Education In Place of Ignorance

Jessica Suguitan

Eng215W

FD5

Education In Place of Ignorance

Perhaps the most difficult feeling a human being can overcome is the feeling of fear.  Fear can be such a severe emotion that we will do anything in our power to control it.  This desire to control fear leads human beings to be angry, sad, hateful, and self-righteous.  Human beings choose these emotions instead of trying to process their fear and understand it within themselves.  I believe that violence and derogatory speech signify great ignorance of both oneself and humanity.   I believe that the habit of not questioning our actions, of not trying to understand where our beliefs come from and how those beliefs create the world we live in begins in childhood.  [THESIS] The best way to fight hate is to try and understand the source of hate within ourselves, this understanding should begin in early childhood education and continue throughout a child’s education; if an incident of hate occurs in adulthood further education should be included as part of the sentence. [THESIS]

There has been a significant increase in organizations promoting hate according to a study by the Political Research.  The number of hate organizations has grown nearly 38% from 1997 to 2004, totaling in 762 hate organizations according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. (Knickerbocker)  The same study reports a rise in anti-Islamic hate crimes.  In contrast to the rise in hate organizations studies have shown that hate crimes have been on a decrease since the 90’s.  However, there is still a significant amount of incidents involving hate, nearly 7,500 in 2003.  Over 1,000 of these crimes were crimes related to sexual orientation. (Anderson). 

I’m gay.  Though it is not the first thing I share with people when we meet, it is not something that I hide.  I have been lucky to have only experienced a handful of incidents where my sexual orientation caused some kind of insult or action against me.  I was once egged while kissing my then girlfriend.  I have been called a dyke insultingly. I have had friends who were beaten up for being gay, so I really do consider myself lucky.  For some reason being out still does not prevent some people from insulting people of my sexual orientations.  I have had numerous coworkers who have insulted gays in front of me, especially when gay marriage is being discussed. 

It always hurts to discover that a person who you have come to care for holds deep-seeded hate for something that you are.  I also found in curious that a person could know me and still hold prejudice against gays.  It was as if my sexuality and myself were two completely different things.  I always make it a personal project of mine to introduce political-correctness and acceptance into the minds of my ignorant co-workers. I always notice a difference in the way my coworkers act, not only towards me, but also towards one another.  For some reason becoming more aware of one’s hate and feelings of inequality causes a person to act with greater care for the environment in which they are a part of. 

According to Thomas Pettigrew from UCSC hate crimes and prejudice against Arab-Americans can be prevented through understanding.  He suggests getting know Arab-Americans and to learn about their history and culture.  (DeAngelis)  This kind of education with goals of understanding is what I personally applied to my coworkers.  I believe it can be used to prevent all kinds of hate and inequality, but it is important to create a place for discussion at a young age.  I believe that the younger a person learns how to confront their belief system and see it’s effect on people the more effectively they will be able to find compromise and understanding for themselves and the community they live in. 

The argument against education is fair.  Why should the public school system spend time and money educating a child on something like understanding hate?  It is a personal belief and a child should be able to have it.  In the end hate causes our community to be weaker.  Every moment spent thinking of a reason to separate one another is a moment spent on creating a society that does not work.  Hate crimes waste money being solved in the judicial system and the prison system.  Hate breeds hate.  It is a viscous cycle that will only cost more money.  Money aside, hate allows fear and ignorance into our society.  Fear and ignorance are awful things to feel and experience, it is a society in which nobody in their right mind would want to live. 

 Specialists believe that it is through education and understanding that prejudice can be conquered It is important that we educate our children about hate, ignorance, fear, and prejudice.  It is important that a child learns to navigate their minds so that they can be aware of where their beliefs come from and how they are formed.  It is important that a child be able to see how their beliefs will affect not only the people they interact with, but also the society in which they live.  It is also important that adults learn to do the same.

Works Cited

Anderson, Curt. "FBI Reports More Than 7,400 Hate Crimes << ENG 215W." 22 November 2004. ENG 215W. 13 December 2011 <http://eng215kcc.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/fbi-reports-more-than-7400-hate-crimes/>.

