hey for anybody who still reads this or subscribes to this old blog, you should check a brand new music group i'm starting. we are trying out the old family band idea and i think we have some good stuff, come check out our new song Hope and Persistence. i'm sure you will enjoy it and you can support some good music that doesnt talk about making out in clubs and getting drunk all the time.
here's the link
https://www.facebook.com/#!/baldwingames
The name of our band: Baldwin Games
thank you all, and happy summer
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
Media of Eating Disorders
Media of Eating Disorders
There is a corrupted body image that is portrayed from mass media and has been proven to be correlated with the American ideal of body image. The media may make amends with society for the mental and physical disease of eating disorders; however they need to do it efficiently with all their professional ability. As seen through reality shows and Pro-Ana websites, etc. contribution to eliminate this disease may be the very thing that triggers it. Media has corrupted thought of the self through their persuasive mediums; they must now correct what they have caused by the same means. They understand how to influence their audience one way or another.
Girls have been playing with Barbies for well over a decade. “…The first Barbie doll, launched in 1959…The average American girl has at least one Barbie by the time she is 3 years old. But if Barbie were a real person, she would stand 5'9” and weigh a mere 110 pounds, with the unrealistic body measurements of 39-18-33” (Prah). The Barbie doll has been one of the ideal images that girls today are still pressured into; having the ‘perfect’ body just like her. The Barbie doll has changed its size since 1959 because of lawsuits against Barbie Inc. Body dislike is introduced at a very young age and as these children grow into teenagers the media attacks them even more violently. In many cases adults do not accept their body and wish it was different.
“In the UK, much of the evidence about the prevalence of body image satisfaction or dissatisfaction has derived from readership surveys run by glossy magazines. One survey conducted in 2000 by Top Santé was reported in national daily newspaper as having found that half of a sample of 5,000 women with an average age of 37 years classified themselves as overweight. More than eight in ten (83%) said that they felt inhibited by their body and that their life would be considerably improved if they were happy with their body … ‘The central concern of women as revealed by these surveys was that they felt they were too big. In the 2001 survey, the average respondent claimed she had tried to diet at least six times, with more than eight in ten (86%) saying they had dieted at some point, and around three in ten saying they had fasted (32%), displayed bulimic tendencies (31%) or anorexic (28%)’” (Wykes 3).
However, girls are not the only ones dealing with this pressure from the media. “… “You probably hear the ratio that 1-in-10 patients will be male, but it's probably more like 1-in-6,” says Bunnell, of the National Eating Disorders Association” (Prah). Men are being targeted just as women.
The dissatisfaction of the body is becoming an increasing statistic year after year. “It's estimated that 1 million men suffer from either anorexia, where the patient restricts food for fear of gaining weight, or bulimia, where the patient binges and purges on food, according to the National Eating Disorder Association” (Eaton). This has been a problem within our society and is not getting any better.
Along with men’s increasing numbers, children are affected by eating disorders. Within the last few decades the number of children diseased has risen drastically. “… Tens of millions of the men in the United States have some form of disordered eating… A new report from the American Academy of Pediatrics shows hospitalizations for eating disorders in children under 12 increased 119 percent between 1999 and 2006…” (Eaton). This disorder is physical but is also an unhealthy psychological coping mechanism.
Individual’s emotions and self-esteem greatly affect the susceptibility to these eating disorders. The body image is a psychological build. Anorexia and bulimia are the symptoms behaviorally. Body image distress and dieting among the teen-age group often emerge together. They psychological build of the body image comprises of a mix of; self-perceptions, ideas and feelings about one’s physical attributes. Eating disorders are linked to self-esteem and to the individual’s emotional stability (Wykes 2). Continuous thoughts construct our mental stability. Although these thoughts are their own and they may come up with these ideas by themselves, media has a strong connection directly to our thoughts. The best way to destroy a human life is by first destroying the spirit (though a psychological disease) so it cannot take care of the body.
Media can influence our thoughts of ourselves. After exposed to photographs of women portraying this thin body type, there was an increased body dissatisfaction and lower self-esteem reported in a study on women. By nature humans compare and contrast. Unfortunately we often compare and contrast ourselves with un-natural ideals. “The internalization of an attractiveness ideal and perception of body dissatisfaction may serve to dedicate the relationship between media exposure and disordered eating” (Wilkes 174). Many sources of media distort a healthy body image and encourage it.
Within mediums of media some websites encourage this unhealthy body image and help conceal it. Pro-Anorexia sites have been something that people look at online for support… (Prah). These sites are something experts should look to for study of the psychology help that can be produced to a mass audience. These sites may include ‘reverse triggers’ or photos of extremely overweight people. This may encourage an anorexic to become anything but that “gross” image they are bombarded with. These reverse triggers are interactive with blogs and discussion boards (Prah). In studying these sites experts may have a new form of interaction to people who need help.
