Poisoned Candy

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/10/29/poisoned-halloween-candy-trick-treat-myth/

Poisoned?  No.  Dentally Damaging?  Yes.

I remember every Halloween as a young kid there were a series of ground rules that had to be followed.  Only trick or treat doors in lighted areas.  Stay with an approved adult.  Watch out for overly suspicious activity.  Most importantly, no candy until trick or treating was over and we were back in the house.  For some reason my parents along with many others believed that there were people out there who sabotaged candy in an attempt to hurt kids.  This is an urban legend that according to the above link, doesn’t happen.  People like to think that the things they fear are rational and threatening.  In a day and age when ghosts and ghouls have been largely dismissed (ghost hunters excepted) it seems people have found a new irrational fear to stress over.  This fear fits well into the standard American paradigm of Stranger Danger.  Even one of the few days of the year when we throw caution to the wind and interact with people wearing masks, we still make sure to keep in our own groups and follow protective guidelines.  I'm terrified that in the future costumes will begin incorporating those ridiculous parent leashes in order to make sure kids don't wander ahead.  Here’s what I want to know, did your parents check your candy?  How comfortable are you approaching strangers?  Do you think its necessary for parents to micromanage their kids on halloween?

Buried Brainless

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/10/27/shipley.stolen.brain/index.html?hpt=C1

For my free blog I’d like to bring up an issue I literally just found out about.  Medical examiners have the authority to keep parts of your body after you die, and not tell anyone, sort of.  In the above story a family finds out from students visiting a morgue that their recently deceased and buried son’s brain is in the lab.  I always thought an autopsy was a pretty simple affair (judging from CSI episodes) wherein the cause of death was usually discovered in roughly 2-3 minutes.  Apparently some organs need to be kept for a couple of weeks in order to analyze them properly.  While it does seem pretty unethical to keep body parts without informing the family that they’re missing, there are some reasons for doing so.  First of all, many families are already distraught at having lost a loved one and may object to having the necessary tests performed if given the chance.  More seriously, if anyone in the family was connected to that persons’ death/murder, they may deny medical examiners the opportunity to unearth their crime.  For this reason many medical examiners are given almost a free rein and little oversight in what they choose to keep and for how long.  Personally, I don’t really care too much what happens to my organs after I die.  Whether they end up donated, in a lab, or in the ground, it won’t make any difference to me.  Maybe a better system would be to give medical examiners the right to overrule families in terms of what they keep and for how long, provided they keep accurate records, treat the parts with due respect, and above all, inform the family beforehand.  Did anyone else know about this postmortem practice?  What do you think is a fair and ethical way to tackle this practice?

Copycat Killers

Insert your face here.

Watching Bill Curtis delve into the dark side of media influence was extremely fascinating.  The examples given were both unsettling and hard to relate to.  I’ve seen natural born killers, but I never felt the urge to get a psycho girlfriend and go on a rampage.  While there seems to be a general consensus that movies don’t directly cause people to go out and commit violent acts they can definitely inspire crazy people or give them an idea of what to do.  Perhaps more importantly we should examine what sort of culture glorifies violence on-screen.  Movies such as Natural Born Killers, that provided the violent spark that ignited real-life killers, portray killing as consequence-free and glamorous.  No one single movie can or should be singled out to blame for copycat violence, but the system as a whole needs to be examined, as this problem is clearly widespread.  Perhaps if the media has such a strong influence on people we should strive to create films that show the greatness of human potential, instead of its capacity for depravity.  Here are my questions, are criminals inspired by to copycat because they lack originality, believe it will give them a lighter sentence, or some other reason?  Has anyone heard of a Saw copycat killer because of all the ways to die, the ones constructed in those films probably give me the biggest heebie-jeebies, though I’m not sure any single disturbed individual is clever enough to pull something like that off?  

Copycat fighting

I'm super excited to learn this move

I love martial arts films.  Ever since I was a child I have been captivated by just how awesome the martial arts are.  Finally, when I was in high school, after seeing Jet Li’s Fearless, I decided that it was time for me to embark upon my martial arts career.  In many of these films a young protagonist finds a wise old master who trains him in a particular fighting methodology.  Similarly, I set out to find my wise old master.  After a quick google search I found a dojo in my area and enrolled as a student with a couple of my friends. I loved it.  When I came to college I joined the jmu tkd group so I could keep training.  I only wish that I had copycatted the media in this case at a younger age.  While it was disappointing to learn that learning this ancient art wouldn’t allow me to fly or take on hundreds of opponents simultaneously, its been a lot of fun.  I think that media depictions of martial arts have inspired many kids like me to at least try training in a martial art.  Especially with the popularity of UFC (which is both a result of the popularity of martial arts, and now a factor in driving it) martial arts have experienced a resurgence in popular culture.  Has anyone else tried a martial arts move they saw on tv, or likewise tried to learn martial arts because of the media? 

Terrorist Threat!