DeAngelis, Tori. "Understanding and Preventing Hate Crimes." 9 December 2001. ENG 215W. 13 December 2011 <http://eng215kcc.wordpress.com/2009/01/04/understanding-and-preventing-hate-crimes/>.

Knickerbocker, Brand. "National Acrimony and a Rise in Hate Crimes." 30 June 2005. The Christian Science Monitor. 13 December 2011 <http://eng215kcc.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/national-acrimony-and-a-rise-in-hate-crimes/>.

FD4 Remembering First To Listen

Jessica Suguitan

English 215

FD4

Remembering First To Listen

The first amendment of the Constitution ensures a person’s right to believe what they want, say what they want, print what they want, and peaceably organize a people however seen fit.  If a person disagrees with their government’s actions the first amendment ensures the right to use all of the previously stated first amendment rights to petition the government for a change. I believe the founders of America knew that the ability, the freedom, and the methods to discuss beliefs with one another would be the foundation of creating a nation that could, would, and should be supported by the people. [THESIS]  The only way for a democracy to function is when the voices of the people can be heard; therefore, regardless of how strongly ignorant, hateful, or subversive a statement may be, a person should have the right to express it. [THESIS]

We have all been there.  A friend, a coworker, or a family member says something so completely against what you believe that it is difficult to take the statement seriously.  If you are a civilized human being you will hear them out and ask questions to ensure that both of you understand what they are saying.  If you are an uncivilized person you will call them insulting names at the top of your lungs.

The very concept that a person’s ideas, reasons, and beliefs should be heard instead of ignored was born from the same movement that gave birth to America, the Enlightenment.  The Enlightenment’s major contribution to humanity was the philosophy that to find truth one must constantly ask what the truth is, testing their reality in experiments and observations, creating data to be logged and compared. The Enlightenment focused on developing a record that could be pointed to when further explanation was deemed necessary.   America, with great respect for the importance and necessity of reason, incorporated the beliefs of the Enlightenment into the DNA of our nation, the Constitution. 

I currently live in New York City.  Politically, I am a very liberal person.  I support the Occupy Wall Street movement.  I feel strongly about it. I have participated in protests.  Though the movement claims to represent the 99%, a great majority of people where the movement is based in New York City, do not support them.  I recently found myself getting into an argument with one of my coworkers about the movement’s right to protest.  Already within this situation the first amendment has been used many times, my coworker was free to express his point of view to me, it allowed for the 99% movement to happen, it allowed me to voice my opinion about the movement to my coworker, and finally in a more public way within the movement.  Participating in the protests allowed me to speak with people who were heavily involved with the OWS movement, giving me first hand knowledge of how the movement behaved.  As a result of all of this I felt that I understood more of what the movement was really about.  I was able to share this experience with my coworker and by listening to what he believed and sharing what I believed we were able to understand a little more of what the movement was about.  This search for truth, understanding, and compromise (what I like to call reality) within our country is made possible with the first amendment. 

It is integral that we are allowed to speak and hear all the sides of the story, all of the opinions within the masses; this is the gift of the first amendment.  As a nation and society we often call into question the necessity of this right when we hear a belief that we find offensive.  It is upsetting to find that a person or persons’ opinions are far from your own, it is even more upsetting when that opinion becomes more popular than your own and you find that you must comply with something with which you disagree.  We all want to help shape the world in which we live and when we see that world changing into something we fear it is extremely unsettling.

Our first defense against our fears becoming reality is having discussions within our community and media.  This is why there is such a strong reaction whenever hate speech becomes prevalent.  This is the case with Professor Ward Churchill who scandalously referred to the victims in the WTC 9/11 attacks as “Little Eichmanns” comparing those who worked in the financial trade end of America with Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi officer responsible for organizing much of the ghettoizing and death camp placing of those of Jewish ancestry during 1930’s and 1940s Europe (starting in Germany).  Churchill’s comparison is based on available knowledge that many of the largest corporations, who most stock traders and analysts work for, have their hands in war in some way or another.  All one need to do to discover this is type “war profiteering in America” into a search engine. 