Even with all these positives that could potentially come from these sites, the sites are still destructive. On many of these sites there is a warning before one enters. “Thin Files, for example, advises if the viewer is currently in recovery from some type of eating disorder or if one is disturbed or offended that they do not proceed through the site (Prah). The fact that they need a warning on the website is a major red flag even to the most normal functioning mind. What material the brain allows to enter eventually may evolve to its own thought. These sites are not recommended by experts for a reason.
Blogs are another medium that people connect including those with eating disorders, and encourage such behavior. Thinspirations is a blog that attracts those who fit the archetype of the ‘anorexic’. The sites homepage says it is for persons with an already existing eating disorder. “Blogs like www.miafriends.org are full of suggestions, such as always carry a plastic Ziploc bag or a large cup with a lid to vomit into… In an essay on ‘40 reasons not to eat,’ one threatens, ‘If you eat, you'll look like those disgusting, fat, ghetto and trailer-trash hookers on Jerry Springer”(Prah). Although these may sound funny and there may be a giggle or two; to a mind that is not clear, this is a real suggestion and persons without a previous eating disorder may begin to develop one.
Now to combat this unhealthy ideal created through media means;
“Several years ago, eating-disorder researchers and support groups began prodding major Internet servers to take down the sites or delete them from search engines. Some Pro-Ana sites are clearly frustrated by efforts to silence them. “Ana's Underground Grotto” notes that several sites that had linked to its site had been changed to “Anti-Pro-Ana sites” or have gone dead or offline. The notice adds that it will no longer list sites hosted by Geocities, Tripod, Angelfire, Homestead or myweb.ecomplanet because those links “continually get deleted” (Prah).
Shutting down these websites is not the only way to fight eating disorders. They are being fought not only on the internet, but also the television, magazines, commercials, and even in the white house. This year the project "Let's Move", suggested by First Lady Michelle Obama, received a presidential nod of support to be backed up with as much as $1 billion a year in federal funds for 10 years (Givhan). Taxpayers and honorable citizens should know that the issue of disordered eating is big within the U.S. and is serious enough for the allowance of a billion dollars just to help out.
First lady Michelle Obama, In front of a large audience in the State Dining Room at the White House, rolled out her national initiative to combat childhood obesity with a show of force that included medical, business and government leaders, grassroots activists, celebrity public service announcements, cartoon characters as nutrition experts, as well as those most directly affected -- the kids themselves (Givhan). Washington is even looking at this as a plague or epidemic that they need to fight.
Michelle Obama says "I don't want our kids to live diminished lives because we failed to step up today. I don't want them looking back decades from now and asking us, ‘Why didn't you help us when you had a chance? Why didn't you put us first when it mattered most?” (Givhan). Michelle has even been put on the Disney channel to push her plan forward of getting America healthy. Eating disorders are an increasing concern within the United States.
Obesity is America’s ‘cultural-obsession’. We have even started reality shows about it now. These shows may be unhealthy though to the audience. While one viewer may see this as inspiring to become a normal weight, someone may also be influenced into thinking they need to become like those models they show at commercial times to be attractive. These sites are seen as unhealthy by experts. They fear that these shows emphasize on body image too much and could actually encourage eating disorders and other dangerous behaviors. Some of these participants of the reality shows have lost as much as 30lbs in a single week, which is very unhealthy. This extreme weight loss increase the risk of heart problems, bone loss, electrolyte imbalances, etc. (Borrell). What is shown on television is not true weight loss. True weight loss takes a lot longer time than they have to film. “Some contestants on "The Biggest Loser" have admitted to fasting or dehydrating themselves to drop weight, and at least two had to be hospitalized after they collapsed during a one-mile race” (Borrell). Dehydration and malnutrition is an effective way to drop weight fast, but unfortunately that weight does not stay off and it is not safe either. Our society is obsessed with losing weight at a much too fast rate.
According to the Los Angeles Times, Lorette Lavine a professional who treats obese patients as a nurse and clinical social worker agrees with the reality shows that can show dramatic weight loss. She thinks that these reality TV shows like, “The Biggest Loser” is supportive for her patients and it gives them some competition to press forward in their effort to lose weight. “In my experience, I haven't seen people with obvious eating disorders on these shows. The shows promote a healthful lifestyle as opposed to binge eating and dramatically losing weight fast without the exercise component and without the diet education component”(Borrell). These reality shows are something that gives her patients something else besides just a diet plan to hold onto.
On the other hand Lynn Grefe, the Chief Executive of the National Eating Disorders Assn. does not recommend these shows.
“I do not think these shows are a good idea in any way. When people are as large as the contestants on these reality shows, they are not well. I have a problem with treating their condition like some kind of game: How much weight can you lose? And how quickly? Frankly, the idea of everyone simply losing weight is also questionable. There are people who are heavy but remain healthier than people who are slim or who are "yo-yo" dieters. Weight is an individual thing and weight loss is not the best option — or even necessary — for everyone” (Borrell).
