The Original Thriller & The Media

First I would like to start off by saying that although I was not Michael Jackson's biggest fan and I thought he was a little crazy at times (msot of the time) it is sad to see him go. He brought us music during his early life and in his later years he brought us entertainment. Whatever people say about him they cannot deny that he was entertaining.

This brings me to my next point. While I was watching all the various media coverage of Michael Jackson's cardiac arrest and eventual tragic death I began to notice something. Each news channel was presenting the story that was unfolding and seeking the opinion of an 'expert.' While each channel provided a different 'expert,' they were all from various backgrounds and people I had never heard of before. They purported that he had a drug overdose, and began to speculate on every aspect of the story. It made me question how the title of 'expert' can be carelessly attached to anyone by the media in a situation like this. They find someone that they believe will be controversial and believable by the public. So they have them give a spiel about the 'breaking story,' in this case Michael Jackson, and instead of giving informed opinion they seem to just spread gossip.

This made me think of how much power people provide the media with and how much people rely on the media for their supposed 'facts.' Scientists and researchers spend years studying events and situations before they feel confident enough to come to conclusions. In the media, this is done in the matter of seconds and if they are on a slow day, maybe minutes. I think people really need to assess the information that is provided by supposed experts and ask questions.

The other side to this story is that while the media may not always be reliable, and sometimes it presents pure gossip (for instance, like TMZ), it can be very beneficial in situations like that of Iran, where the media is being blocked from covering the event. Through the internet videos and twittering of the Iranian people we are able to find out about the tragedy that is unfolding there.

In conclusion, it is always best to be critical of any source of information. And even though news agencies can sometimes have alterior motives for presenting a piece of information, they are sometimes the best source (if you block out the insignificant parts).

Here's Johnny!

Hello all,
I know you haven't heard from me in a LOOOONNNNGGGGG time and most people have probably started to stop making visits to the site because I haven't updated it in many months... BUT, I am writing to let you all know.. (whoever is listening) that I will be starting to post again just before Christmas Day! I know you all must be pretty excited...so I'll let you take a moment...

***intermission***

Okay, back? Alright! Seriously though, I will be back to my old posting habits... and I have all this pent up article writing to let out (although, I have done my fair share of writing/reading these past couple of months) I hope that you will enjoy reading my upcoming articles as much as I love bringing them to you.

Take care all.... I'll e-see you all later.. (do you see what I did there... huh-huh... I made an Internet joke... ...yeah, I know it is pretty lame... but it made you smile a little bit... right?)

:S

Google's Polished New Toy

Just a short little post for today. Google has officially released Chrome (Beta), the first web browser from the Internet Tycoon. It is relatively simplistic, and stylish at the same time. It doesn't really do anything spectacular, but it does get the job done. Lee Matthews over at Download Squad makes some good comments about it.

I don't think Google is trying to corner the browser market with this gem, but they are sticking their nose into the field that has been dominated by Firefox and Internet Explorer. I agree with Matthews in thinking that moderate internet surfers may switch over to Chrome, but I don't see people that are enthusiasts (per-say) switching to Chrome. I guess we'll just have to wait to see what the competition comes up with, and what Google thinks up to 'one-up them.' 

As for right now, Google has entered the ring with the big players, and for the first time in a long time, Google is actually the underdog (but that doesn't mean that they can't create an upset). 

Georgian Cyberattacks Raise Important Questions

I have been following the Georgian conflict, as I am sure many of you have, and aside from the actual physical conflict there has been little attention paid to the cyberattacks that occurred prior to the Russian invasion. Tech analysts have stated that it does not appear to be sponsored by the Russian government even though it originated from somewhere in Russia. It has been pegged as an amateur attack because if Russia had wanted to stop the Georgian government from communicating they would have attacked their radio and television broadcasting capability. Instead, only websites were targeted which makes experts believe the attacks were carried out by 'paramilitary or militia-like organizations.'

While it is unsure whether this attack was sponsored by Russia or was done by independent entities, the fear of far more sophisticated cyberattacks has been heightened. In a recent Reuters article The U.S. Air Force General, Gene Renuart, asked what kind of cyberattack would lead to war:

"Is it degree? If you affect so many millions of people or so many millions of dollars or so many organizations, does that constitute a legal act of war?"

Renuart poses a very interesting question that high-tech countries such as the United States and Canada have to consider. Since most necessities are ran on computer systems, such as power grids, banking systems, air traffic and telecommunications (I have to use Live Free or Die Hard as an example here). But, what wouldconstitute an act of cyber-war? It is not an easy question to answer because it can often be very hard to pinpoint where the attack is originating. An attacker could make it appear that a cyberattack was occurring within one country but actually coming from a totally different one.