My classmate Michael Sabetta states, “we should be thankful and treat it with the profound respect that it so rightly deserves” (Sabetta) in regards to the first amendment.  But giving the first amendment the respect it deserves includes allowing hateful speech, such as the anti-gay sentiments spouted at the funerals of dead Iraqi soldiers by the Westboro Baptist Church. I firmly believe that a society’s search for what is true and right is a constant process.  It cannot happen unless all voices are heard and addressed.  These people should not keep quiet and let their beliefs fester silently.  A person should be heard and spoken to. The protestors raise a point of view that is still held in America.  Though this point of view is hateful, in order for it to be understood and eventually overcome we must discuss it as a community and society. Censorship will not get us to a place of understanding. Let us not forget that pro homosexual protesting was once considered hateful towards our country, in that it promoted a subversive lifestyle.  It is my opinion that a  belief will eventually die out if it is not helpful towards building a better community and creating a more extensive understanding of humanity. 

My classmate Max Babylon understands the accepted reasoning behind free speech. In the following statement he sums the need for the first amendment in regards to Ward Churchill: “If he can't say what he wants, then other prominent figures of today could not voice their opinions on other issues.” (Babylon)  It is unfair to grant free speech to one individual and not another.  To grant one individual the right to speak and not another is a power that cannot be entrusted to anyone.  The power of speech is far too great to be regulated and also remain fair and equal. The first amendment ensures that this simple, yet profound rule is upheld in America’s judicial system. 

It is impossible to designate in a court of law a speech as illegal.  This is the protection of the first amendment.  However it is not illegal for private companies to impose speech restrictions on their employees.  There are many reasons for this, perhaps the information needs to remain private, maybe the companies desire to have a certain public image, also the reason Ward Churchill was removed from his position as chairmen: the desire to not influence the public in a potentially subversive way because of the company’s (in this case school’s) influence.  There have been at least two journalists who have been fired from their jobs for participating in events relating to the Occupy Wall Street movement.  Both journalists’ participations in the protests became part of some discussions within the media.  The employers of the two journalists claimed that the credibility of the journalists was now questionable, because they could no longer be viewed as objective in the public eye.  This is concerning because more and more institutions that were once public are becoming private.  Not only are these institutions (such as our once public educational system) becoming private, private companies are more and more becoming part of large conglomerates.  It is rational to see the potential of how this could effect the first amendment in a very negative way.  Currently the censorship imposed by companies and institutions has not been challenged in the Supreme Court, however if it were allowed it would create a grievous slide towards not only censorship but also fascism.  

To avoid our society from plummeting into the depths of fascism we must become a civilized society.  In order to do this we should be willing to listen to one another, to try to understand one another, and hopefully accept one another.  The first amendment ensures that the right to free speech will be protected within a court of law.  This is reassuring but in today’s corrupt world the violation of the first amendment by private companies and institutions is becoming accepted.  Hate speech, subversive speech, all of the speech that creates a volcanic atmosphere around the first amendment must be respected and discussed.  Just like how volcanoes create new land, free speech creates new perceptions, and eventually new societies. 

Bibliography

Babylon, Max. "Defend Ward Churchill." 23 11 2011. Laulima English 215. 27 11 2011 <https:/https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e>.

Brians, Paul. "The Enlightenment." 18 May 2000. The Enlightenment. 28 11 2011 <http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/enlightenment.html>.

Churchill, Ward. "[Globalization] "Some People Push Back" On the Justice of Roosting Chickens ." 11 09 2001. 28 11 2011 <http://www2.hawaii.edu/~jamess/freespee/w_church.htm>.

Founders of America. "CNN." 5 June 2003. CNN. 28 11 2011 <http://www2.hawaii.edu/~jamess/freespee/amend1ov.htm>.

Michael, Siabatta. "Attack Ward Churchill." 18 11 2011. Ward Churchill & Westboro Baptist Church: Pushing the Boundaries of Free Speech. 28 11 2011 <https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210>.