According to Lynn these shows are more destructive than helpful. She says she would much rather see a show on “Let’ be healthy”. This would send the right message however it would probably not be as popular. She says that this needs to be more of an issue of health not weight and height. Just as seen on Opera “Diets are multibillion-dollar marketing campaigns that people buy into. I believe it's about a lifestyle change, not a diet. Since 95% of the people who diet will regain their weight within five years, this TV dieting is just setting people up for failure” (Borrell). Changing lifestyle is much harder, but in the long-term it is the better choice.
Looking at one of the causes of these eating disorders, most of them are driven by depression or some form of anxiety. Eating disorders are something that comforts as a coping device. “Eating disorders have the highest death rate of any mental illness — more than depression or schizophrenia” (Borrell). If shows are creating this discomfort for the spirit to reside in the body then maybe they just need to be turned off or maybe a different program turned on. One of the first steps in overcoming an eating disorder is to accept the body and the here and the now, then the work on the behavior can progress.
Just as it would be unhealthy to force an alcoholic into a bar, the same is for these people to be exposed to the reality shows that alienate them even more from themselves. The human body is a beautiful thing that has the incredible ability to heal, to think, to memorize, to produce energy, to reproduce, and so many more things. “When I talk to people who had eating disorders, I tell them never to talk about what their weight once was as that creates competition, which can trigger unhealthful behaviors. Clearly these shows are the ultimate competitions” (Borrell). These shows can be good or bad just as the websites and blogs on current information. They need to be portrayed well.
One media medium that has portrayed women well is a simple Dove commercial. They try to raise the awareness that what you see is not always reality. They did a wonderful job with their Campaign for Real Beauty which informed viewers about doctored pictures. With the help of Ogilvy, in 2004 Dove launched its ‘Campaign for Real Beauty’. They conducted a global study that found that only 2 % of women described themselves as beautiful. When it came to body image and weight, women from all countries were unsatisfied with their bodies. “An overwhelming 81% strongly agreed that "the media and advertising set an unrealistic standard of beauty that most women can't ever achieve" and 75 % wish the media did a better job portraying the diversity of women's physical attractiveness, including size, shape, and age.” If a product producer did not care what women thought about themselves, they would miss out financially. The average woman influences 80% of the products bought within the home (Revis). This education of media for the public was something Dove had great interest in.
In response to these appalling statistics Dove developed "Evolution," a viral video with unprecedented success; viewed by more than 300 million people globally. Dove and Ogilvy won countless awards, including two Grand Prix Cannes Advertising Awards and a Grand EFFIE, which honors the most significant achievement in marketing communications. Just to show what an impact those “Evolution” videos made to their profit- “In the first six months of the campaign, sales of Dove's firming products increased 700% in Europe and the United States. In the first year, global sales surpassed $1 billion” (Revis). What a smart move not only for public health, but also for a company’s profit. This medium of videos that was produced did produce much more than money. It provided a new train of thought that it is ok to be normal or average and what that normal really is. Not everyone is built like a supermodel, in fact very few are. So the media creates these ideals with extreme makeup and photo-shopping. There is a quote at the end of their video “no wonder our perception of beauty is distorted”. Media has been part of the down-fall of self-esteem and body acceptance. This is proof that building it back up is possible and there are effective ways of fixing body dissatisfaction.
There are efficient ways of portraying correct and healthy body image that must come about to change the direction our society has with body satisfaction. The media needs to do it efficiently with all their professional ability. Women, men, and children are more and more affected by this disease every year. As seen through websites, blogs, and even reality shows: contribution to eliminate this disease may be the very thing that triggers it. This is a major issue everyone should be aware of even if they are not involved or know anyone who may have this disease. Media has corrupted thought of the self through their persuasive mediums; they must now correct what they have caused by the same means.
Works Cited
Borrell, Brenden. "Pros, cons of reality TV's approach to weight loss." LosAngeles Times 31 January 2011, Print.
Eaton, Kristi. "Eating disorders: Not just for women." Las Vegas Review-Journal (2008): n. Web. 16 Mar 2011.
Givhan, Robin. "First lady Michelle Obama: 'Let's move' and work on childhood obesity problem." Washington Post 10 February 2010, Print.
Prah, Pamela. "Is Societal to be Thin to Blame?." CQ Researcher 10 February 2006: 16.6. Web. 16 Mar 2011.
Revis, Layla. "Beaty and the (Media) Beast." Huffington Post 28 Feburary 2011: n. Web. 16 March 2011
Wykes, Maggie, and Barrie Gunter. The media and body image: If Looks Could Kill. 1st ed. London: Sage Publications Ltd, 2005. 2-136. Print.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Here we have an interesting situation in relation to social media and corporations. As we all know Facebook and other social media sites continue to grow and dominate world wide communication. Through a class discussion the other we touched on an interesting topic. As the organizations become more popular the demand for growth eventually and inevitably becomes more commercialized. This can be seen more and more clearly through the advertisements that pop up on the side of our Facebook pages while we're browsing, or in other words also through word VEVO that seems to be taking over Youtube. This is troubling news because our means of communication are becoming again something we never wanted them to be: ways to advertise to us.
