered one of the most educated countries in the world, we have a devastating voter turn out in comparison to the rest of the world. We are in the bottom 30%, compared to all other countries, with Belgium, and Australia having the highest. But what can we possibly do? It would seem an unimaginable feat to convince 48% of voters that they are not doing their part. I believe that the voting age should be lowered to 16 years of age; this wouldn't necessarily solve our problems indefinitely, but it would an unequivocal step in the right direction. At the age of sixteen one is legally allowed to drive a car, and live alone; both of which in my opinion require just as much responsibilty as casting a vote and having a say in the way this country is run. With civics as a mandatory part of the curriculum, I think it is ideal that we would be just as equipped with knowledge and information as any other eligible voter. To this day, no strategy has been effective enough to get the full majority of people to turn out during an election, so perhaps if a younger population was to turn out, the rest of the country would actually consider what they are jeopardizing by not speaking up. By no means should guilt be a reason to vote, but at this point it seems that not much is.
The laws and changes made by the government affect us just as substantially as the rest of society. Public schools, Universities, health care and many other public facilities are all funded and controlled largely by the government, which in turn controls what and how we as individuals are limited to. If we are expected to make huge decisions at this age concerning our future, then would it not make sense for us to have a say in our circumstances that are not determined by us, and are decided by the government? Our future is greatly influenced by the state of our country, which evolves and changes because of decisions made today, and we deserve to be part of that change. If we are the future, as cliche as that may be, then it is our vote that should be granted as part of that future.
These ideas seem reasonable and just, but in reality it is unlikely to ever come into the play of politics. A party would be unwilling to do anything that would compromise their party being predominent and in control. That is why affairs such as the referendum do not succeed. The government has no desire for change for the sake of change, whether or not it be a fairer representation, as they are already in the lead, and essentially have nothing to "gain". They would feel no need to push for a greater voter turn out, because the current voter turn out is allowing them to win the election. The fact remains that those are not good reasons to govern with an absense of change in mind. The government, nor the people should be happy with a status quo that serves those in power alone- the only way this can change is through the people who are voting today. For now the youth in this country can only hope that those who have the option of a say will make that say, keeping in mind the good of those who cannot , and when it comes time, that our generation will know enough to do the same.
If you haven't already, check out the election results.
Friday, October 12, 2007
The MSN Dilemma
"Windows live messenger is the world's largest easy-to-use, consumer ready, instant messaging service that allows people to connect in real time, expressing themselves in a rich, convenient and fun way." -microsoft.com
The expansion and growth in technology over the past decade has lead to an unimaginable uprise in users of the internet and other online sources. MSN among these has gone through incredible development and to this day is available in 26 languages, is used in over 60 countries and by June 2006, had more than 240 million active accounts each month. I don't think anyone can deny that these resources are pervasive , considering the fact that 80% of north american teens use msn regularly, and the countless number who also own a cell phone and text message as well. I believe that this leaves us with a question to answer; that is whether or not this availability in technology has changed the humanity behind conversation by leading us to communicate largely through instant messaging devices.
This online community provides an easy way to talk amongst friends and anyone else whom you choose, but I believe it is this same apparent ease that has lead people to seriously consider that we may be losing our personal contact with the world. No matter the convienence, the more important matter is that MSN puts a barrier between you and whomever you are comminucating with. At times, this may make one feel more comfortable about conversing, but more often than not it can create a lot of problems. This lack of actual human contact during conversation can take away any vulnerability which one might have. I know for a fact that while on MSN people talk to individuals that they have never spoken with or met beofre, as well as people that they would never normally talk to in person. This creates an illusion of security and can lead people into dangerous situations, and allow them to partake in conversation that they would aviod otherwise. I acknowledge that MSN is not particularly bad in regards to being targetted by strangers, because you must consciously add or accept an invitation for a contact, making it easy to avoid people you don't know. However chat room sites focus on the same type of conversation, but in all reality, you can never really be sure who exactly you are talking to. In the past people have been caught for creating false identities and luring others into giving out personal information online. Of course one cannot act out of fear in all situations, but for the sake of common sense and safety, I would personally never partake and would advise that no one else get involved in a chat-room.