Aside from pinpointing the attackers, Renuart's original question is also noteworthy. What amount of damage would be designated as enough to go to war over? It is not an easy question to answer, and if warfare is soon to take to the cyber-battlefield rather than the physical battlefield, it would be important to specify the 'acts of war.' At this point it seems that we are still unsure of how to approach this new type of cyber-warfare, and so I think more attention needs to be paid to cyberattacks such as the one on Georgia. What would be the minimum damage from a cyberattack that you think a country should go to war over?

Source

Prominent Newfoundland Historian & Personal Influence Passes Away

Dr. Leslie Harris passed away August 26th, 2008. While he may be a relative unknown person to some people, he has greatly influenced my university career. I was not always a history major, as I dabbled in other departments before I settled on history. Reading articles written by Dr. Leslie Harris not only made me want to be able to do that some day, but his writing has also influenced the way I perceive Newfoundland history. Late in my Undergraduate career, in researching for my dissertation, I have used Dr. Harris' articles as a background to my topic. I never knew Dr. Harris personally, but I am sure he was well loved by all that knew him.

Not only has he influenced me, but his legacy at Memorial University of Newfoundland will never be forgotten. He was the head of the History Department, President, and even has a centre within the university named after him.

He will be greatly missed, but will live on through his legacy, and for me, through his articles.

DR. LESLIE HARRIS: October 24th, 1929 - August 26th, 2008
(see his official obituary here)

Inciting Change: Mass Protest Is The Way To Go

What incites political change? Public outrage key issues usually has something to do with it. But, that is usually not enough to cause politicians to flinch over changing their policies. Invisible public outrage, that is, when opposing opinions are held but not voiced, tend not to provoke government officials to do anything. It is only when people with a common goal are united under a cause that they become noticed, and then, and only then can change become a possibility.

On August 30th, 150 000 protesters marched through the streets throughout Mexico. The marchers were protesting the rising number of murders and kidnappings in the country. The main purpose of the march was to force President Felipe Calderon to crackdown on the increasing criminal activity.

It is unsure whether this protest will cause the President to scramble to please the public, but if the South Korean protest over U.S. beef is any indication, then at least SOME action should be taken in Mexico considering the South Korean government was willing to resign over the beef controversy.

In Canada, I hate to say it, but we hardly have any massive protests. For the most part, the only media covered protests we have are when G8 conferences are held here. I think if we had massive protests for a common cause we'd get more out of our governmental officials. If they can physically see with their own eyes that people are 'together' on an issue, they will almost surely have to take some action to alleviate the problem(s).

"Seeing is believing," and that is something we really lack. The only way that politicians make changes is when they are forced into doing so. They were elected by us, and unless we come right out and voice our opinions nothing is going to change. Now, while I am pushing for massive protests as a way to get our voices heard, there are also other avenues to explore. For instance, making petitions, writing to , and etc. The only caution about large protests is that they are best done peacefully. When violence enters the equation, that is when the focus gets taken away from the issues that started the protest and is put on the violent actions.

If Mexicans and South Koreans can unite under a just cause, there is no reason why everyone else cannot. While I state that Canada needs to unite under a common issue, I think the U.S. is in more need of this same sort of objection to their government (ie: the Iraq War, protecting their personal rights, Guantanamo Bay prison rights, overseas foreign policy, the economy, etc.) What do you think?

The Russian-Georigan Conflict: Behind The Scenes

I have no doubt that most people have heard about the Russian invasion of Georgia. The 'official' reason for the Russian invasion has been said to help South Ossetia (a state that recently split away from Georgia, and which would like to join Russia) repel Georgian forces who invaded to take back control of the area.

The part that has garnered much international attention to be focused on Russia is that even though there has been a ceasefire negotiated between Georiga and Russia, Russian forces are not evacuating Georgian territory, instead they are increasing their presence under the guise of peace-keeping. I think that Russia's official reasons for invading Georgia are a clever excuse. Russia is a semi-major influence on the Asian continent, and what do most powers want to do? They want to retain the equilibrium of power on the continent. It has been this way since even before World War II.

If you carefully take a look at a map of the Middle East you will notice some interesting things.

What I notice when I look at this map is that Iraq and Iran are very close to Georgia. Internationally Iran is now viewed as a loose-canon, to say the least, but even more importantly U.S. controlled Iraq is very close to Georgia. As far back as the days of the British Colonial Empire, major powers have wanted to keep other major powers at a distance (if at all possible). I see this as a possible reason why Russia has decided now to invade Georgia. If Russia controls the Georgian state then they have a buffer between themselves, Iraq and Iran.

Another important aspect to look at is the fact that a major gas-pipeline runs through Georgia. If you take a close look at this map, and then take a look at an excellent article by Michael Economides' on Energy Tribune, you will notice that an important pipeline that runs through Georgia. The scramble for oil is well on its way, and Russia is most certainly not being left behind in the dust.