In deeper analysis we analyze then Facebook shifting away from communication and becoming partly a one sided communication model. That is to say, corporations now use it as an advertising source in a one sided communication front. This seems counterproductive to the idea that holds Facebook together at all. It functions in contraposition to the means that have helped birth the democratic revolutions in Northern Africa where communication was so accessible and attainable that demonstrations were easier to organize and ideas permeated every home. This stream of communication back and forth is the key to what makes Facebook so popular. It connects individuals one with another. It gives a voice to the voiceless.
In response to these advertising threats I've recently been hard at work with a new job that is trying to get social media advertising back on track. It's called Kalood, and it's not even the only company starting to go this route. It reconnects the two way communication of Facebook while blending it with corporations' needs to advertise, along with our need as well to be informed of good products and prices. With the company the consumer rates which deals he or she is actually interested in, and then later they are only notified of the deals they have already expressed interest in. This works to de-clutter the rest of our life from the incessant advertising we are faced with every day, and quite frankly, this two way communication channel, is the future not only for our social media sites, but for the whole commercial world as well. The days of individuals being spoon fed information that the "big guys" want us to know are over. The days of individuals seeking out what information they are interested are here.
Start now to speak back.
If you're interested in learning more about Kalood and this new deal and offer "rating" platform you can do it here! http://beta.kalood.com/?r=Gyw
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Taking a look at "Monopoly and Democracy"
e>
Ted Turner’s “Monopoly or Democracy?” was published in the Washington Post. He shuts down opposing views through personal experience then appeals to his audience’s emotion through threat and reward, word choice and sets an appropriate point of view though out the entire article. Although Ted Turner used writing fallacies his argument was effective and with the publication to the Washington Post it was something many citizens were affected by unconsciously or not.
Ted’s personal experience allows for the audience to credit his opinions as valid for the field of programming. There are apparently five media corporations that regulate what the vast majority of US citizens are exposed to. Turner states “I am a major shareholder in the largest of those five corporations, yet-speaking only for myself, and not for AOL Time Warner- I oppose these rules” (Turner63). He wants the audience to think that this is personal issue for him instead of the company. Most Americans would probably make this a “personal issue” also if their personal gain was in jeopardy. He is a major shareholder in the five media corporations that Americans are mostly exposed to. Does the fact that he has a major say for the input of media exposure to America validate his interest, or does it say anything else like all the media is bias in one direction? He cries “if these rules had been in place in 1970, it would have been virtually impossible for me to start Turner Broadcasting, or 10 years later, to launch CNN” (Turner 63). He makes a good politician in twisting the perspective that these rules are damaging to the people and what they are allowed to view. Turner tries to gain public acceptance through his personal experience. We validate these personal opinions because we are less experienced with such associations.
According to riting and rhetoric threat and reward is a writing fallacy. “The threat fallacy diverts attention from the real issue to the negative consequences of not accepting an argument” (Writing and Rhetoric 70). Although, Ted Turner’s argument is about accessing local programming more fairly and freely, his argument turns the switch to what is being lost “Why should the county care? When you lose small business, you lose big ideas” (Turner 64). The threat here is that we will lose big ideas by letting these laws pass from the FCC. After Turner’s statement that they will lose big ideas by consolidating programming he then states “That means laying off reporters, in other words, downsizing the workforce” (Turner64). He does not like the idea that the media cannot be as what he calls “diverse” as he would like. The opposing view may say that consolidating programming would allow for equal time, for only the best reports to be shared and less bias in those reports. These threats shared by Ted Turner push his audience to side with him on programming and who is in control of what is said.
Turner also evokes emotion from his readers by using emotional word choice. He uses personification toward his passion of programming. “Personification is to give human characteristics to animals, abstract ideas, and inanimate objects” (writing and Rhetoric 95). He declares “They kill local programming because it’s expensive, and they push national programming because it’s cheap” (Turner64). Killing is an action toward a biologically living thing. Programming cannot eat nor breathe, but this evokes emotion within the reader. He also arouses emotion though creating a dissatisfaction or uneasiness. “Even more troubling are the warning signs that large media corporations- which massive market power- could abuse that power by slanting news coverage in ways that serve their political or financial interests” (Turner65). The word warning, power, abuse, and slanting all have a negative connotation that sets an unfair or unjustified feeling about what could occur if programming was consolidated. Toward the end of his argument he releases the emotion in actual words “Powerful public groups across the political spectrum oppose these new rules and are angry about their lack of input in the process” (Turner65). Ted Turner states his ideas in this manner in hope to provoke emotion and hang his audience with his argument.
