TO MY RATHER SUB- PAR BLOG.
HERE IS THE POST I WOULD LIKE YOU TO REVIEW.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
KIM COLE
Friday, October 26, 2012
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Public Service Announcement
Disclaimer: Still in a bad mood. Sorry. Edit: Over 30 page views and not a single comment. Speak up.
Apparently I fell asleep today within the last ten minutes of class. And apparently the reaction to such behavior was strong, so I feel the need to say some things about it.
To the World War I group presenting:
I'm terribly sorry for falling asleep during your presentation. If it insulted you, I apologize. Your presentation was very interesting, and I would've loved to enjoy it at maximum alertness. I really enjoyed the format of the powerpoint and your handouts. I think that you really built on what we learned through the previous presentations. I liked how you gave us plenty of quotes for our essays.
To 'half the class':
I was informed that 'half the class' laughed at me for falling asleep. Gee thanks. Like you've never been tired. In addition to being tired, the lighting of the room was not sympathetic to drowsiness and I could not rely on my usual strategies to stay perky. Normally, I would stand up and stretch, but this would've been very disrespectful to the War War I group. Or I would eat some form of candy. However, I ate all the gum and candy I had in my backpack. Interrupting the class to ask for sugar would be quite rude, no? I did not intend to fall asleep. In fact, I was so tired that I didn't even remember falling asleep. Surely some of you have been in this position, given our busy schedules.
To the idea that I fell asleep as a sign of mockery to the World War I group:
That is a retched idea. It is even more shocking that this claim was supported by personal opinions that were rather degrading to the World War I group. As previously said, I truly enjoyed the presentation and physical exhaustion is the sole cause.
To those who think my life is expendable for humor and personal agendas:
Review your actions and mind your own business.
Apparently I fell asleep today within the last ten minutes of class. And apparently the reaction to such behavior was strong, so I feel the need to say some things about it.
To the World War I group presenting:
I'm terribly sorry for falling asleep during your presentation. If it insulted you, I apologize. Your presentation was very interesting, and I would've loved to enjoy it at maximum alertness. I really enjoyed the format of the powerpoint and your handouts. I think that you really built on what we learned through the previous presentations. I liked how you gave us plenty of quotes for our essays.
To 'half the class':
I was informed that 'half the class' laughed at me for falling asleep. Gee thanks. Like you've never been tired. In addition to being tired, the lighting of the room was not sympathetic to drowsiness and I could not rely on my usual strategies to stay perky. Normally, I would stand up and stretch, but this would've been very disrespectful to the War War I group. Or I would eat some form of candy. However, I ate all the gum and candy I had in my backpack. Interrupting the class to ask for sugar would be quite rude, no? I did not intend to fall asleep. In fact, I was so tired that I didn't even remember falling asleep. Surely some of you have been in this position, given our busy schedules.
To the idea that I fell asleep as a sign of mockery to the World War I group:
That is a retched idea. It is even more shocking that this claim was supported by personal opinions that were rather degrading to the World War I group. As previously said, I truly enjoyed the presentation and physical exhaustion is the sole cause.
To those who think my life is expendable for humor and personal agendas:
Review your actions and mind your own business.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Are you kidding me?
Disclaimer: I'm in a pretty bad mood. It's been a long week. Sorry?
Remember Friday? When we dissected the Quasi War presentation and related it to Tagg Romney in the ABSOLUTELY MOST POLITICALLY NEUTRAL WAY POSSIBLE? Yeah.
In class, we discussed Tagg Romney's quote regarding a loaded radio question of how he felt to have his father get called a liar by President Obama. The question itself is untrue, as this is not what President Obama said and was obviously made to provoke. In response, Tagg Romney said he'd like to have gotten up from his seat during the debate, gone down to the stage and 'taken a swing' at our President. Sure, he said other things like "But you know you can't do that because ... there's a lot of Secret Service between you and him," and it's great that we talked about that, too, but he also said other things afterwards. The discussion finally lead to the question of whether or not to arrest Tagg Romney for his statement. Really? That is nonsensical because the context had no intention of violence, Tagg Romney was using a figure of speech, and he also said some pretty important stuff afterwards that was somehow overlooked. How could we have overlooked it? The entire quote was blown up on the projector for all to see, and yet we didn't even consider the entire quote? Really?
Here's the entire quote:
"But you know you can't do that because ... there's a lot of Secret Service between you and him, but also because this is the nature of the process," Romney told Bill LuMaye of WPTF-AM. "They're going to do everything they can do to try to make my dad into someone he's not. We signed up for it. We've gotta kinda sit there and take our punches and then send them right back the other way."