Although, there can be no definitive answer to the question: Why did Russia invade Georgia? The evidence is leaning towards protection and oil as the incentives. With Russian-U.S. relations at a relative low over the Polish agreement, and Georgia being a 'roadblock' to Russian oil production expansion, it seems very plausible that this invasion was not over nationalism.

Stress Relief

I have just finished the second draft of my major research paper, and now my brain is certifiable mush. To relieve the wear and tear on my brain, I decided to play some mindless-online gaming, but I came across an interesting puzzle game called Fantastic Contraption.

This game lets you build (sometimes crazy looking) machines. These 'contraptions' are used to move the 'pink gamepiece' from the white start zone to the pink finish-area. Some of the beginning levels are easy to finish, while the later ones are very... well... complicated. If you need any encouragement to complete the harder levels or some enlightenment check out youtube. There are various videos of people's creations. Some are fantastic, while others are duds.

Here is my favourite contraption on Youtube:



So stop what you are doing for a little while, and build your own crazy contraption. Who cares if it works, it's just for fun. I've built some interesting machines that have went nowhere, but it made me laugh just looking at it.

How Would You Like Your News? Filtered Or Non-Filtered?

I've been pretty interested in oil prices recently and the way oil refining companies have been charging whatever they want for gasoline, but when I came across a story about an abundance of oil in Iraq I was intrigued. I found the article on Forbes.com, but I noticed that it had originally been reported by Reuters. So, with my ever-curious spirit, I looked up the article over on Reuters.com and found something interesting.


The article on Forbes reads like this:



The Reuters article reads like this:


What you will find in comparing the two articles is that the Forbes article takes some creative licensing, and cuts out the last section of the original article. In the last part of the Reuters' article an oil deal with China is discussed, and then it states:

Foreign oil companies are keen to get access to Iraq's vast and largely untapped oil reserves, but high world prices are allowing Baghdad to drive a hard bargain.

It is almost as if the Forbes article purposely leaves this fact out of the supposed reprint of the article. Why would this information be left out? What agenda is Forbes trying to push? Personally, I do not think it was a mistake, and my gut instinct tells me that Forbes doesn't want the fact that a deal with China is being made and the fact that the Iraqi oversupply will give Iraq (and I am thinking most likely the US) an upperhand in the market.

As Seth Godin states, the news is not written to inform the public, it is written to sell newspapers or create controversy. This seems true in this case, as Forbes does not provide the whole truth and the real story is provided through a filter which is imposed on the public.

The point of this story is not to defame Forbes, but to warn people about sources of information. You must always be critical of where you get your facts. There is always some sort of filter which is imposed on information, and it is imperative that the person knows how to pick out what is relevant and what is not (Also, more importantly you should be able to pick out if the information is credible, like in the Forbes-Reuters example I mention in this article).

Be Critical. Be Aware. These are two ideas to live by.

Academic Sidenote: Are Female Professors Viewed As Mother Figures?

Yet again there is another good article on CrookTimber entitled 'Herr Professor Daddy? I Didn't Think So,' which raises some interesting questions about how female professors are viewed compared to male professors.

The article states:

First of all, students demand much more emotional work from female professors than they do of male profs. If the women don’t provide it, they are often viewed as cold bitchy profs that don’t care about students. Although I don’t know of any systematic studies of what types of topics students bring up during interactions with professors by gender, I have heard plenty of anecdotal evidence suggesting that female profs get approached much more by students wanting to talk about life issues than male profs.

I would argue that (and so does the first commenter on CrookTimber) that it all depends on the way the prof interacts with their students. If a prof portrays a personality that is more approachable I think that students will be more willing to approach them, despite their gender. I have had female professors that I have found approachable and unapproachable, and I have had male professors that were approachable and unapproachable.

If a professor answers students questions with respectability and offers themselves as a person that can relate to a student, they will be more likely to have students express 'issues' with them. While female profs can be viewed as 'mother-like figures' I believe that male professors can also be viewed in a similar way. Males and females can have personality traits that are very similar, and it is not gender so much as personality that can affect how students relate with professors.

The idea that you cannot mix caring and compassionate traits with academia is, in my opininon, an axiom that is accepted without actually being considered. I think it is just that people are very comfortable with academia being cold and uncaring, but does it really have to be that way? Can there not be a mix of the two? Educational teachers find a way to combine the both of these facets, why can't professors? (I do realize that 12 year olds are not the same as 20 year old university students) but some level of caring and compassion can be incorporated in teaching at a university level.

Update: I never realized when I was posting this article, but I made it seem like Eszter Hargittai, the author of the CrookTimber article, was arguing that female professors were seen as nurturers. Her article argues that women professors are not seen as authority figures. What I should have stated at the beginning of my article is that my posting is a response, not to Eszter's article, but to the debate that rises from the article comments. Thanks again for Eszter bringing it to my attention.