FINAL POST

Final Essay

As society progresses, new channels of communication are constantly being created. What began with oral communication as the only medium has flourished into a society with several different channels that differ in effectiveness. Marshall McLuhan’s concept that the medium is the message has highly influenced the ideas contained in Adler and Rodman, which discuss one of the most important elements of the linear model of communication. Adler and Rodman state that one of the most important elements of communication is the channel, or method by which the message is conveyed (14). Evidently, Marshall McLuhan would undoubtedly agree; however, this is highly different than the idea put forth by Norman Fairclough, who places emphasis on language, and the message itself, rather than the medium, through which it is communicated. Furthermore, Fairclough also discusses the idea that language is what exerts power over people. This view clashes with the ideas presented in Adler and Rodman, as well as with McLuhan, who would disagree with this notion. All of these concepts are interconnected through discussion of the medium and the message and differ in the belief of whether or not the medium truly is the message.
Adler and Rodman state that the channel chosen can make a big difference in the effect of the message (14). For instance, a letter which is typewritten has a different effect than if it were to be handwritten`` (Adler and Rodman 14). ``Likewise, ending a relationship by leaving a message on an answering machine would make a very different statement than delivering the bad news in person`` (Adler and Rodman, p.14). It is evident that McLuhan would agree with the ideas discussed because of his belief that the medium is the message. Adler and Rodman state that e-mail and instant messaging convey the lowest amount of information (15), and it is obvious that McLuhan would concur with this idea because he believes that ``it is the medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action`` (McLuhan 235). This means that it is not content itself which is important, or truly expresses the idea being put forward. It is the way which the content is being presented that is truly important, and influences the message. The medium chosen could potentially change the entire message. Adler and Rodman would agree that it is not the content that is important but the channel selected, because of the influence that it has over the actual content being sent. Since Fairclough puts emphasis on the content of the language being communicated, rather than the way in which it is communicated, his idea differs immensely.
Fairclough’s ``Critical Language Study`` differs from this idea completely, because its main focus is in language, rather than the medium through which the language is presented. It is no surprise that his analysis of the message would emphasis the role of language rather than the channel through which the content is presented, because of his career as a linguist. He states that one of his purposes in his research is “to help correct a widespread underestimation of the significance of language in the production, maintenance, and change of social relations of power`` (Fairclough 97). It is evident that Adler and Rodman`s idea of the channel is highly influenced by McLuhan, however, Fairclough’s analysis is completely different. He states that “It is not just that language has become perhaps the primary medium of social control and power, through that is noteworthy enough; language has grown dramatically in terms of the uses it is required to serve, in terms of the range of language varieties, and in terms of the complexity of the language capacities that are expected of the modern citizen`` (Fairclough 98). Through this, he is stating that social control is determined, not only by the language itself, but how it is used and what is said. Although this is an interesting idea, my analysis would conclude that McLuhan would believe this to be untrue because of the idea that the content of the language can be changed through the channel that it is presented. For example, it is unlikely that one has not witnessed a highly emotive advertisement, concerning a missing child. This medium, according to McLuhan is effective and could cause people to act due more so the medium chosen to convey the message. A TV advertisement is a more effective means of conveying a message because it allows the message to be more personal. The same message could be sent out in an email, which according to Adler and Rodman, has the lowest amount of information conveyed (15). The exact same language could be used, but this would not have the same influence over people to act because the medium is different. Email lacks authenticity and is impersonal. Confrontation with a person on TV or even a person is much more personal and sends the message that the content is important, therefore, through this example, it is clear that the medium does control the message. This is not the only instance through which the medium presides over the language being used.
The second, important difference discussed in the readings involves power and leadership. In Understanding Human Communication, Adler and Rodman state that a handwritten or typed message is an effective medium for detailed messages, and it is justified to conclude that McLuhan would agree (15). He states that Napoleon understood the effectiveness of the means of communication, and therefore stats that “three hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets” (McLuhan 238). This is to say that a newspaper, or more abstractly, print, is a medium which can reach a large audience, versus bayonets in a war, which do not involve nearly as many citizens. The information in newspapers is more widely dispersed and can become more readily available. Since a multitude of individuals have access to this information, therefore, will read it, this sends the idea the medium is an important channel of communication, and therefore, makes the audience curious to read the message. This can have a great influence in the power or influence that an individual has over a society. An example of this is seen through Martin Luther’s 95 theses, posted on the church doors in Wittenberg. These ideas, dispersed throughout Germany served as a catalyst for the Protestant Reformation and made Luther a leader during this time. This is a reflection of the effectiveness of print as a medium to exert power over a group. This directly clashes with Normal Fairclough because of his belief that contributes to the domination of some people by others (Fairclough 98).
One cannot deny the importance of the role of language in exercising power over other people. This is demonstrated through speakers like Hitler, and Stalin. Fairclough would argue that since they were effective communicators, their choice of language influenced their power and persuaded others to become followers; however, it is my belief that McLuhan would argue that it is not the language which exerts power over people, but the medium through which the information is conveyed that is important. He states that “this fact merely underlines the point that the medium is the message, because it is the medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action`` (McLuhan 235).”This is to say that it is the medium influences the level of leadership which one can have over others. In a study done, an apparently legitimate speaker was to make a speech that would be judged by an audience of psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers (Adler and Rodman 91). Questionnaires filled out by the audience proved that the audience believed the speech to be clear and stimulating, when in reality, the speaker was a fraud. (Adler and Rodman 93). One can conclude that that the medium through which the message was sent had a great influence on the audience`s belief because the same message would have a different outcome, proving the speaker to be untrustworthy, and would not have the same influence, if presented through a different medium. For instance, if a highly, effective speaker were to email a speech out to an audience, rather than present it, it would not have the same influence. Therefore, in considering McLuhan`s idea that the medium can control human action, it is not the language through which the leader is using to address his audience that gets their attention, but simply the fact alone, that he or she has the ability to communicate with them through that, particular medium which makes it effective.
In the end, the idea that the medium is the message is an extremely important one in the study of communication. Since language is arbitrary, one can utilize the channel through which that language is being conveyed, to understand the content of the message, or even extract more information from the content itself. The ideas of Adler, Rodman, and McLuhan differ fundamentally than that of Normal Fairclough, who states that language is important in conveying messages, as well as in attempting to dominate society through manipulating people for a strategic purpose (110). Through the evidence provided, it is clear that the content of a message is not necessarily important. The channel through which it is provided is the clearest message, therefore, the next time one plans on sending an important message, it is imperative to consider the channel through which it is being sent. “Many people would be disposed to say that it was not the machine, but what one did with the machine, that was its meaning or message`` (McLuhan 235).