The bandwagon effect is another way Turner captures hearts “We brought MGM, and we later sold Turner Broadcasting to Time Warner, because we had little choice” (Turner63). Although, Turner is not directly saying that the reader is on his side, he assumes it by using the unifying word “we”. In actuality he is not talking about the reader, but about his team and their efforts. This word of “we” allows the audience to become a part of his group. This bandwagon effect is what writing and rhetoric refers to as the Ad populum (writing and rhetoric69). The emotional attachment of unification is used all throughout his whole argument. “We had to gain access to programming to survive” (Turner64). Think of the words, to survive, they strongly suggest that it is a struggle for programming to succeed. At the end one may think ‘yes, we did it’; when in reality Turner is only thinking of himself and his team’s success of making it. Turner has an interesting way of unifying with dissatisfaction from behavior “how narrow-minded have we made out public discussion if the opinion of the pope is considered outside the bounds of legitimate debate?” (Turner). This is appealing to the audience, but in a negative way that makes them want to change their action. Ad populum or the bandwagon effect is not something Turner allows his audience to think about rather it is simply presumed that they are on his side.
This effective article of Turner’s without being analyzed is persuasive to people who do not know about the topic. Chances are if they already know about the issue presented, they already have a side they stick to, his side or not. The psychology of human tendency is to stay on one side even if they are wrong. Ted Turner appeals to his audience’s emotion through threat and reward, word choice and ad-populum. He also shuts down opposing views through his personal experience. Although Ted Turner used some writing fallacies his argument was effective and this is shown though the publication to the Washington Post.
Ted Turner also stated “When, on my initiative, Turner Communications (now Turner Broadcasting) bought its first TV station, which at the time was losing $50,000 a month, my board strongly objected” (Turner64). This statement makes it seem like it is hard for a broadcasting station to make any money when they first start out. What if they just made some poor decisions like buying that TV station at that time and it is not really that hard to get into business in communications.
Works Cited
Jackson, Brian and Brett McInelly. Writing and Rhetoric. 1st ed. Plymouth, MI: Hayden-McNiel Publishing, 2011. 69-95. Print.
Turner, Ted. "Monopoly or Democracy?." Washington Post 30 May 2003: A23. Print.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Recycling in Thought, Word, and Deed
Written Especially for Students at Brigham Young University
Above: Have you ever wondered what happens to the cans we don't recycle?
During the last decades, the rhetoric of recycling has become a more and more prominent and accepted part of the American dialogue. As we have considered and recognized the need to be more environmentally responsible, efforts have been made to teach and promote recycling through ad campaigns, inclusion in the school curricula, and so forth. What began as ideas and words concerning the importance of waste reduction has indeed translated into action on the part of the American people. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in 2009 Americans produced 131.9 million tons of non-recycled waste, less than in any of the twenty previous years, in spite of population growth (“Municipal Solid Waste Generation” 1). Recycling rates in the United States have steadily climbed over the same period. According to the same EPA report, 33.8% of the waste produced this last year in America was recycled (2). Americans have come a long way from the 1960’s when that statistic was virtually 0% (2). A generation of responsible Americans is helping to maintain this trend of waste reduction. These Americans have become recyclers in thought, word, and deed.
Unfortunately, students at BYU are generally a step behind in this regard. In fact, most of us living in off-campus apartment complexes don’t recycle any of our waste at all. We think about how morally responsible recycling is, we talk about how we ought to do it, but most of us simply do not. We are recyclers in thought and in word, but not in deed. And yet, if our apathy towards waste reduction isn’t because we don’t want to or don't understand that we ought to recycle, what keeps us from doing more? Most students identify having no convenient way to recycle in complexes where no recycling services are offered as the biggest challenge. Admittedly, this is an inconvenience, but ultimately the deeper problem lies with the students. We don’t demand recycling services that can reasonably be provided, and we abuse such services when they are. We need to overcome these problems if we are to turn recycling thought and word into recycling deed.
Most student apartment complexes at BYU do not provide a means of collecting recyclable materials. While managers and owners of off-campus apartments don’t claim to be opposed to providing recycling services, the consensus appears to be that since the fledgling recycling services offered by Provo City are unrealistic for large apartment complexes, no recycling services have been provided. But other solutions to this problem exist; there are specialized companies in Utah that provide recycling services for very reasonable rates. A quick search online and a phone call to Allied Waste Services of Utah was all it took for me to learn that for under $165 per month, this company will provide a complex with a large 8 cubic-yard dumpster for recyclable materials and empty it three times a week. Each additional dumpster is cheaper than the last. Surely, it would not be difficult to provide such a dumpster for recycling in a student apartment complex. Unfortunately, this type of service is not provided in the vast majority of off-campus apartment complexes, and students haven’t demand it.
