This week was the last week we would watch Sunday Morning on CBS. While we are done discussing and blogging on Sunday Morning episodes, we still have a ways to go in respects to our "episode" project and various other things. We have decided the individual topics for the episode so now all we have to do is create each part of the episode and put it together. I plan on doing the research needed for my portion this weekend at some point.
Takashi Murakami has become a very popular artist in recent years and his style is reminiscant of Andy Warhol's art but with a twist. Do you think he could be the next andy Warhol, is he better, or is he just riding the Warhol train?
This Thursday we assembled into our groups that we were going to do the episodes with. Our group decided that we were going to do an Allegheny College themed show that was going to focus on the things that are happening around campus. I will be covering Sports for my segment in the sunday morning episode.
This Thurday we listened to the commentaries of Lexie, Molly, Will, Dylan, and Ashley. Lexie's commentary about smoking was about the terrible affects that smoking and 2nd hand smoke has on people's lives. I must say that i agree with her disgust with smoking, as it just seems so counter-productive to my life, especially as a runner. I like my lungs, they treat me well and i wouldn't appreciate someone else destroying them. Molly did her commentary on the Allegheny bike share program and how the bikes are so rare to find that the program has basically fallen apart. People shouldn't be hording all the bikes on the porches of off-campus houses. Will discussed how the Presidential campain for 2008 started way too early and is just beginning to bore people and make them lose interest. I definately agree. This campaign started 2 years 2 early. Ashley discussed school violence and how it has developed over the years. Dylan discussed how women have been objectified for so long but argues that women themselves may have contributed to this objectification. Even if women were even somewhat responsible for their objectification, however, I believe it is still the majority of the men's fault as men are the ones who perpetuate the objectification and the belief in sex superiority.
Yesterday I watched the October 27th episode of Sunday Morning on CBS rather than the one for the 21st by accident. I had assumed that since we took a week off that we would just start from the most current Sunday Morning episode rather than the previous week's episode. I particularly liked the segment about Anthony Hopkins, as he is by far my favorite actor. It was interesting that Anthony was finally going to direct and act in his own movie. I am excited for the release of this movie and cannot wait to go watch it.
This week we discussed prejudism in language. I was particularly disappointed with our class discussion on Thursday. During discussion of one of our questions that we had to answer for the class that day, I compared one students argument to the "Nigger" and "Nigga" debate and whether the African-American use of the changed word just encourages the continuation of racism or if African-Americans are trying to "reclaim" the word and change it to a more positive word. Yes, I did say "Nigger" when I described the dabate as the "Nigger vs Nigga" debate. For some reason, however, awkward silence and a few confused/dirty looks ensued. Why? I am not afraid to use this word if it is the basis of what we are discussing. By being afraid to use this word, especially in an educational setting in which the very word is what is being discussed, it then implies that this word has power. I did not use this word in any racist sense and I personally believe that I am not a racist, infact racists bother me and I do as much in my power to make them look like more ignorant idiots than they already are. So why was it so weird that I said it? Because people fear the word. Fear of the word gives power to it. Power to the word gives victory to racism. Until the word "nigger" can be at least used in discussions of the very word, we continue to give this word the disgusting meaning that many people would much rather become nonexistent. If it is unacceptable for me use the term "nigger" in the discussion of it, then a different topic should have been considered and we should just concede to racism. We can't be afraid of this word forever and try to substitute "nigger" with "n-word" even in discussion of the term or else we shall never get past it.
This week we discussed the lives of miners in earlier times. I was personally shocked by the cruel joke that the miner's played on that poor woman who just lost her husband. I didnt think that people could be so mean to a person who just lost their spouse to just get a good laugh. Of course, the miners thought it was funny but did they think about the feelings of the widow? Could they have severley damaged the poor womans feelings?
I found our discussion on ethics in class on Thursday to be very intriguing. I find the whole concepts of ethics strange. Everybody in their jobs, at school, etc. have certain rules or ethics by which they are expected to follow. However, ethics are often be based on ones own opinion. So why are there set standards for ethics rather than letting people form their own ethics based on their own beliefs?
On the 9/30 episode of Sunday Morning on CBS, Mo Rocca stresses his opinion on the recent recalls of numerous toys that have been painted with paint containing led. He stresses that the best toy is the one that the child imagines, like a box becoming a car. However, he also is the one who said that in his childhood, he imagined that his spoon and knife were lovers and that the fork was trying to steal the knife away from the spoon. This along with his numerous other demonstrations were rather disturbing, and possibly discredits his opinion all together. Its true that a child's imagination is what makes a toy or item a good thing to play with, but thats not the issue at hand. Mo was supposed to be voicing his opinion of the recall. In this he should have asked more important questions like is there really enough led in these toys to harm a child? The paints contained barely over the limit of lead allowed in a product, which is hardly enough to harm a child. In order for a child to truly be harmed by the miniscule amounts of lead in the paint, the child would practically have to chug the paint on a daily basis for a somewhat long period of time. There is such little amounts of led in the paint and not hardly enough paint on these toys to harm a child, so why is it such a big deal? I believe this issue has just been blown out of proportion by the media.
This week we listened to the podcasts of groups 1 and 2. Group one did a podcast on the Stanford Prison experiment. This experiment placed normal, good people into a prison setting, letting some be guards and others be prisoners. They had few limitations as to what they could and could not do, and were just left to play out the situation given to them. This, however, ended in disaster. Only after 6 days of the 2 weeks were able to be played out before the experiment was called off due to uprisings, psychological torture, and just everything overall just getting out of hand. The second podcast was about introverts and extroverts. I learned that introverts are generally considered as "shy" people who are likely to not be as competitive as extroverts. Extroverts are people who are generally considered outgoing and often enjoy the thrill of competing.