Works Cited
Adler, Ronald B., George Rodman, and Alexandre Sevigny. Understanding Human Communication. Don Mills: Oxford UP, 1946. 1-561.c
Fairclough, Norman. "Introduction: Critical Language Study." Introduction to Communication.
Comp. Alexandre Sevigny. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall Hunt Company, 2005. 97-242+.
McLuhan, Marshall. "Introduction: Critical Language Study." Introduction to Communication.
Comp. Alexandre Sevigny. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall Hunt Company, 2005. 97-242+.

All Good Things Must Come to an End.

As my last entry, I'm kind of ashamed at picking Perez Hilton over the other two articles, which actually have some substance, but really, who can say no to entertainment news? It's actually rather unfortunate how obsessed we are with gossip and scandal about people who should mean nothing to our lives, but it’s impossible to deny how much interest we have in theirs.

First of all, I'd like to make a note about the whole layout of Perez's blog site. Obviously, everyone has heard about Perez Hilton; however, what is going on with his blog site? With all the hype, you would think that he would make it a little more professional, and more nicely laid out, but it's something that looks like it came out of a grade 9, multimedia class. It's pretty unprofessional and the random adds don't make it any less distracting, but I figure when your primary goal is to simply hate on people, why worry about minor details?

Let's get to the content. Overall, I personally think Perez Hilton is absolutely hilarious. He may be borderline offensive, but he simply tells it like it is, which is what I appreciate about his ranting. I can understand why people might find him offensive, but I think it's simply because they're so worried about what's "politically correct," and so used to beating around the bush that they've forgotten how to stomach things that are real. He says what's on everyone’s mind, without fear of people disliking him or criticizing him, and that's a lesson we all need to learn.

It's impossible to comment on every, single entry on Perez's blog-blogging about a blog-ha- so I decided there were three that sparked the most interest

(1) Britney Spears

Britney Spears seems like a regular target for Perez, but that's only because she makes it so easy. I can't say it came as a shock though. It's human nature to want to bring down people in high places from their pedestals, but I can honestly say that it makes me sad. After the whole Justin Timberlake break up, it all went down from there. A quickie marriage in Vegas-alright, not a big deal, but marrying a loser like Kevin Feder;ine? Please. Rule #1 in the marriage rulebook is NEVER marry someone that's on your payroll. BIG mistake. Mistake number 2: having his childREN; no, not one, but two of his kids. Everything else is simply a minor detail-like shaving her head, almost dropping her babies several times, the bizarre performance at the VMA's. Individually, all of these minor details aren't necessarily career threatening, but together, they're all just a weird blend of things that just make her seem crazy. I have always been a fan of Britney Spears-I was one of the first that bought the Baby! One More Time album, and had the posters, etc., and it saddens me to see where she is now, but she simply brought it upon herself. I can only guess how hard life can be with paparazzi and people wondering what you're doing, and where you are all the time, but it's times like those where you just need to buck up, and be a little bit stronger. You can't let those things break you down, your kids will see what happened to you twenty years from now and imagine what they'll say. All of this could have been avoided, but it seems like she just egged it on. Publicity? or she's just gone plain crazy? It's hard to tell, but the moral of the story kids? Don't cheat on Justin Timberlake.

(2) Lourdes

Now this is easily the most offensive thing in Perez's website, but no one can deny that they were thinking it:

VS

People have mixed feelings about this one. I read all the comments and half the time, people were writing about how offensive this is, and how Perez has gone too far, and the other half was commenting on how Perez is right, and wondering what Madonna is doing. I sit in the middle. Yes, Madonna's daughter Lourdes is just a child, and Perez shouldn't really be taking hits at someone so young and vulnerable, but an we please be realistic here? We are a society that's obsessed with appearance, and if she's going to grow up in a society like that, Madonna should make sure her daughter is prepared for that. Let's face it, kids are cruel. They aren't going to see her on the playground and think "yeah, she's too young, a few more years." They are going to torment the poor child and it's just going to embarrass her. Trust me-I'm a victim myself. My mother waited far too long, and when I look back on it now, I think about how ridiculous the whole thing was, but at the time, kids found anything and everything to use against you. It shouldn't be made into such a big deal, but Madonna, please do your poor daughter a favour.

(3) Kanye

Of all the things I could have chosen, I chose Kanye West crying for his mother during his Paris show. Why? Because it's probably the only youtube video I've ever seen that could send chills up my spine. As a big fan of Kanye West, I have a lot of respect for him for even being able to continue his tour with his mother passing away. And it only made me angry to see comments on Perez's website that called him a coward or a pansy for two reasons. One, because I adore Kanye West-he's one of the few rappers in the world that actually has something intelligent to say, and not only that, but he makes kick-ass music, and two, because NO ONE is a coward for crying over the loss of their mother. I don't care who you are; male, female, famous or not, the loss of a mother is probably the most difficult thing in the world to endure. I have a really close bond with my mom, and I know that when she passes, I'm not sure what I'll do for myself. I respected the fans on Paris for being so supportive and friendly over the whole situation and I'm just glad the Perez added this video and had enough respect not to say anything about it, because that just would have been going too far beyond the line.