The dynamics of this situation were summed up concisely by one of the secretaries of the off-campus complexes when they told me: “Every so often someone comes in with questions for a recycling paper they are writing, but so long as I have been here, nothing has changed. I keep hoping it will, though.” Another student told me, “I am appalled at the lack of concern for our environment that is evidenced by [off-campus] apartments. It would take very little effort on their part to manage a recycling program and I am shocked nothing has been done to remedy this situation." These individuals and many more like them think and talk about recycling, but the problem persists. This lack of action is a big obstacle that is hindering us from recycling.
Taking time to consider the huge influence we could have if we students were more proactive might help us to overcome this obstacle. Think about how much we waste in resources because we don’t demand recycling services. Have you ever cringed as you have been forced to throw cardboard boxes, plastic bottles, milk cartons, and metal cans in with the rest of the refuse in the communal dumpster? The busy lifestyle that students lead tends to produce a lot of recyclable waste, like food packaging and paper. If none of this waste is recycled, then it all ends up in landfills instead, where it becomes a problem for future generations. We owe it to them to do better. To be environmentally responsible in deed, we ought to work with our apartment owners to find reasonable means of reducing our waste production. If we were to do this, we could drastically reduce our cumulative waste production each year.
In order for this to work, however, we need to check our own determination to be responsible recyclers. If services are provided for us and we abuse them, who can we blame but ourselves when these recycling services are taken away? Laziness and ignorance in the student body will curb any progress we hope to make. For example, as part of their research into the availability of recycling, one student reporter for The Daily Universe discovered that at least one off-campus apartment complex has provided recycling facilities in the past, but due to student misuse was forced to remove the service (Clifford, 1). I was recently thrilled to find a box in my apartment complex intended to collect aluminum cans to be sold to a recycling company, with proceeds of these sales intended to be donated to charity. My thrill quickly turned to dismay when I inspected the contents of the box and found all kinds of trash, both recyclable and non-recyclable, and only one or two aluminum cans sprinkled among the rest of the refuse. Perhaps owners of apartment complexes believe that students won’t take the time to correctly dispose of recycling. With sights like the one mentioned above, can they be blamed? We can and must do better. The recycling company I previously mentioned does not require clients to meticulously sort recyclables, just that they don’t put non-recyclable materials in the recycling dumpster. If students can attain unto this level of responsibility, then landlords and managers will know that services they contract will not be abused and will be more willing to work with us.
Given all of this, it seems clear that if change is to take place, students must be the driving force for that change. Provided students start demanding recycling services and use them correctly, apartment complexes have the ability to provide them for what amounts to spare change attached to each resident’s monthly rent. The means by which we may be recyclers in very deed are within our grasp. I intend to work with my roommates and friends to organize and open a dialogue with the owners of my apartment complex about our recycling situation. Handled in a friendly and responsible way, surely we can find a solution that will provide a reasonable and convenient means to recycle. Can you imagine how much would be accomplished if others in other off-campus apartment complexes were to do the same? Consider taking a little time out of your busy day and giving it a try. That bit of effort will make you an environmentally responsible individual in deed.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Fun Control
To the many law abiding gun owners in the United States, fun control is what is heard when lawmakers mention the foreboding words of gun control. That is one of the things that comes to the forefront of my mind as well.
In the world we live in today it easy to understand the fear of guns. As a concerned citizen of this nation I would like to see violent crimes take a downward trend rather than the ever climbing numbers we see in our day to day exposure of the media. Watching the news we are constantly bombarded, or so it seems, by reports of the crimes committed with guns, the most common reaction to these is a ban on guns or make guns laws stricter. I am reminded of when, as a child, I pulled weeds from our little vegetable garden. Often to skip out on doing hard work, I would just pull the tops off the weeds making the garden look nice and clean, but leaving behind the actual problem, the roots. Within a day or two the weeds would be back in full force with the addition of little sprouts. I believe we have a similar situation when we enforce strict gun laws in an attempt to avoid violent crimes. It may look as though we're working hard to solve the problem, and it is hard work to get laws passed. We still miss the root of the problem however.
It's easy to understand the fear of firearms when stories like Sarah Brady's are so prolific. Brady and her husband were wounded and almost killed by a mad gunman during the 1981 assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan. The result of that attack and her efforts was the passage of the Brady Bill which mandated the background check and waiting period for the purchase of handguns. Both of which are reasonable and I would say necessary gun control laws. With all the good that Brady did by pushing for that law, I still do not stand behind her in light of her recent comments. In her recent article from CNN titled, “Sarah Brady to Obama: Lead on gun control” Sarah Brady tags gun owners as “bullies, ignorant, abnormal Americans, and without good conscience” (1). Brady goes on to say that the ideology of one who does not support her is of one who “is fixated with weapons of war that are turned on grandmothers and babies.” (1) Perhaps I am too ignorant to see the reasoning for such allegations against gun owners, but it would seem as if Brady is working very hard at pulling the leaves off of the weed of violent crime. This is the stigma that is attached to gun owners by those who have been or have had someone they know hurt by a gun owner.