Yes, there were more cops at homecoming, let’s move on.  Recently the United States announced a travel warning for all of Europe over concerns about a possible terrorist attack.  According to this story, http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/10/17/france.terror.threat/index.html?hpt=T2 France and the UK are particularly worried about attacks.  My question is, do active terrorist warnings really help people prepare for terror attacks, or deter “risky” behavior such as traveling to that country?  Currently France’s terrorist threat level is at “reinforced red” just below “scarlette red” which sounds slightly intimidating, like a terror attack is probably almost certainly imminent.  This is silly.  My odds of dying in a car crash are probably far greater, but that doesn’t stop me from getting in a car on an almost daily basis, nor should a government issued warning stop you from traveling around.  If terrorists are able to stop us from traveling, and cause us to be scared of being in Western Europe, then they’ve accomplished far more than they should.  Not to dimish the reality of terrorist networks, but the various warnings governments propagate feel similar to media propagated terror of sharks in the Summer.  They’re there, there’s terrible stories about them, but its highly doubtful they’re going to get you.  Am I wrong?

This man alone caused a thousand people,
ten thousand miles away to change their travel plans.

Here is a list of countries that the state department has issued travel warnings for:

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_1764.html

Pretty much Africa, the Middle East and Mexico

Mis-Information

In America, we often view the world with an individualistic eye.  We are all the master and commander of our own fate.  We are self-made men who believe what we will, and bow before no man.  Perhaps this leads to us trusting our own experiences over what research tells us (“I’ve never been in an accident, and I speed all the time!”).  Yet this self-centered paradigm often ignores common, but important systemic influences.  Even in our society it is easier to think what others think than to go against the crowd.  When given a wealth of media choices, we tend to tune into the one that reflects our own beliefs, or if we do hear information we don’t agree with, we tune it out.

            When I was a child everyone believed in Santa Claus.  I did not.  I don’t know why I was the odd one out, but I just didn’t buy into a fat red man sneaking into my house.  However, in Kindergarten there were many kids who were hardcore believers.  To me, it seemed like every single kid in my class believed in Santa Claus.  There was no way they could all be wrong, and they had all seen him!  Slowly but surely I bought into the myth as well.  When I asked my teacher about this deep existential issue, I ignored her hesitant face and stammering speech, and just heard that yes, Santa did exist.  Thus the bandwagon effect and confirmation bias contributed to me believing in Santa Claus.

            The road to a dictatorship is paved with good intentions.  A Department of Information that is objective is as about as fictional as FOX news being fair and balanced.  Yes, there is a problem with the dissemination of information in this country, but a government run agency is not the answer.  If we really want to change how American media presents news, we need to hit them where it hurts, their profits.  If Americans went on a media strike, only watching foreign news channels and not biased American ones, the programs and information being presented would change.  A department of information would lead to partisan bickering at best and government sponsored manipulation at worst.

Free Blog 2

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/10/new.york.paladino.gays/index.html?hpt=T1

Today, I wanted to comment on the power of the media not to collude with the government, but to bring down politicians.  In the above article New York Republican gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino attacked homosexuals.  His speech was made only to a small gathering, but thanks to the ever present media his remarks can be read and commented on by a huge number of people.  While people may see the media as a tool of big government, it is also a perpetual watchdog.  Anytime a conservative misspeaks or makes a bigoted comment, CNN or MSNBC is there to let everyone know it happened.  Likewise, FOX news helps to balance the equation by sharply observing liberals.  Sarah Palin’s run for vice-president was seriously hurt because she said dumb things that were widely propagated by the media.  Outside of mass media, sites like youtube allow anyone to similarly distribute politicians and powerful people saying foolish or unwise things.  Which one do you think is more effective at challenging the powerful, the mainstream news outlets, or individuals with the power of the internet?  Should politicians always be observed to figure out their true beliefs (homophobic in this case) or is that an invasion of privacy?

Here’s a video on youtube of George Bush

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqLvBUSJucg

University of Texas Shooter

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/09/29/texas.university.shooting/index.html?npt=NP1

http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk/article/colton-tooley-what-we-know-about-the-suspected-ut-shooter/19652387

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/29/ut-shooter-colton-tooley-_n_743147.html

Colton Tooley

I chose to cover the University of Texas shooter, Colton Tooley.  The facts of the case are as follows: around 8:10, 19-year-old Colton Tooley began shooting an AK-47 around campus before moving into the library and committing suicide.  Tooley was a sophomore math major who had graduated 7^th in his high-school class.  The case is being presented in a very episodic format without any clear connection to underlying problems or widespread trends.  The CNN article notes that the area suffered another lone gunman 14 years prior but didn’t make any connections between the two.  Honestly, I expected there to be at least a paragraph talking about gun control, or limiting weapons on college campuses, but there weren’t any.  I don’t think this story is widespread or popular enough to enter into the category of crime entertainment.  I personally don’t enjoy reading or hearing about student gunmen (or gunwomen) on campuses.  I like to believe that college students don’t do things like that and stories like this challenge that worldview.  If this story was more sensational and traumatic (if he actually killed someone) then perhaps there would have been more of a follow-up that tends to lead toward crime entertainment and CJ policy suggestions (symbolic crime).