R.I.P Donda West

With all of that being said, as my final blog entry, I feel as though its necessary to finish this off with a cheesy cliché.

All good things must come to an end and this is ours.

Goodbye blog.

Say No to Capital Punishment

Capital punishment is one of those debates similar to abortion, and religion. Everyone who is for or against is extremely hard headed, and it just ends up getting people angry and nowhere. Well, that's how all of my debates have gone anyway. Stephane Dion pulling out the capital punishment card was a pretty genius political move for that specific reason-because so many people feel strongly about it. If a government was planning on bringing it back, it could change thousands of votes in about a second. It's similar to abortion in that it's a really touchy subject; however, it differs because legalizing abortion would mean that people would get a choice, to abort or not, but restoring the death penalty would revoke the choice, and the ability to have ones life back again, if life imprisonment was the case. It would simply mean life or death. And I'm not sure people are ready for that.

The death penalty is a debate I've had with everyone, and it truly hasn't gotten anywhere. There are obviously arguments for and against that we've all heard. Some of them include:

For
-"an eye for an eye" policy
-deters criminals

Against
-killing an innocent man
-the idea of rehabilitating

These are pretty general, and essentially the main arguments, all of which are legitimate, however, as someone who has seen about several thousand presentations on both positions of capital punishment, and written several papers on the pros and cons, I would have to say that I’m most definitely against, and I don’t know how many people that aren’t, therefore, if the majority of people are against it, wouldn’t it be a genius political move to try and prove that an opposition party is rallying for it? Absolutely.

There are just ultimately more cons than pros in this argument. “Revenge” and “justice” just don’t necessarily seem like valid reasons to potentially take an innocent persons life, and although people who have lost loved ones to homicide would indefinitely disagree with me, the rational thing to do would be to imprison those people who do wrong. There have been too many cases of innocent people being imprisoned for dozens of years, only to be found innocent. Is that really fair? How would you feel if you were in prison for practically your whole life for something you didn’t do? I know I wouldn’t be a happy camper. Furthermore, prisons, especially in the state and Canada are worse than death sometimes. They’re grungy and dirty and besides- being locked in a square cell with nothing to do? Some of us would rather die than have to live like that.

It’s not even the prisoners that suffer when capital punishment is brought into play. It’s the families and the people who knew the criminals. I know that as a society, we tend to shut out murders and rapists, but sometimes it’s a serious, psychological problem, and even so, we may tend to look at them like animals, but they have families and friends still, and people that care about them, therefore, why let them off while making their families suffer? Does that sound like justice? I didn’t think so either.

I haven’t exactly been following politics all that much, so I’m not even certain of Dion’s claim is valid, or it’s just a cheap shot at the Conservatives, but I do know two things.

Stephane Dion is a genius. And if the Conservatives are really planning on legalizing the death penalty again, we can safely expect them not to be re-elected any time soon.

CCA 4

CCA#4

One night, your wife asks, “Do I look fat in this?” You are not about to tell her that you think it is extremely unflattering. You reply, “No, you look wonderful.” Everyone, including the people gawking, knows you are lying, but you merely do not have the heart to tell her the truth. She does not notice the stares, and you have a lovely evening together. Is it ever right to lie? In circumstances like this, when truths are not malicious, and one can avoid complicating a social relationship, deception is sometimes an essential part of the order of the social world (Adler 241). This is an important concept to apply to everyday life, and one which I practice regularly.

Recently my mother, in a frantic rage, asked if I knew where her hair dryer was. I had lent it to my cousin, but I knew that if I told her, being caught up in her rage, she would have been malicious. I told her I did not know where it went, and waited until the next morning, when she was calm and well-rested, to tell her the truth. She told me that it was fine, and I knew I made the best decision. This may seem deceitful, but white lies, to spare unnecessary tension in relationships, should be justified. Obviously, there are several circumstances in which a lie is not defensible and one should understand that this line should never be crossed.

Conversely, I could have never told my mother where her hair dryer went. If my cousin returned it and informed her that I lent it out, the consequences could have been worse than if I had told the truth. This could have resulted in complicating our relationship, and her not trusting me; therefore, it is important to consider when it is right to lie and when it is not.

In the end, one should understand that sometimes dishonesty is necessary, but that there is a line which should not be crossed. Keeping this in mind, the next time you open your mouth to tell the truth, really ask yourself, should I be telling the truth right now or is it right to lie?

CCA 3

CCA#3

To Gustav Lebon, the term crowd is much more complex than “a group of people.” In “General Characteristics of Crowds,” he prescribes a number of criteria for a group of people to be considered a crowd. One of the conclusions he comes to, is that a crowd is as easily heroic as criminal (Lebon 121). There are several examples of both heroic and criminal crowds in society’s history.

Firstly, Betty Williams, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient became an activist against the political turmoil in Ireland. She created a petition for peace, and organized marches of several thousand people. The first march was disrupted by protestors, yet, despite this, without fear, the second was still organized. This crowd congregated for a specific cause, and it brought awareness to the idea of peace and the consequences of war, which was essentially the goal that Williams was trying to achieve. This is a clear example of a heroic crowd but, a positive outcome is not always the case (Lebon 121).

Conversely, there are crowds which gather for a noble cause, yet easily turn criminal. An example of this is inspired by the Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad, which served as a catalyst for many protests that turned violent. It was not long before this crowd, which gathered to show their dismay of the cartoons, turned violent and caused many deaths. This is a demonstration of how easily a crowd can have moral intentions, but turn criminal in the end.
These are only two of the many contrasting examples of the outcome of a crowd in our society. It is important to consider that the crowd can easily go either way, and you must remember, that the next time you agree to be part of a crowd, be sure to be prepared for what you have signed up for.

There's a Reason it's Called "Gossip GIRL."

TEEN STAR ZAC EFRON REPORTS FAVORITE CARTOON AS "ROCCO'S MODERN LIFE!"