According to www.gunpolicy.org, the current ownership of civilian firearms is 88.8 per 100 people. According to Brady, that would mean that about 88% of the population is a bunch of ignorant bullies, without a conscience who should not be allowed to make the rules. I don't believe the American people are inept, and instead believe that they are fully capable of voting intelligently and responsibly. At this point it may be easy to see Brady as an enemy if you are a gun owner, but Brady is not. I believe that Brady has the best intentions at heart - to lower and hopefully end violence in America. Brady had the strength to reap from the violent crime that impacted her life valuable insight on strengthening our gun laws. However we don't ever see calls to ban automobiles when someone is killed in a car accident. That's because the car, just like the gun, are tools that if and when used improperly can and will endanger lives.
Earlier we read that those who do not support gun bans are those whose ideology is fixated with weapons of war turned on grandmothers and babies. I find that statement to be extreme and inflammatory. Does gun ownership carry with it an inherent evil which makes one want to commit violent crimes? In his recent article from CNN titled, “Gun control measures don't stop violence” writer Robert A. Levy said, “There are about 500,000 gun-related crimes annually in the United States. Further, Americans own roughly 250 million guns. Assuming a different gun is used in each of the 500,000 crimes, only 0.2% of guns are involved in crime each year. A ban on firearms would be 99.8% over-inclusive” (1). From those statistics we can see that guns don't carry with them an inherent evil to cause one a desire to commit a violent crime. Not only that, punishing 99.8% of gun owners because of the ignorance of a few doesn't seem right. The focus instead should be on those that represent the 0.2% and not on gun owners as a whole. Levy goes on to say:
Recall that Washington banned handguns for 33 years; during some of those years the city was known as the nation's murder capital. Killers not deterred by laws against murder were not deterred by laws against owning guns. Moreover, anti-gun regulations did not address the deep-rooted causes of violent crime -- illegitimacy, drugs, alcohol abuse and dysfunctional schools -- much less mental instability. (1)
We need to stop casting blame on the tools used to kill and rather focus on uprooting killings from where they start.
By turning to the justice system we can learn a little more about what is meant by “dysfunctional schools” (Levy 1). A quick search from google shows us that the education level of those on death row is at or below high school according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. In a study done at Berkeley done by Lance Lochner and Enrico Moretti shows a similar trend with prison inmates. In other words, our school system is severely lacking in certain areas. In a world where most jobs require you to have a college diploma just to get an interview, what chance do those with less then a high school education have? What then will those who have no opportunities to make money legally do? With no education and no opportunity to get an education it's not likely that they will earn a living through legal means. They learn that there are other ways to make money if one is willing to “bend” some laws. Once they've learned that skill set it's difficult to unlearn. It would seem that the money spent on lobbyist for gun control and gun bans could be better spent on hiring more teachers, strengthening the education system, and providing college opportunities for those who have no hope on their own.
In one of my favorite songs, a religious hymn, one of the lines goes as follows, “I would be my brothers keeper, Lord I would follow thee.” This line embodies the very thing that I am calling for. We need to stop ignoring those who stand in need and leaving them to hopelessly flounder around in the prison system, we need to care for our brothers and sisters. Naturally this would not solve all the problems that we face, but it would do a great deal in the effort to stop the growing trend of violent crimes. Not only that, it would make the world we live in a better place. The value of improving lives cannot be measured by simple numbers, it has an impact beyond what we can measure with statistics. In fact, the study done by Lochner and Moretti shows what other effects can come from increasing the education level in America.
Another common call on firearms is to ban magazines with capacity's that are greater than ten, or as Brady calls them, “high-capacity-killing magazines” (1). We can look to California (CA) for an answer on this one, where a ban is currently in effect on guns that have magazines over 10. I'll compare CA to Utah (UT) since this is the state where I live and most people who read this live. In 2009 CA racked in a grizzly 1,972 murders 1,360 of those by firearms. Contrast with UT where we have 37 murders with 25 of those as a result of firearms according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Now that is not exactly fair to CA, it is quite a bit lager than UT, anyone looking at a map can see that. According to the U.S. Census CA has an estimated population of 36,961,66 in 2009 while UT has about 1/13 of that at 2,784,572. If we take the CA population, murders, and murders by firearms and divide them by 13 we get a population of 2,779,072 with 148 murders and 102 of those caused by firearms. Now there are many things that can influence the murder rate, demographics, poverty, religion, etc. but the lesson taught here is that putting a ban in effect to end all magazine over the capacity of 10 has not stopped violent acts by firearms.