I'm not saying that Tagg Romney is an angel, but the ability to continue looking right after reading a part of the evidence would be nice. You can't just take part of a quote if the other part is extremely important. Tagg Romney clearly says that yeah, there's Secret Service, but he would never seriously consider violence against the President because he knew his father would be attacked due to the nature of campaigning. In class, the discussion implied that the only reason why Tagg Romney didn't attack President Obama was because of the Secret Service around him. But Tagg Romney stated that he had no intention of doing anything, Secret Security or not. Tagg Romney, like any rational grown up should, knows what his father signed up for and that as Mitt Romney's son, he needs to be prepared. If anything, the fact that he used such a ridiculous figure of speech shows how tolerant he is of the situation. He wouldn't joke around if he was truly hurt by a question that wasn't even true to begin with.
I'm upset because our class didn't seem to realize that. We had the whole quote for us to examine, and yet no one wanted to go against the conversation and say, "Hey guys you know there's more to the quote that could make a lot of our points null," which I find rather disappointing. As Level 18 students, we should be able to read all the evidence and not just stick to what suits our arguments. We should also be willing to argue a point the contradicts the rest of the class.
Remember Friday? When we dissected the Quasi War presentation and related it to Tagg Romney in the ABSOLUTELY MOST POLITICALLY NEUTRAL WAY POSSIBLE? Yeah.
In class, we discussed Tagg Romney's quote regarding a loaded radio question of how he felt to have his father get called a liar by President Obama. The question itself is untrue, as this is not what President Obama said and was obviously made to provoke. In response, Tagg Romney said he'd like to have gotten up from his seat during the debate, gone down to the stage and 'taken a swing' at our President. Sure, he said other things like "But you know you can't do that because ... there's a lot of Secret Service between you and him," and it's great that we talked about that, too, but he also said other things afterwards. The discussion finally lead to the question of whether or not to arrest Tagg Romney for his statement. Really? That is nonsensical because the context had no intention of violence, Tagg Romney was using a figure of speech, and he also said some pretty important stuff afterwards that was somehow overlooked. How could we have overlooked it? The entire quote was blown up on the projector for all to see, and yet we didn't even consider the entire quote? Really?
Here's the entire quote:
"But you know you can't do that because ... there's a lot of Secret Service between you and him, but also because this is the nature of the process," Romney told Bill LuMaye of WPTF-AM. "They're going to do everything they can do to try to make my dad into someone he's not. We signed up for it. We've gotta kinda sit there and take our punches and then send them right back the other way."
I'm not saying that Tagg Romney is an angel, but the ability to continue looking right after reading a part of the evidence would be nice. You can't just take part of a quote if the other part is extremely important. Tagg Romney clearly says that yeah, there's Secret Service, but he would never seriously consider violence against the President because he knew his father would be attacked due to the nature of campaigning. In class, the discussion implied that the only reason why Tagg Romney didn't attack President Obama was because of the Secret Service around him. But Tagg Romney stated that he had no intention of doing anything, Secret Security or not. Tagg Romney, like any rational grown up should, knows what his father signed up for and that as Mitt Romney's son, he needs to be prepared. If anything, the fact that he used such a ridiculous figure of speech shows how tolerant he is of the situation. He wouldn't joke around if he was truly hurt by a question that wasn't even true to begin with.
I'm upset because our class didn't seem to realize that. We had the whole quote for us to examine, and yet no one wanted to go against the conversation and say, "Hey guys you know there's more to the quote that could make a lot of our points null," which I find rather disappointing. As Level 18 students, we should be able to read all the evidence and not just stick to what suits our arguments. We should also be willing to argue a point the contradicts the rest of the class.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Why Psy? PART 2
In my previous installment of Why Psy, I introduced several Asian acts who attempted to break into the American market with little fanfare, despite being A-list celebrities in their respective countries. Here's the list again. It has been updated to include acts who have not expressed a clear desire to promote heavily in America but have still done some promotion.
- Jin Akanishi
- Utada Hikaru
- Wonder Girls
- BoA
- SNSD
- Perfume
- Bi Rain
- Jay Chou
- Lee Byung Hun
Any novice Asian Pop fan should be able to recognize most of this list. Jay Chou has been the most popular male Cpop artist since 1999. But his sole claim to American fame is his role as Kato in 'Green Hornet'. Utada Hikaru is one of Japan's best female soloists, active 1995-2011. She released official American debut material, but all of it flopped. Her greatest achievement is singing the opening to Kingdom Hearts II, although this fame is limited to America's otaku community. Kwon Boa, stage name BoA (Best of Asia), has been the queen of Kpop since she was 13, sometimes nicknamed the 'Asian Britney Spears' for her prodigal talent. She has also became a mainstream success in Japan. Jay Chou and Utada Hikaru have always composed critically acclaimed music. Utada Hikaru and BoA have released music in the US and promoted it. But why did they fail? Because they tried too hard to mold themselves into a trendy 'American friendly' image as opposed to being themselves. While Asian artists follow trends, American artists are more revered for their individuality. Both Utada Hikaru and BoA sacrificed their musical identities in an attempt to appeal to America, making them insincere and forgettable.
