Jake's blog post deals with the growing trend to drink bottled water over regular faucet-style water. The article he includes also reflects Jake's opinion: bottled water is wasteful, not any healthier for you, distracts authorities from properly managing faucet water sources, and is expensive. Many of his points are supported and well defended, but I do have a few critical observations.
While bottled water is wasteful (water bottles do create waste, but they can also be recycled) and may not be any healthier than tap water, some are concerned that our water supplies are tainted with chemicals (hormones, drugs, consumer products, etc.) that are unable to be removed during the filtration process. The source of these abnormal chemicals is people dumping medications or other chemicals down the toilet or sink. Tiny trace amounts of these chemicals may not be harmful, but who knows if there will be a scientific study that will prove otherwise. Even if bottled water is only filtered tap water, it may give people reassurance that they are more protected against an outbreak that may occur in their town's tap water.
Your well water experience sounds much more pleasant than mine. I grew up with well water for about 7 years and I absolutely despised the smell and taste. I grew accustomed to it, but my friends and visitors always complained about its irony taste. So while your well experience was fine and dandy, others may not be so lucky. Still, it does not mean that if you have disgusting well water that you need to buy tons of bottled water. There are many other alternatives like buying a personal filter (Brita, Pur, etc.) or something like a Culligan water cooler.
All in all though, I do feel like you make very valid points. I have fallen victim to our times so I can't say I never buy bottled water, but I do feel like it is a waste of money for the most part. It seems to be better to buy something like a Gatorade or Vitamin Water to give something extra besides just water. Then again, you can make your own Gatorade mix in your own reusable bottle if you wanted to cut back on wasteful bottle tossing.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Downloading Is Not A Crime
There are very few people in the United States that have not heard about downloading free music and many other forms of media. On the one hand, you have the music recording industry, represented by The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), who condemns this as virtual stealing. On the other hand, you have a growing body of people who only download music for free and don't purchase CDs or online downloads. This has been a growing problem for the RIAA and the music industry at large for over a decade, and there appears to be no end in sight.
I have taken a look over the RIAA's FAQ information on their website and tried to compare and contrast it with a consumer's response to the issue of illegal downloading. The RIAA has a strong stance that all illegal downloads are the same as shoplifting from a store and has a negative consequences on the artists, producers, and distributors alike. Music is a product that requires money to produce, and if consumers are illegally downloading the artist's music, than that artist, record company, and the like are being held up like musical robbery.
In comparison, I have looked at a blog post that briefly tackles this issue, utilizing it as a voice of the consumers of illegal downloads. Michael Arrington declares that downloading free music is the wave of the future, and that the music industry will have to surrender to the will of the people. He argues that music should be free, and just because technological advances have given more control the the listeners and consumers of music, doesn't mean that their conduct is illegal. He likens the internet downloading and streaming wave as the new radio. No one pays for radio, except through listening to commercials, and internet streaming and downloading have eliminated those old fashioned advertising techniques.
My personal opinion on the matter has not changed dramatically since reading these articles. I do understand the sense of fear and anger from the music industry over illegal "pirating" of music. At the same time, I am empathetic toward those pirates since I can relate to not wanting to spend $10 to download a digital album from iTunes or Amazon.com when I can get it for free. I believe that musicians barely get any of the sales revenue from their CD sales anyway, therefor they are forced to make their money through touring or other non-traditional forms of earning revenue. I would much rather spend $30 to see live music than spend $15 on a CD that I might not like or barely listen to. I don't think that illegal downloading will stop the entertainment industry, but it has provided some interesting changes and challenges to the world of media production, distribution, and consumption.
I have taken a look over the RIAA's FAQ information on their website and tried to compare and contrast it with a consumer's response to the issue of illegal downloading. The RIAA has a strong stance that all illegal downloads are the same as shoplifting from a store and has a negative consequences on the artists, producers, and distributors alike. Music is a product that requires money to produce, and if consumers are illegally downloading the artist's music, than that artist, record company, and the like are being held up like musical robbery.
In comparison, I have looked at a blog post that briefly tackles this issue, utilizing it as a voice of the consumers of illegal downloads. Michael Arrington declares that downloading free music is the wave of the future, and that the music industry will have to surrender to the will of the people. He argues that music should be free, and just because technological advances have given more control the the listeners and consumers of music, doesn't mean that their conduct is illegal. He likens the internet downloading and streaming wave as the new radio. No one pays for radio, except through listening to commercials, and internet streaming and downloading have eliminated those old fashioned advertising techniques.
My personal opinion on the matter has not changed dramatically since reading these articles. I do understand the sense of fear and anger from the music industry over illegal "pirating" of music. At the same time, I am empathetic toward those pirates since I can relate to not wanting to spend $10 to download a digital album from iTunes or Amazon.com when I can get it for free. I believe that musicians barely get any of the sales revenue from their CD sales anyway, therefor they are forced to make their money through touring or other non-traditional forms of earning revenue. I would much rather spend $30 to see live music than spend $15 on a CD that I might not like or barely listen to. I don't think that illegal downloading will stop the entertainment industry, but it has provided some interesting changes and challenges to the world of media production, distribution, and consumption.