In reference once again to the protection that one feels when in control at their computer, this can be excessive and lead to an abuse of one's freedom in that respect. Not only do people feel more comfortable having conversations with almost anyone, they also feel more apt to say whatever they choose. I believe that during verbal communication, tone of voice, expression and facial gestures can have a lot more effect on what is being said even than the actual words that are being spoken. Hence it is not what's being said, but how it is being said that matters. With an instant message conversation, none of that is available, so messages can be misconstrued and misread simply because of that. In conjuntion with that idea, people feel more prepared to write offensive, negative or hurtful comments because there is no immediate retribution against the perpetrator. This has lead to cyber bullying existing as the most widespread dilemma among our youth and it is MSN that allows it to continue. It is also now the number one form of harassment for children and teenagers, mainly in North America, and across the globe as well. Considering the amount of power that technology leaves us with, it is unthinkable to imagine the amount of dammage that could be done if someone had the motivation.
Set aside from all of this, it is just the reality that we are slowly becoming more removed from others, and personally that is enough to want to more carefully consider our actions online. In no way do I belive msn is an entirely poor resource if used properly, so just make sure you are.
The expansion and growth in technology over the past decade has lead to an unimaginable uprise in users of the internet and other online sources. MSN among these has gone through incredible development and to this day is available in 26 languages, is used in over 60 countries and by June 2006, had more than 240 million active accounts each month. I don't think anyone can deny that these resources are pervasive , considering the fact that 80% of north american teens use msn regularly, and the countless number who also own a cell phone and text message as well. I believe that this leaves us with a question to answer; that is whether or not this availability in technology has changed the humanity behind conversation by leading us to communicate largely through instant messaging devices.
This online community provides an easy way to talk amongst friends and anyone else whom you choose, but I believe it is this same apparent ease that has lead people to seriously consider that we may be losing our personal contact with the world. No matter the convienence, the more important matter is that MSN puts a barrier between you and whomever you are comminucating with. At times, this may make one feel more comfortable about conversing, but more often than not it can create a lot of problems. This lack of actual human contact during conversation can take away any vulnerability which one might have. I know for a fact that while on MSN people talk to individuals that they have never spoken with or met beofre, as well as people that they would never normally talk to in person. This creates an illusion of security and can lead people into dangerous situations, and allow them to partake in conversation that they would aviod otherwise. I acknowledge that MSN is not particularly bad in regards to being targetted by strangers, because you must consciously add or accept an invitation for a contact, making it easy to avoid people you don't know. However chat room sites focus on the same type of conversation, but in all reality, you can never really be sure who exactly you are talking to. In the past people have been caught for creating false identities and luring others into giving out personal information online. Of course one cannot act out of fear in all situations, but for the sake of common sense and safety, I would personally never partake and would advise that no one else get involved in a chat-room.
In reference once again to the protection that one feels when in control at their computer, this can be excessive and lead to an abuse of one's freedom in that respect. Not only do people feel more comfortable having conversations with almost anyone, they also feel more apt to say whatever they choose. I believe that during verbal communication, tone of voice, expression and facial gestures can have a lot more effect on what is being said even than the actual words that are being spoken. Hence it is not what's being said, but how it is being said that matters. With an instant message conversation, none of that is available, so messages can be misconstrued and misread simply because of that. In conjuntion with that idea, people feel more prepared to write offensive, negative or hurtful comments because there is no immediate retribution against the perpetrator. This has lead to cyber bullying existing as the most widespread dilemma among our youth and it is MSN that allows it to continue. It is also now the number one form of harassment for children and teenagers, mainly in North America, and across the globe as well. Considering the amount of power that technology leaves us with, it is unthinkable to imagine the amount of dammage that could be done if someone had the motivation.
Set aside from all of this, it is just the reality that we are slowly becoming more removed from others, and personally that is enough to want to more carefully consider our actions online. In no way do I belive msn is an entirely poor resource if used properly, so just make sure you are.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)