Utada Hikaru grew up in New York City, making her bilingual and allowing her to experience the American music scene long before she debuted in her native Japan. Some of her Japanese work includes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfpX8lkaSdk and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q5-4yMi-xg&feature=relmfu . But when she decided to debut in America, this horror happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RpqTJySA5Sc it's nothing like Utada's style, Utada's lyrics, Utada's visual appeal, or really anything. Somehow, Utada was convinced that the only way America would love her was if she edited herself to seem more 'American'. Do you even remember the melody to that song? No? That's because while it is arguably 'American' sounding, it's terrifically generic. As a result, it's fake and shallow coming from such a respected singer-songwriter.
BoA has been a staple of both Kpop and Jpop for years. Her discography speaks for itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BoA_discography . With excellent singing and dancing skills, taking the Best of Asia to America seems like a no-brainer. America has the biggest music industry, and would surely be profitable, right? And who wouldn't want to see their national darling conquering a bigger nation like America. Think about all the national pride. It's like taking candy from a baby. NOPE. Not if you release something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDAIPaXn4Gk . Can you understand what she's singing? Why is she wearing so much leather? Why does her cane emit light? Why is it so vocally processed, when BoA is known for her vocals? Why does she turn into water? It's a terrible song and a terrible video. BoA is given absolutely nothing to work with here. I don't even recognize the token minority man she's featured, in some attempt to start with a little relevancy.
Despite being beautiful and talented, these women failed in America because the material they debuted with was uncharacteristic and bland. It was uncharacteristic of them and sounded like trashy American flops, which they ultimately became. So why did a random clown like Psy get signed to Justin Bieber's label and featured on shows like SNL and the Ellen DeGeneres Show? TUNE IN NEXT TIME because I have to go to sleep now.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Airport Security: Civil Liberties Annoyed or Destroyed?
Seeing as all of my previous posts have been utter crap, here's something a little more worthwhile.
Airport security has always been a sensitive subject. Before the 9/11 attacks, there were scanners and gun checks in response to several hijacks in the 70s, but these precautions were less controversial. They were unintrusive and expedient. However, the security methods used by the TSA now, which range from liquid regulation to full-body scanners in lieu of the 9/11 attacks have been considerably more controversial. It is arguable that they even infringe upon our Constitutional rights. However, these methods are being exercised in time of war and are for American safety. And if being forced to remove our shoes could save us from losing our lives to terrorists, then our civil liberties become a necessary sacrifice. In times of war, the government has the right to protect America's safety in exchange for our civil liberties through its airport security methods. We are at war with terrorism, and many of these terrorist attacks use our airplanes as a medium. We can prevent these attacks through increased scrutiny at airports. Our Constitutional rights are not abolished during this scrutiny, but simply annoyed. This annoyance is an affordable price to pay when dealing with American security so long as the TSA's actions are reasonable.
Our civil liberties can be annoyed by airport security several ways. The most important example is how it compromises our Fourth Amendment. Our Fourth Amendment protects "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" and could be disrupted by full body scanners or pat downs (source: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html). However, our airports have warrants to examine passengers and their luggage. And the majority of the TSA's security methods are logical and unintrusive. Taking off your shoes and putting them in a separate bin to be scanned is reasonable. There have been several attempts at shoe bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/24/nyregion/at-adis-medunjanins-terror-trial-a-would-be-shoe-bomber-testifies.html) and taking off your shoes is not a difficult action. The exposure of feet and ankles is not considered scandalous in America and airport floors are kept relatively clean. This is easy for everyone to do and does not take a lot of time. This forceful removal of clothing may urk some people, but it is far from any serious violation of the Fourth Amendment. The real controversy lies in TSA procedures that may seriously disturb our Fourth Amendment. These include full body scanners and pat downs.
Full body scanners are more effective than metal detectors. but more intrusive. They're small gates that you have to walk through. If you set off the detector, a red light flashes. You are pulled aside and a detector wand is hovered over you. If this wand is set off, you and the security official must identify what's causing the problem and deal with it. If it's money or jewelry (which it often is for innocent people), it's not a problem. Or the detector is not set off and you are free to go. This is quick and painless. But the TSA has made upgrades to this concept in the form of full body scanners. This is where our civil liberties may be at stake. Full body scanners may be intrusive, revealing the surface of people's skin. This is akin to a strip search. However, the people examined have no reason to be strip searched. The full body scanner attempts to be a more precise metal detector, but it further endangers our Fourth Amendment because it is more invasive. However, full body scanners have yet to become a standard procedure and can be edited so that civilians are more comfortable. One way this can be done is by decreasing the definition of images produced by the scanner.
The TSA's aim is to ensure American safety by defending our airports against threats of terrorism. And our privacy and Constitutional rights may be lightly compromised if it ensures our security. But if the TSA goes too far and uses more intrusive methods, our civil liberties could be trampled. Is our security more valuable than our freedom in time of war? Yes. Sacrificing civil liberties for public safety is an ugly exchange but it is necessary in order to keep America safe. If the government's security techniques trespass on American rights too far, then compromises can be made.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)