As stated by Levy earlier in the article we saw that a ban on firearms would be 99% over-inclusive, and wouldn't impede those of a criminal mindset. The hateful rhetoric needs to stop between gun supporters and anti-gun supporters. We need to learn from out past mistakes and see that strict gun control laws don't have an impact on those already participating in illegal acts, to stop wasting our time pulling the leaves, stop looking busy, and solve the real problems where they begin, at the roots.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
The "Principle" of Wisdom
The “Principle” of Wisdom
There are those who take one specific commandment and draw their own conclusions about its importance and acceptability. Elder Packer likened this idea to a keyboard; “Some members of the Church who should know better pick out a hobby key or two and tap them incessantly, to the irritation of those around them. They can dull their own spiritual sensitivities. They lose track that there is a fullness of the gospel, . . . [which they reject] in preference to a favorite note. This becomes exaggerated and distorted, leading them away into apostasy” (Oaks). When taken to extremes, assumed commandments deaden our spiritual senses. This often leads to a judging attitude that in turn causes us to unrighteously judge and fall into sin.
One such assumption in Latter Day Saint Culture is that of the sin that lies within caffeine consumption. No doctrine delineates caffeine as an offence against the Word of Wisdom. The focus is placed on meaningless details while the importance of the principle behind the Word of Wisdom is often overlooked. As Doctrine and Covenants 89 reads, “hot drinks are not for the belly”. The definition of “hot drinks” can be hard to understand. Luckily, the very basis of our religion, modern and continuing revelation, has given us an insight into the interpretation of this perplexing passage of scripture: Coffee and tea. Let’s disregard the fact that both drinks are usually taken hot; what else do they both have in common? The intoxicating ingredient caffeine. Every Mormon child has heard its name whispered on the playground as if the very mention of the substance brings immediate punishment. Countless judgments have been passed and faces turned red as a result of caffeine consumption. The look of disdain from a relief society president at the sight of an empty Dr. Pepper can in your trash would suggest an offence equal only to alcohol consumption. Ironically, she then goes home and eats eight pounds of chocolate. We are counseled again and again to avoid any substance that may lead to addiction. Caffeine (like virtually any substance in existence when taken to a certain extreme) most definitely fits into this category. The question is, why do church leaders hesitate in specifically condoning or abolishing caffeine consumption? As I witnessed Elder Mask of the Quorum of the Seventy say in a Priesthood Leadership meeting in the Dominican Republic, “Do you see this can of Coca-Cola?” He proceeded to open it and (impressively) drink the entire can. Turning to a bishop he asked “Bishop, will you still sign my recommendation to enter the temple?” The obvious answer was yes; personal worthiness as of yet has nothing to do with whether or not we drink caffeine. If it had been an alcoholic beverage or a cigarette it obviously would have been a different story but according to modern day revelation, caffeine is not yet a sin.
The real issue at hand has nothing to do with caffeine but rather what the Word of Wisdom is actually teaching us. Is it a list of specific substances to avoid or is it a principle that goes much deeper than that? Elder Boyd Packer said; “The Word of Wisdom was ‘given for a principle with promise’ (D&C 89:3). That word principle in the revelation is a very important one. A principle is an enduring truth, a law, a rule you can adopt to guide you in making decisions. Generally principles are not spelled out in detail. That leaves you free to find your way with an enduring truth, a principle, as your anchor” (Packer). We can pull a plethora of knowledge out of such a small section of the Doctrine and Covenants. The Word of Wisdom teaches us that our bodies are temples that God has entrusted us with. He expects us to care for them. Just as we are not to plaster our bodies with tattoos and piercings, we should care for them physiologically as well. Section 89 teaches us to avoid eating too much meat (and only in the season thereof). Interestingly, though nothing containing caffeine is allowed to be sold on BYU campus, no one complains about the exorbitant amounts of meat served daily in every food establishment. As a freshman, I was amazed at the daily choices at the cannon center: bacon, sausage, and often ham for breakfast, hamburger bar, wraps filled with ham, and ribs for lunch, Chinese chicken, beef ribs and pork chops for dinner; the list is endless! Though a heaping plate of red meat will get you a passing “Bon apetite!”, a can of mountain dew with your meal will only score you judging looks of disappointment. The Word of Wisdom as a principle teaches us to take care of our physical bodies however we can. Why then is McDonalds not condemned as sin over the pulpit at general conference? As an athlete, I personally choose not to drink caffeinated beverages except under rare circumstances, but I understand people’s decision to do so because it is not against the commandments.
Again it comes down to principles and not specifics. Too often as members of the church we want a clear and deep line drawn between what is acceptable and what is not. However, the Lord has told us that “it is not meet that I should command in all things” (D&C 58:26). Each of us individually needs to analyze our habits, addictions and assumptions in order to more perfectly obey the laws and principles of the gospel. We need to take into account the whole of each principle to avoid “strain[ing] at a gnat, and swallow[ing] a camel” (Matthew 23:24). Doing so can be especially damaging spiritually if we focus on the mote in our brother’s eye. If we strive to follow the spirit of the law, we will find that the letter is very much the same. As long as we are caught up on the “checklist of what not to do”, however, we will continue to lose the teachings of the underlying principles contained in the commandments. That, in a way, would be as foolish as Esau selling his birthright for a mess of decaffeinated pottage.
In a related video, President Uchtdorf shares his thoughts on what matters most...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)