Demonstration Speech Self-Evaluation
To begin, I tried to explain the uniqueness of glassblowing while also emphasizing that our class should take advantage of this opportunity. My organization and flow of my speech was sporadic, casually moving through the rough steps of glassblowing. A more succinct and progressive approach would have better served my speech in terms of delivering the informational content.
My presentation was slow, monotone, and stagnant in terms of my physical presentation. My body language is disinterested and feels slightly unmotivated. I could have made more direct eye contact with the audience instead of focusing on the video in the background. There appears to be a lack of enthusiasm signaled by my monotone voice.
My visual aid of a glassblowing video did provide some nice illustrations of the process, but it also may have been distracting for the audience, especially since I primarily addressed the computer screen instead of facing the audience. Therefore, my visual aid was a double edged sword; illustrative but it also may have diverted attention.
I would choose the same topic again, but I would focus more on my organization and delivery. My visual aid could be switched to a power point that gives better structure to my presentation, instead of trying to describe the glassblowing process through a video. I would add a more concrete structure and also more enthusiasm, allowing the audience to better understand the information. By the end of my presentation, I should have sparked an interest or at least made the class curious about working with glass.
My presentation was slow, monotone, and stagnant in terms of my physical presentation. My body language is disinterested and feels slightly unmotivated. I could have made more direct eye contact with the audience instead of focusing on the video in the background. There appears to be a lack of enthusiasm signaled by my monotone voice.
My visual aid of a glassblowing video did provide some nice illustrations of the process, but it also may have been distracting for the audience, especially since I primarily addressed the computer screen instead of facing the audience. Therefore, my visual aid was a double edged sword; illustrative but it also may have diverted attention.
I would choose the same topic again, but I would focus more on my organization and delivery. My visual aid could be switched to a power point that gives better structure to my presentation, instead of trying to describe the glassblowing process through a video. I would add a more concrete structure and also more enthusiasm, allowing the audience to better understand the information. By the end of my presentation, I should have sparked an interest or at least made the class curious about working with glass.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Focus on the Family: Tim Tebow's Pro-Life Superbowl Commercial
There was a ambiguous commercial that aired during the most recent Superbowl featuring Tim Tebow and his mom, Pam, in support of Focus on the Family, a Christian pro-life advocacy group. The commercial seems to only be advertising the group's website to learn more about the Tebow story, but it also has a tagline: "Celebrate family. Celebrate life."
While people have their own opinions on abortion, having a celebrity appear in a commercial or promotional video can alter how people receive the intended message. The commercial focuses on Pam Tebow, allowing her to briefly express the troubles she faced with her son's pregnancy, but more importantly, how she was able to tough it out and overcome the issues that surround pregnancy and parenthood.
Viewers of the commercial may have felt uplifted, enraged, or passive, but the goal of the commercial was to highlight the benefits of choosing life without explicitly mentioning abortion or pro-life expressions. The message could also be viewed pessimistically; don't have an abortion because your child may end up being a star. On the other hand, it can be viewed positively; choosing to have a child can result in a wonderful and gratifying experience for both mother and child, even if the mother is faced with complicating circumstances during pregnancy.
While people have their own opinions on abortion, having a celebrity appear in a commercial or promotional video can alter how people receive the intended message. The commercial focuses on Pam Tebow, allowing her to briefly express the troubles she faced with her son's pregnancy, but more importantly, how she was able to tough it out and overcome the issues that surround pregnancy and parenthood.
Viewers of the commercial may have felt uplifted, enraged, or passive, but the goal of the commercial was to highlight the benefits of choosing life without explicitly mentioning abortion or pro-life expressions. The message could also be viewed pessimistically; don't have an abortion because your child may end up being a star. On the other hand, it can be viewed positively; choosing to have a child can result in a wonderful and gratifying experience for both mother and child, even if the mother is faced with complicating circumstances during pregnancy.
Tim Tebow's religious personality has been discussed by journalists, mainly because he represents an altruistic athlete committed to Christianity and abstinence. He stands in contrast to stereotypes of athletes as promiscuous macho men. Therefore, he seems to be an appropriate candidate for the position on a pro-life television commercial. His personal views and lifestyle are in accordance to the pro-life mentality. Tim's personal story of his birth requires further research, but his family was stationed in the Phillipines during Pam's pregnancy. It has been reported that she was recommended an abortion by one of the doctors there, even though abortions are strictly illegal in any form.
The overall message of the commercial seems to communicate that having and raising a child is not easy, and can even be dangerous, but the rewards of being a parent are well worth it. Tim Tebow's football star persona gave this commercial the appropriate celebrity endorsement, since it was aired during the Superbowl. The problem appears to be that the commercial did not succeed, despite all the hype that it was given prior to the Superbowl. Also, there were people who criticized CBS for approving a pro-life commercial, while denying a commercial for a dating website geared for gay men. People have proclaimed that CBS was hypocritical for allowing a pro-life commercial but not allowing a homosexual ad.
In my personal response, I feel that both pro-life and homosexual advocates have the right to advertise. The current TV climate tends to favor more Christian messages
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