...No wonder all celebrity headlines star women. Would you pay $3+ to read about Zac Efron's cartoon suggestions? Didn't think so...and neither would I.

As a big magazine consumer myself, I know what sold me and what didn't. Human nature forces us to be interested in scandal, and see or read about people during times of distress, whether that be for the sole purpose of amusement or to be able to say "I'm glad that's not me." As harsh as that sounds, it's only true. There are the rare occasions where celebrities have babies or get married, and people like to read about that in celebration, but do they sell half as well as magazines starring gossip and scandal? It's very doubtful.

So why is the world so infatuated with women in distress and not men?
When was the last time you looked at an article about a womanizing man or a man doing drugs and thought "I HAVE TO HAVE THAT?"
If you're a female reading this, you probably just said "rarely." And if you're a male reading this, then you probably just said "never, but that doesn't normally happen with magazines featuring women either," which is exactly the point. It's the main point in this whole "why aren't men the targets of gossip?" debacle.

How many men buy magazines about gossip or whose doing what drug or what rehab centre so and so is in? Furthermore, how many males even buy magazines period? I'm sure there are those rare cases of the males trying to bulk up and are obsessed with the "quick tips to bulk up" in Muscle and Fitness or let's face it-porn, but truly, what's the ratio between females and males buying magazines? I'd have to say it must be a huge gap. Not only because females are just more likely to want to be socially inclined to the entertainment world, but also because it’s no secret that women tend to pamper themselves more than their male counterparts-and that means buying unnecessary, useless things. I know there are not many women that can say they don’t enjoy a nice bubble bath, with candles and a Cosmo. Women love luxury and a magazine is not the most practical purchase in the world.

This is obviously a double standard in the media. And I am most definitely all for women’s power, and equality amongst the sexes, but this is one of those double standards, in my opinion, that is acceptable. If the tabloids were smart, which it seems as though they are, they would continue to do what they’re doing. The magazine industry is a billion dollar industry, and I am certain that if they started to broaden their scope and create more of a 50/50 standpoint on entertainment news, their sales would most definitely go down.

The bottom line is that women love gossip. They love hearing about women that seem more glamorous than them, and that their husbands and boyfriends fantasizes about, in misery. There's even a new show out called "Gossip Girl," which evidently targets them. Females also love magazines about gorgeous men, and how hot they are, but there are only so man hot men in the world, and there are also only so many times a magazine can print in issue like that and expect to sell it. And as for males, the most they’ll do is read is skim the magazine on the coffee table while their wives or girlfriends are taking forever go to get ready. So why not continue to print magazines that contain exactly the kinds things your target audience likes to read?

In Attack of Herouxville

"In Defence of Herouxville"' sheds the small town in Quebec in a different light. The article praises it for essentially its foot down against allowing such a strong sense of multiculturalism. It goes on to ask the question “how far should we go to accommodate immigrants?” And finally, it basically states that the citizens of Herouxville are smarter than the rest of us.

This is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever read. It is old news that Quebec has always thought of itself as being independent from the rest of Canada. The 1995 referendum in is evidence of this, but how can one agree that Herouxville- one of the most intolerant cities in arguably all of the world justified or smarter than the rest of us? Canada is a country known for its tolerance and allowing people to come in with open arms. Herouxville just shoots that notion to hell.

Canada has never truly had an identity. Before it became independent from Britain in 1867, it was simply known as a colony of the UK, and after that, it still didn’t establish an identity at all.t all. After its campaign to promote immigration in the early 1900’s is when Canada began to start to have an identity defined by multiculturalism. It is known as the mosaic, thus, how can an educated person ask how far we should go to accommodate immigrants when the foundation of its identity is built upon immigrants? This is the only way we differentiate ourselves from the the melting pot-the Americans-by not forcing citizens to assimilate to one prototype. Canada is a country which was developed upon by immigrants, people from other countries, and yet, author Johnathan Kay can still call Herouxville moral? Blasphemy

The 14 page submission has absolutely absurd requests. And continues to call Quebec a separate entity. It is not, and the citizens of Quebec need a sincere reality check. Quebec has always been an nonconformist though. It’s already pretty intolerant of English. It should be obvious that going to Quebec only knowing English is probably a bad idea, but Quebec, for the most part hates everyone-Anglophones, Francophones from Paris and Herouxville is evidence that it dislikes everyone else.

Now I’m not saying that Canada, or any province or city within Canada should bend over backwards to meet the needs of their citizens. There are certain boundaries which need to be created and certain lines that needn’t be crossed. For instance, Canada has two official languages, one of which is necessary for survival in Canada, and ESl and FSL programs cater to that. Furthermore, when it comes to safety versus religions or different cultures, safety is always the priority, like the case of the student with the Kirpan, but not being able to wear a Hajab, or for speaking French to be mandatory, etc, it is truly unreasonable to expect. To ask those things from citizens is absolutely ridiculous and to promote a “follow our rules or hit the road” policy is even more absurd.

What’s even more interesting is the the authour of the article was born in Montreal and graduated from Mcgill. I doubt this is any coincidence. I think it all just comes down to the fact that as harsh as it is to generalize; most people from Quebec are snobby, “think we’re better than everyone” separatists, and are just starting to become a burden on the rest of Canada if they’re going to enforce rules like those of Herouxville and expect people to follow them. In the end they need to realize that they aren’t a separate country, or even a separate state. They are a part of Canada, and need to act in accordance of this fact.

...Down with Herouxville? Down with Quebec?

Into Africa; China's manipulative role in Darfur

It is no surprise that China is an up-and-coming superpower. The progress that it has made in the last 20 year has far surpassed the progress that some countries have made in their entire history. "Into Africa" was simply a weak attempt by the CBC at calling China a manipulative country, using its "diplomatic efforts" as well-planned intelligent political and economic moves.

