Dangers of The Hook

If it took you an hour to make a connection between "guilt" and "clouds" then the connection is probably not an apt one.

http://shitmystudentswrite.tumblr.com/

TSA Body Scanner Controversy

Article/Picture Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/nov/26/air-transport-theairlineindustry

Background: The TSA stands for Transportation Security Administration, an organization created after the September 11th attacks in order to ensure the safety of the public by securely checking items that board planes. A recent issue with the the body scanners and pat-downs have created much controversy over what is the right form of searching that doesn't affect privacy.

Picture: In this picture, a man is standing with his arms up in front of a scanner while one of the security officers checks his picture in the online screen. The picture in the online screen displays the entire body of the man, which many people object to. Many types of these pictures have popped up on the internet recently in an attempt to criticize the TSA for the use of full body scanners.

Thoughts on the issue: I believe that this issue affects the privacy of travelers greatly and it cannot be ignored. Passengers feel that their rights are violated by going through these screenings and many are upset with how intrusive these checks are. However, it is also true that these scanners and pat-downs are the way of making sure no harmful items board planes. So passengers cannot opt of any security check because that causes problems with the safety of the rest of the passengers. I feel that the best way to solve this issue is to remove the full body scanners and pat-downs completely but install another security machine that doesn't invade privacy as much. There should be a machine that only detects certain dangerous items such as guns or bombs. This way the body is scanned for items but it does not produce an actual image of the body. It would only notify the security checkers of a suspicious item. This way, both sides win!

Questions: - Has there been any improvement in this issue?
                  - Will the TSA be able to create such a machine?
                 
Any thoughts?
 

George Zimmerman's

Any opinions on the George Zimmerman trial?

Gun Laws Controversy

 Article on NRA: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/01/nra-gun-control_n_3192671.html
 Background: The NRA stands for the National Rifle Association, an association which focuses solely on the right to bear arms. In the recent controversy over gun laws, the NRA has used their power and money to sway voters into voting for no more gun restrictions. They claim that the right to bear arms is a civil right as stated in the Constitution and that no one has the right to change it.
Picture/Cartoon: The cartoon criticizes the NRA. The cartoon suggests that any resolution to problems are guns. In the picture, many problems are suggested and the resolutions are different guns. The owner, part of the NRA, tells a man, with an evil look, who is looking for marriage counseling to go over there. The dialogue suggests that the guns for that problem are in that area. Also, all the problems shown represent real-life problems that caused people to buy guns and wreak havoc on people. In all, the picture gives readers a sense that the NRA believes guns are the solution to every problem.
Thoughts on Cartoon: The cartoon is very straightforward and represents the viewpoint of many people. There are people who get the feeling that the NRA thinks that guns are the key to every problem. That may just be how they view the organization. However, the cartoon does heavily criticize the NRA, accusing it of things they do not promote. This gives the NRA an even worse name in the community.
Thoughts on Issue: I, honestly, do not believe that this is truly what the NRA wants. No well-known organization would want people to solve their problems with the use of violence and guns. I believe the NRA just wants people to have their right to bear arms protected. In a way, they aren't wrong as guns are used for self-defense. However, just because the right is there, it doesn't mean that people should use guns for other purposes such as massacre. Although people have a right to guns, there definitely should be restrictions in light of recent events. So many deaths have been caused by gun massacres and one way it an be stopped is through proper background checks. This doesn't necessarily deprive a person's ability to own a gun but rather takes safety precautions to keep the people of America safe.   
Questions: Will there ever really be a solution to the issue of gun control in our nation?

Gun Control easier said than done.

Where guns have taken lives
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/nyregion/connecticut-legislators-agree-on-far-reaching-gun-control.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/28/us/connecticut-shooting-documents
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/us/shooting-at-colorado-theater-showing-batman-movie.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Where guns have saved them
https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm
My main argument lies in this one website above.
The question i hope to argue is do Guns save more than they kill?

And justify the fine line

between someone who can own a gun and who cannot.



But can these measures prevent killers from finding weapons?

I believe that we should have a tracking device on every gun ever issued in the world;Police included.If we could track every gun that was ever bought then we could stay safe and monitor all gun activity.

In the case of the Sandy Hook shooting i believe that the thugs should have never gotten a right to own the gun to begin with.Also i think that public schools need to reexamine their security measures.Schools cant just let anyone walk onto their campus.I agree that we are taught code red and blue but at the end of the day if the school was impossible to get into those innocent lives might not have been shed.

However some claim that "Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).They have saved more lives than they have taken"

I would be lying if i said guns don't protect people.I think the question we must ask ourselves it at what cost? Guns should be allowed but we must have a tight leash as to who gets them and track their movement.If the following methods are put into action i think all these shootings could have been avoided.

I think that we could sorta of debate off this blog instead of just posting one after the other i think it would be great to get the comments going in an argumentative direction what do you guys think?