Remembering First To Listen

Jessica Suguitan

English 215

RD4

Remembering First To Listen

The first amendment of the Constitution ensures a person’s right to believe what they want, say what they want, print what they want, and peaceably organize a people however seen fit, and if a person disagrees with what their government is doing the first amendment ensures the right to use all of the previously stated first amendment rights to petition the government for a change.  [THESIS] I believe the founders of our nation knew that the ability, the freedom, and the methods to discuss beliefs with one another would be the backbone of creating a nation that could, would, and should be supported by the people.  Regardless of how strongly ignorant, hateful, or subversive a statement may be, a person should have the right to express it, because there the only way to have a functioning democracy is if the voices of the people can be heard in it. [THESIS}

We have all been there.  A friend, a coworker, a family member says something so completely against what you believe that it is difficult for you to take the statement seriously.  If you are a civilized human being you will hear them out and ask them questions to ensure that both of you understand what they are saying.  If you are an uncivilized person you start calling them names at the top of your lungs.

The very concept that a person’s ideas, reasons, and beliefs should be heard instead of ignored was born from the same movement that gave birth to America, the Enlightenment.  The Enlightenment’s major contribution to humanity was the philosophy that to find truth one must constantly ask what the truth is, testing their reality in experiments and observations, creating data to be logged and compared. In essence the Enlightenment focused on developing a record that could be pointed to when further explanation was deemed necessary.   America, with great respect for the importance and necessity for reason incorporated the beliefs of the Enlightenment into the very DNA of our nation, the Constitution. 

I currently live in New York City.  Politically, I am a very liberal person.  I support the Occupy Wall Street movement.  I feel strongly about it. I have participated in protests.  Though the movement claims to represent the 99%, a great majority of people, at least where the movement is based in New York City, do not support them.  I found myself recently getting into an argument with one of my coworkers about the movement’s right to protest.  Not only did the first amendment allow the 99% movement to happen, it allowed me to voice my opinion about the movement to my coworker and then in a more public way within the movement.  Participating in the protests allowed me to speak with people more heavily involved as well giving me first hand knowledge of how the movement behaved, in essence what it was really about.  I was able to share this experience with my coworker and by both listening to what he believed and sharing what I believed we were able to understand what the movement was about a little more.  This search for truth, understanding, and compromise (what I like to call reality) within our country is possible because of the first amendment. 

It is integral that we are allowed to speak and hear all the sides of the story, all of the opinions within the masses.  When as a nation and society are constantly calling into question the necessity of this right when we hear a belief that we find offensive.  It is upsetting to discover that a person or persons’ opinions are so far from your own and even more upsetting if that opinion becomes more popular than your own and begins to rule your world, which is the fear.  This is the case with Professor Ward Churchill who scandalously referred to the victims in the WTC 9/11 attacks as “Little Eichmanns” comparing those who worked in the financial trade end of America with Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi officer responsible for organizing much of the ghettoizing and death camp placing of those of Jewish ancestry during 1930’s and 1940s Europe (starting in Germany).  Churchill’s comparison is based on available knowledge that many of the largest corporations, who most stock traders and analysts work for, have their hands in war in some way or another.  All one need to do to discover this is type “war profiteering in America” in a search engine.    

My classmate Michael Siabatta claims that “we should be thankful and treat it with the profound respect that it so rightly deserves.” in regards to hate speech against deceased gay soldiers and the Ward Churchill.  But I firmly believe that a society’s search for what is true and right is a constant process of progress.  It cannot happen unless all voices are heard and addressed.  These people should not keep quiet and let their beliefs fester silently.  A person should be heard and spoken to. The protestors raise a point of view that is still held in America.  Though this point of view is hateful it is one that must be discussed to be understood and overcome.  Censorship will not get us to a place of understanding. Let us not forget that pro homosexual protesting was once considered hateful towards our country, in that it promoted a subversive lifestyle.  A belief will eventually die out if it is not helpful towards humanity. 

My classmate Max Babylon understands the reason behind free speech in the following statement he sums the need for the first amendment in regards to Ward Churchill: “If he can't say what he wants, then other prominent figures of today could not voice their opinions on other issues.”  It is quite simple, it is unfair to grant free speech to one individual and not another.  The first amendment ensures that this simple, yet profound rule is upheld in America’s judicial system. 

It is impossible to designate in a court of law a speech as illegal.  To do so would create a grievous slide toward censorship.  To avoid this we must become a civilized society and be willing to listen to one another, try to understand one another, and hopefully accept one another.  Though this acceptance is difficult to do when one party wishes hate and harm upon another, communication is still the only way to begin to overcome such a travesty of humanity. 