The whole article goes on about the marriage between China and Africa and how Africa will soon become incredibly important to China. All of this is nice and dandy, however, it fails to mention what the most important relationship between the two countries is. It hints at the situation in Sudan, but what exactly is going on there? A little thing I like to call The Next Rwanda.

We all knows that there is murder going on in Darfur, yet everyone is hiding behind the term "genocide," or what has been referred to as "acts of genocide." The Genocide Convention essentially states that until someone officially refers to it as a "genocide," it should not be treated as such, yet...when is someone going to step up to the plate? When is enough enough?

The story is basically this: the government in Sudan, situated in the capital of the country, Khartoum has hired several militia men on horses called the Janjaweed. Why? To kill innocent citizens as result of the accusations that the government has been suppressing non-Arabs. Who is doing something about it? No one. Wouldn't you think that after Rwanda, the UN would learn its lesson and be the first to do something about the genocide going on in Darfur?

...Here's where China gets involved.

The UN Security Council is a group of 5, permanent countries which are charged with maintaining international peace and security. It has been around since its first session in London in 1946. The 5 members, in making all of these decisions have a special power called the veto. What this means is that Article 27 of the UN Charter states that all decisions require affirmative votes of these five members, and without it, the UN cannot proceed with any of its proposals. Who is involved in this security council?

France
Russia
UK
United States
China

What does this mean?
China, the country with the rapidly growing economy has been using its veto so that nothing will be done in by the UN in Darfur.

The article mentions that 62% of exports to China from Africa from 1999-2004 were OIL. With precious oil wells discovered in Sudan, by China, why would it want to risk the destruction of these wells in order to simply save thousands of innocent lives in Africa? I have to ask the harsh question on every one’s mind; who really cares about Africa?

Knowing all of this and understanding Chinas shameful role in Darfur only leads me to the conclude that the entire article written about the relations between China and Africa was neither harsh, nor controversial, and not even close to the truth about the underhanded situation involving China.

The article leaves the reader with this:
So, China's honeymoon of investment in Africa may be coming to a close as the Chinese discover that economic relations cannot be dissociated from diplomacy or good corporate behaviour.

If I were to have written the article it would have read something like this:
So, China's honeymoon of investment in Africa may be coming to a close as the world discovers that China is a manipulative, underhanded country whose "diplomatic efforts" should not be confused with its true motives; self-interest and economic growth.

CCA 1 & 2

CCA#1

Our self-concept shapes how we communicate with others in the present, and can also influence our behaviour in the future (61). This idea, known as the self fulfilling prophecy can occur when the expectations of one person govern another’s actions (63). In my personal experience, the self fulfilling prophecy is most prevalent in a family setting that consists of more than one child, and can be either a negative or positive catalyst for the behaviour of children. For example, my family is comprised of two children; my brother and me, who fit on opposite ends of the spectrum. Everything that he does is picked apart and scrutinized, which according to the self fulfilling prophecy, explains all of his negative behaviour. Throughout his life, he has never been a strong academic student, has gotten his license suspended as a result of drunk driving, and has deceived my parents into thinking he was attending university, when in actuality; he wasn’t. These examples come as a result of the constant scorn he faces from my father telling him that he has never been good enough, and that he will not becoming anything in life. Conversely, my parents have always supported me, and told me that I am capable of doing anything. As a result, I have succeeded in most things I have attempted. For instance, I have always been a stronger academic student than my brother. There is tangible evidence of this in our report cards, as well as in our parent-teacher interviews. My parents have always been disappointed after hearing about my brothers progress, yet they have always been content and proud with mine. These examples are evidence that the self fulfilling prophecy is crucial to understand and consider in one’s family, because it can be the determining factor in a child’s behaviour. This is important to remember when your child or future child comes home with a bad report card. You must sincerely consider exactly how you react; it could mean success or failure in your child’s future.

CCA#2

Perception and culture are two ideas which are so inherently intertwined, that we tend to forget that the former is so powerfully shaped by the latter (116). Every country is shaped by one of the two types; high or low context (117). In my experience, the United States is one of the lowest context cultures, and its media does not attempt to portray it in any other manner. There are several examples of the ‘what you see is what you get’ principle when we look at the American media. Firstly, in response to the delayed reaction of the U.S. government during Hurricane Katrina, rapper Kanye West, stated “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.” Instead of sending his message in “politically correct” fashion. West directly attacked the president, ignoring the ramifications that could have come as a result of speaking his mind so directly. Due to the fact that the U.S. is low context, there are several of these kinds of guileless examples seen in the media. Similarly, Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks stated that she was ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas. Both statements openly attack the highest governmental figure in the country; a trait which would only be tolerable in a low context culture. They are direct, verbal statements which send a clear message. In one of its high context counterparts, like South Korea, these controversial statements would be seen as rude and disrespectful. They would not be promoted in the media, nor would they even be thought of because Eastern cultures promote the idea of social harmony. The difference in volume of these countries is one of the reasons it is so difficult for citizens in different cultures to adapt to living in other countries. Whether a low or high context culture is more beneficial in communicating can be left up to you to decide, but it is impossible to deny that problems within a country, specifically for George Bush can be partially attributed to said volume.

Adler, Ronald B., George Rodman, and Alexandre Sevigny. Understanding Human Communication. Don Mills: Oxford UP, 2008. 61-117.

I Now Present Mr. and Mrs. Prime

The day has finally come. The day you’ve been waiting for your whole life. Everything’s perfect; your dress is ironed out perfectly and stainless. Your hair and makeup are done flawlessly and you’ve even refrained from crying so that your mascara won’t run. You stand there, looking at your smiling father who’s trying not to cry; he doesn’t want to let his little girl go. Your hearts beating faster than it ever has and the priest begins. “Do you _____ ______ take R2D2 to be your lawfully wedded husband?”

Wait. What?

No, according to David Levy, the AI researcher at the University of Maastricht, this isn’t just a nightmare you want to wake up from. To him ” "It may sound a little weird, but it isn't," Levy said. "Love and sex with robots are inevitable." And that includes marriage.