Geico Dough Boy Commercial

Commercial Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvFul32xKCs

Background/Argument: Geico commercials are known for their humor and cheesy jokes. They normally always include the Geico Gecko as well as the tag line: "15 minutes can save you 15 percent or more."

Description: This commercial had the same tag line but no Geico Gecko. It starts off by showing the faces of people in line at an airport security check station while there is some high-pitched laughter in the background. It next shows a security guard while a tiny blue backpack roll through the scanner. Then, the commercial reveals that the high-pitched laughing was from the Pillsbury Dough Boy. They show his tiny rolling pin yet the main point is that he isn't able to stop laughing while being checked. The commercial ends with two men playing the guitar in front of a backdrop while one questions,"How happy are folks who save hundreds of dollars by switching to Geico?" and the answer: "Happier than the Pillsbury Dough boy on his way to a baking convention."

Thoughts: I thought this commercial was very uninformative and pointless. The commercial had no direct connection to anything related to Geico until the very end. That too, the tag line is said quickly, making it hard to understand. The creators included the Pillsbury Dough Boy making the audience confused as if this is an ad for Pillsbury or Geico. The setting of a security check only aggravated the confusion. The confusion is only cleared at the end when it is revealed that it is about Geico and that people would be happier than the laughing Pillsbury boy if they switch to Geico. However, there really is no connection between the Pillsbury or Geico that is known to the audience.
Cons: -Unrelated and complicated
-Not entertaining and random
-Voices spoken quickly
Pros: -Not too long
-Still carries a part of the Geico commercial tag line

Questions:
-Is there really any significance of the Pillsbury Dough Boy?
-Who were the two guys in the commercial and what did they have to do with the commercial?
-Was Geico trying to show some controversial aspect of pat downs at the security check or was it just a coincidence?

Hershey's Chocolate

Ad Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oROkBRde1pI

Argument: Hershey's chocolate is the best for s'mores and for making people happier.

Details: The commercial shows people making s'mores with Hershey's chocolate. They show the kids and adults enjoying themselves while eating the s'mores, as the marshmallows roast and turn into a soft, stretchy goodness. The setting around the campfire makes the commercial seem like anyone can enjoy the delicious taste of Hershey's s'mores with family and friends. The commercial tends to focus more on the women enjoying the chocolate rather than the men. The narration is done by a woman as well. The commercial ends with a piece of chocolate completing the bar and its wrapped with the tag line: "Life is delicious."  

Thoughts: I feel that this commercial would really appeal to kids the most. The commercial utilizes the smiles and enjoyment of the crowd to emphasize how the everyone is loves the taste of Hershey's chocolate. However, I feel the commercial was centered around mostly women. The narration was done by a woman and most of the people shown were women. In all, I think it sends the message of Hershey's being an excellent choice for s'mores and for bringing people together.

Pros:
-Pretty effective. It made me really want some chocolate.
-The ad utilizes the reactions of the people very nicely.
Cons:
-The commercial, I thought, was directed to women mostly. Are they trying to show that women love chocolate?
-It was short and went by kind of fast. It wasn't something people could grab much information from.
-It was focused more on the s'mores so there wasn't really much about the actual chocolate itself. That's a disadvantage to Hershey's because the most that the audience will get out of the ad is about s'mores. 

Demand a fair trade cell phone

Demand a fair trade cell phone

Tantalum,from tablets to touchscreens  its inside them all.This precious mineral is mined,used and is the reason why technology is sleek, slender and shiny.The story of how it is obtained it a murky one.It involves mining as nonthreatening as that word seems it is the cause of countless deaths and injuries. Bandi argues in his speech that we don't need to stop using phone but procure the materials in a way that is morally sound and does not violate human rights of citizens.This is understood when he states the following  "Why should we allow such a wonderful brilliant and necessary product to be the cause of unnecessary suffering for human beings?" The usage of these minerals should never come to a halt for they are beneficial by connecting the world together.However Bandi asserts his belief  that "If we demand fair trade food and fair trade clothes,it is time to demand fair trade phones."

Truth

The cold hard truth we must accept is that so far every electronic device we use has some percent of tantalum in its foundation and this was procured by forcing African workers in hazardous working conditions to make the phones we use today.

Thoughts

I was shocked to find out the horrible conditions in which the Africans toiled under for hours together with unfair pay.What was really disgusting is that they breathe in such toxic fumes by going deep beneath the earth.I believe that this is highly deplorable and it further makes me realize that the device I'm using to post this blog had been the product of a African miners blood and sweat.This is an in-just practice which probably payed him in pennies.

Questions

1. What can we do to procure this material without harming the African people?
2. We still have to go in mines to get the metal,how do we do this in a safe financially sound manner?
3. If this is the result of years of Imperialism,are the imperialist countries responsible for taking care, fair pay,and safety precautions of the African people.(As they use tantalum Africa exports)