The real question I'm having problems with in regards to the article “Sex and marriage with robots? It could happen," is whether or not I am truly supposed to take it seriously. In all honesty, instead of a serious, informative article based on valuable research, it seems like a satirical piece of writing, created to poke fun at society. What have we come to as a society, when we have to use artificially developed machines in order to provide those deprived individuals with intimacy?

After skimming through the article for first time, I forced everyone I know to read this quote:

"My forecast is that around 2050, the state of Massachusetts will be the first jurisdiction to legalize marriages with robots," artificial intelligence researcher David Levy at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands told LiveScience.

If this isn’t one of the most ridiculous things you’ve ever read, I’m forced to question the things that you read. It’s unbelievable that in a society, struggling with issues such as same sex marriages, and even where interracial relationships are ‘frowned upon,’ it is thought that marriage with robots will be seen as a “norm.” What is society coming to when an absolutely ludicrous idea like this will be allowed? At first, it may seem like a funny and even interesting thought, but when taking an idea like this seriously and actually thinking about the repercussions of allowing people to marry robots, it just gives me a solemn, scared feeling.

In dealing with an issue like this, it’s important to consider the root of the cause; where exactly did an idea like this even come from? What compelled someone to consider creating a business like this? After fighting with myself over this question, and thinking that “people a insane” was not the reason, I’ve come up with a pretty simple hypothesis:

Human beings are lazy. (and perhaps a little bit insane)

At face value, this is something which is certainly obvious, but I feel like this is turning into a problem of epic proportions. It’s obvious that our society is a lazy one, but if it’s come to a point where we are so obsessed with efficiency, and it has become too much of an inconvenience to “look for love, how can we not sit back and consider the fact that we may have a serious problem on our hands? We’ve all had our share of bad relationships, and yes, they are difficult, emotionally, and financially strenuous, however, I’m hoping I’m not the only one that would never, even for a second, consider marrying a robot. There are just too many reasons that make this a ridiculous notion; for one, the social repercussions. Not that it really matters, but what would others say if I rolled up to my fancy, office party and introduced everyone to my loving husband, Optimus Prime? Secondly, I wonder what my parents would have to deal with if I sent out wedding invitations to their closest friends which stated:

On ________, you are cordially invited to the wedding of Rose Sharifi and Voltron

There are too many questions when it comes to the idea of robot marriage to even consider it as a realistic idea. How is David Levy going to tackle the physical aspects of a robot? How are the robots going to have the warmth of human beings? What are they going to feel like? When I think of robot, I think “big, cold, metal, box.” I’m not sure more than... 2 in 6 billion people would find a spouse like this appealing, because I know I sure as hell don’t. There is also the financial aspect which would be a problem in marrying a robot. I’m not sure one could depend on their robot spouse to be a breadwinner of the family. There’s another idea; family. There’s not only the issue of raising a family, but how is one supposed to even have children with a robot spouse? Does sex with a metal box even sound pleasant or even realistic?

I’m sure you agree that I don’t think robot marriage is realistic, but I haven’t even talked about the fact that it’s just plain..sad. I just feel like it’s a pathetic notion to have to get married to a robot. Yes, there are individuals that are self conscious and think that they are ugly or not good enough, but no one has to stoop to the level of marrying something so artificial. Isn’t it more psychologically damaging to marry something that you know is programmed to love you than not have love at all?

In the end, instead of an intriguing idea that could help poor, lonely individuals in the world, this just seems like a scary idea from a sci-fi novel gone wrong. A sci-fi novel that no one should ever consider reading...

...What Referendum?

Can we honestly say it was truly shocking that the referendum didn't pass? As someone who learned about the details approximately two days before the election on a pamphlet that was thrown on my dining table, I'm going to have to respond with a no.

As the article states, there was most definitely not enough information provided to citizens about the referendum. People have a hard enough time trying to keep up with the elections and candidates themselves; not making it clear what this referendum was about just had them not caring. As a poli sci major, I should understand Canadian politics down to a t, but the truth of the matter is that I don't... and I'm sure many Canadians are in the same boat. From what I understood, the referendum was essentially a way of trying to make a complicated system more complicated, and who would really go for that? More important, why would anyone if they don't even know what they'd be going for?

Unlike the 1995 Quebec referendum which most of the population probably knew about and understood, the most that one could have expected for this one is that it had to do with a change in the electoral system, but not even many knew that. Furthermore, in the 1995 Quebec referendum, a budget of $5 million was set for EACH committee. How much was spent for this years referendum? 6.8 million. And what was one of the primary sources of information that was sent out?

...Leaflets through the mail:

There are too many things wrong this scene. It seems like the government simply got lazy in providing information that could have been vital to the MPP electoral system. It could have gone either way if people actually knew what they were voting for, but with the poor campaigning, how could they? Prior to the election, the information I learned about the referendum was through a pathetically laid out commercial that had the words "referendum" in it and a pamphlet I happened to pick up while sitting at my dining table. Even then, the information on it was still confusing. Not that I’m saying I’m the most intelligent person when it comes to Canadian politics, but I do have a decent grasp on it. It was hard enough fully understand the change, let alone understand why there was a need for one.

It doesn’t seem hard to pinpoint why there is so much political apathy occurring in Canada today. With the unfortunate 52.6% of eligible voters that cast a ballot, let’s face it... people are lazy, and in a society like ours, if it’s not on the radio or the t.v., most people aren’t going to know about it. As harsh as it seems, it’s one of my most sincere beliefs. Only those who really care about the cause are going to go out of their way to find out about the election and what’s going on in politics, and by going out of their way, in our society, that just means going as far to do some research, and ask some questions. If it’s not clearly laid out for people, they’re just not going to pay attention or care. The Canadian government needs to really step up its game when it comes to letting citizens know about these things and ensuring that all the information is being provided in a clear way. Also unlike the Quebec referendum in 1995, it’s clear that 12 years from now, Canadians aren’t going to remember what the referendum was about. Instead of asking what it was about, it’s more likely that one will ask

...what referendum?

Whither Marriage? Who Cares?

Out of all the articles that I've had to read/viewed, this week was most definitely the most disappointing. Essentially all I got out of it was that marriage rates are declining at a semi-rapid pace...

but who really cares?

By discussing this fact in a 10 minute segment, it might seem as though this issue is shocking and important, but to me, what real difference does it make that people aren't getting married? Being single is no longer taboo in this day and age. It's not really as if people in the 1980's or before truly had a choice. I may seem anti-marriage, which is ironic, being someone who is described as the 'eternal optomist' , but I feel like this particular topic is more so directed at the traditional folk, who think that getting married, and having children, is the be all and end all in a 'normal life.'

The two guests had contrasting views, which was important, because it compelled me to actually pay attention. Whereas I understand the younger, Anne Marie McQueen and her more modern views, I completely disagreed with Barbara Kay, the elder guest who seemed to have a very traditionalist point of view on everything that had to do with marriage and having kids. Call me contemporary, but I found most of what she said ridiculous, I could even go as far as to say it was pretty much blasphemy. Firstly, she stated that we, as a society are drying up, and that by not wanting to have more children, one isn't thinking about the future, only the present. What does that even mean, "thinking about the present?" She makes it seem like people hundreds of years ago, and in less developed societies were thinking about the future when they were having 8 and 9 kids, but look at our society now. We are a world that is overpopulated and undereducated. Our population now of 6,602,224,175 has done more damage to the universe than any other generation. We have polluted, destroyed, and left an irreversible mark on the world. If Barbara Kay is implying that bringing more children into the world is the key to a better future...
it's not.
We should really be focusing more on what we can do now, in the present to improve the conditions today. If this was the mindset of people before the industrial revolution, we might not be in such a difficult position right now. I'm not saying that "forward-looking" is something we shouldn't do, because face it, it's important to consider the consequences of our actions, but if by looking into the future, we are ignoring what we are doing right now, we are clearly at fault.

She went on to say that marriage produces more stable families, and that marriage implies a commitment that common- law does not. This point I agree with to some extent. As cliché as it may sound, marriage is generally something that people engage in to prove their love and devotion to each other, thus, they're essentially trying their best to prove their loyalty to each other, through thick and thin. Common-law marriage seems like an "easy-out," where you're not legally bound to each other; it's kind of a lifelong boyfriend thing. However, I disagree that marriage guarantees stability, or success in a family, which is what it seems like Barbara was trying to imply. Not all marriages produce happy, healthy children, and there are obviously instances in which common-law marriages are more successful than "real marriages." Statistics may tell me otherwise, but personally, I don't think that the stability of one's family is based on whether or not they have signed a piece of paper which legally binds them to each other. Different cases produce different results, therefore, I think saying that married couples are happier, and more stable than common-law marriages, was an ignorant, over-generalization.

Finally, she stated that "self awareness implies selfish and that true happiness is taking responsibility, moving out of your parents home, is starting your family. It makes the most of your potential and your energies. Happiness is hard work." I may have been the only one who laughed at this part of the segment, but that's one of the oldest fashioned statements I've ever heard. Yes, most of us should come to an age where taking responsibility for things does make us happy, but happiness SHOULD NOT be hard work. Perhaps she is a really selfless individual, or maybe I'm very selfish, but I don't think that giving up your 'freedom' is a selfish thing to do. I'm someone that's very career-driven, and I plan on having one child to do my duty to the world, and that's it. Yes, I believe that we must make sacrifices in life and that family and children are important, but it's a really traditional opinion to believe that we all must have families, and children, and live happily ever after. It probably does sound like a ridiculous notion to most people, but maybe some people are happy living in their parents’ homes for the rest of their lives. In some Eastern cultures, sons are supposed to live with their parents for the rest of their lives. Our lives don’t have to be about other people. We obviously shouldn’t be the only people we care about in our lives, but the people that we do care about don’t have to be our husbands, or wives, and children. We can love our friends, our parents, our siblings, etc. And calling it selfish to not want to have children or a “traditional” family is absolutely ludicrous; it’s not the only option.

In summary, I think that this article was merely a clash of generations. I guess my disinterest in it shows that my generation is apathetic for marriage; declining marriage rates is not an issue that’s really important, and having someone who ir probably 40 years my senior telling me that marriage and a family are important is not going to have me thinking otherwise. Life has started to become about more than just that. In the 21^st century, we have the opportunity to essentially do anything we want to, and this is especially important for females. I believe we have just begun to explore the world, and have opportunities which weren’t available to us before. Even our roles in marriage are evolving, and we’re simply coming to an ange where marriage doesn’t have to be an option; marriage does not equal success. Essentially, what I’m trying to get at is that being single feels damn good.

Kyoto: "socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations"- Harper

When our beloved Prime Minister Stephen Harper, essentially opted out of the Kyoto Protocol which was ratified by Canada in 2002, it couldn't have come as a big surprise. Can anyone really blame him? I mean, he is a politician; lying, cheating, and being deceitful is what politicians get paid to do. What other options did he truly have? With Canada currently being approximately 30% over our target emissions, what else could he have done but sign onto the Asia-Pacific Partnership or the 'anti-Kyoto partnership' as some like to call it?

To understand the entire situation, it's important to lay out the facts about Kyoto vs. Asia Pacific

Canada in Kyoto
-An agreement to limit the exposure of GHG's (greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere in the battle against global warming (climate change)

-Canada ratified Kyoto December, 2002
-The agreement was that Canada would cut GHG emissions by 6% from the 1990 levels by 2012 (563 megatonnes/year)

Canada in Asia-Pacific

-An agreement for the same objectives
-Includes the 6 biggest contributors to GHG's in the world (almost half), including two countries that hadn't ratified Kyoto; Australia, USA, China, India, Japan, Korea
-No real targets; all countries set their own emission targets

...What really sounds like the better deal?

The idea of climate change seems to be just another thing that is not being taken seriously by anyone, but everyone should be aware of the Stern Report. It assesses global warming from an economic perspective urges countries at act NOW, before it's too late.

Personally, the Asia-Pacific Partnership sounds like an attempt at being noble over not being able to keep up with Kyoto. It is no surprise that countries like the US, which spew about 24.3% of the world's GHG's into the atmosphere would want to be a part of such a light-hearted deal, but by placing Canada in that same category, it simply seems like another move made by the U.S's 51st date. We've already jumped on the "War on Terror" bandwagon. What's next? Canada's support in the invasion of Iran?

Harper announced that his plan was to cut Canada's emissions by 60-70% by 2050, but does this even sound reasonable for a country that couldn't even cut its emissions by 6% in 16 years? We've heard promises like that before from our Prime Minister before. Does anyone recall the income trust fiasco?

While some are praising Harper, calling him a "bridge builder," I don't think of this as anything more than a desperation move, and a well-planned political move. With less than two weeks to the upcoming election, and the 'going-green' movement becoming an important platform, Harper clearly had some sort of strategy going into this election, but I can hardly call a move like this chivalrous, or smart even. Harper didn't even sincerely mention failing Kyoto targets, thus, instead of trying to sidestep the issue by replacing Kyoto with another agreement, he should have taken responsibility for it, and admitted that this was his only option. But instead, as politicians do, he, very tactfully, announced that there was ""an emerging consensus on the need for a new, effective and flexible climate change framework." In laymen's, "I failed the first time. This is my second attempt."

I don't think anyone appreciates the political mumbo jumbo that Harper continues to dish out, thus, I've decided that until Harper can really pull through with his promises, or admit his shortcomings, I'm ready to join the `Down With Harper' movement this election.

Should your daughter get the HPV vaccine?

The question of whether one's daughter should take the HPV injection is an attempt at simplifying an issue with several, complex dimensions. After reading the array of articles and information available about cervical cancer and the HPV virus, it's difficult for me to determine a solid response to the question, but with all the scepticism that surrounds the matter, would Ireally allow my hypothetical, 10 year old daughter to take a drug, whose effects she wouldn’t understand, and whose consequences, have not been thoroughly tested? Most definitely not. Not yet anyway.

To summarize the facts, according to Merck Frosst, the pharmaceutical company sponsoring the whole ordeal, 1 Canadian woman dies each day of the year from cervical cancer. The injection, known as Gardasil is supposed to prevent 4 of the approximate 200 strains of the Human Papilloma Virus. HPV-16, a target of the injection is found in 50% of all cervical cancer, thus, an injection that suggests the prevention of the second or third most prevalent cancers among women (after breast) seems too good to be true. Is it?

As many of the comments written in response the article stated, it is important to do your own research. I asked myself how reliable Merck Frosst is, and I ended up finding out some interesting information.

Merck introduced a drug called Vioxx, which was prescribed to deal with the pain of arthritis, in 1999. Soon after, in September,2004, Merck voluntarily withdrew it from the market. Why? In that time span, it was linked to 28,000 deaths involving an increased risk of heart attack and other cardiovascular complications. Furthermore, over 80 million people were prescribed the drug, with confidence, yet even the FDA, who fast tracked the licensing of Gardasil didn't have complete confidence in it. Steven Galson, the acting director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation & Research said, "this is not a total surprise," in regards to the withdrawal of Vioxx in late 2004. In 2001, Vioxx was labelled with a warning about heart risks, yet the drug was still licensed by the FDA in less than 4 months. Sound suspicious? It should.

The legitimacy of Merck is also questioned specifically in the state of Texas. In early 2007, Rick Perry, the governor of Texas mandated the vaccination of young girls with the vaccine sold by Merck. Why would this be of any suspicion you ask? What if you knew that a lobbyist of Merck served as the governor's chief of staff? In summary, an advisor to the governor now works for Merck, the drug company that provided funding to the campaign of the governor, who essentially used his despotic power to mandate, without practically any public debate, the mass vaccination of young girls. What does this mean exactly? Beginning in September 2008, Texan girls in the sixth grade will have to receive injections of Gardasil. This means billions in profits for Merck. Actually, to be more specific, at $360-$400 a course, Merck will make an estimated $3.2 billion by 2010.

The issue at hand here is complicated enough without paying too much attention on the Gardasil debacle in the United States, thus, let's focus on the issue here in Canada. The article states that "Over the next few weeks, however, girls in specific grades will be offered the drug for free – with parental consent – in the rest of Ontario, Nova Scotia, PEI and Newfoundland,” but why can other provinces, like BC wait another year? Furthermore, why do parents have only a few days to decide whether or not their daughter should get the vaccine? What is the penalty for taking more time to decide? About $400, which is not guaranteed to be covered by all insurance companies. Not only that, but as seen with Vioxx, the consequences could be much more devastating.

Fortunately, it's not all bad. On its website, Merck does mention its significant accomplishments, like that of Singular, which treats asthma patients in over 75 countries. SINGULAIR® received the Prix Galien Canada 2000 Innovative Product in 2000, and its developers also received an award for its success, but with all the cynicism surrounding Gardasil, a couple of meagre awards hardly seem like enough leverage to convince me that Merck is a reliable company, devoted purely to the well being of society. Is its true objective to sincerely protect the lives of potentially millions of women in the world or does it have ulterior motives? Do the benefits truly outweigh the risks? I think there is enough information available to be able to respond with a "no," but that doesn't mean that through more research, and by taking more time to test its products, Merck cannot prove disbelievers wrong.

With that being said, it seems as though the great Dionysus Cato said it best when he stated, "Patience is the greatest of all virtues." Why not wait until we are positive the benefits completely outweigh the risks?

...And until then, as ludicrous an idea as it may sound, why not practice the of art abstinence?