Bibliography

Babylon, Max. "Defend Ward Churchill." 23 11 2011. Laulima English 215. 27 11 2011 <https:/https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e>.

Brians, Paul. "The Enlightenment." 18 May 2000. The Enlightenment. 28 11 2011 <http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/enlightenment.html>.

Churchill, Ward. "[Globalization] "Some People Push Back" On the Justice of Roosting Chickens ." 11 09 2001. 28 11 2011 <http://www2.hawaii.edu/~jamess/freespee/w_church.htm>.

Founders of America. "CNN." 5 June 2003. CNN. 28 11 2011 <http://www2.hawaii.edu/~jamess/freespee/amend1ov.htm>.

Michael, Siabatta. "Attack Ward Churchill." 18 11 2011. Ward Churchill & Westboro Baptist Church: Pushing the Boundaries of Free Speech. 28 11 2011 <https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210>.

FD3 Freedom Requires Responsibility, Honesty

Jessica Suguitan
 FD3
11/14/11


I would like to congratulate you, the graduating class of 2011.  I am sure all of you have worked very hard to get here.  I hope that you all feel prepared to go out into the world and participate in our great country.  There is a lot of tension in today’s world.  There is a movement happening and it is calling for information to be exposed.  Many of you are familiar with the “Occupy Wall Street” movement; it has received a lot of support from not only other cities in America, but also other cities around the world.  Many question what the motive is behind this movement, if there is a unified demand.  There are many complaints being voiced.  Though there might not be a common demand, there is a common value it is one of honesty.  The demand for honesty connects the American revolutionaries alive today on Wall street with the American revolutionaries of the past, who lead the birth of our nation. [THESIS] I believe that the basis of a working democracy is an involved and educated populace, to which honesty from both public officials and its citizens is integral.[THESIS]

We are all familiar with the white lie, we have been taught that it is the socially acceptable thing since youth. (Zak)  It is better to lie than allow a person to feel insulted.  But what happens when a person does something that they know is insulting to a person or persons (like stealing) and then lies about it?  This is no longer socially acceptable.  It seems that a lie that is socially acceptable is one that excuses a person of doing something unsuitable (like buying a bad gift), where a socially unacceptable lie is where a person who has done the unsuitable (like stealing) thing is trying get away with it. I could see how a person of power, like a public figure, would feel like it is the best thing to lie to the public so that no one knows exactly how corrupt or unfair a system, such as the democratic system, really is

Thomas Jefferson, one of America’s founders, is quoted as having said, “Wherever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government. (Hart)”  Jefferson held that if four basic principles were followed a democracy would work; one of those principles states: “democracy cannot function without wise and honest officials.” (Jewett) We should expect our elected officials to be our eyes and ears in government.  But most Americans are so busy with work and family that they are unable to keep up with all of the details involved in civic matters.  We hope that our elected officials will make decisions that will benefit the majority, that is to say, that will benefit our working democracy.  A democracy is majority rule after all.  Unfortunately, our elected officials are forced into political games in order to gain/maintain power.  These games include catering to lobbyists (the spokesmen of large corporations), catering to their political party (so people in their party will support them back), and other forms of corruption varying from large (syphoning tax payer money to private funds) to small (accepting a free lunch).  We accept this as the business of politics. 

My classmates all seem to agree that honesty is an important code to practice: Simon Lee states, “The main reason why we should be honest is that it is a right thing to do.”  Michael Sabetta says, “Consistent honesty builds strong relationships, whereas deception does just the opposite.”  So how is it that we can feel so strongly about the value of honesty and yet we do nothing when it is an almost accepted fact that our own elected officials are dishonest?  It is extremely hypocritical and deeply damaging of us as a society to not hold our public officials accountable to our society’s value system. 

The economic crises these past few years, which culminated in a bailout for many of the major banks with taxpayer money, as well as Obama’s health care plan being edited and rewritten to accommodate insurance and pharmaceutical companies (Kirkpatrick), has brought attention to the fact that the democratic-republic we live in is not working quite the way it should.  It is expected that a politician or anyone else with power (such as CEOs of large corporations) omit truth, lie, or cover up important facts.  This dishonesty is expected from politicians and that expectation is exactly why we allow it. 

To be fair politicians are not the only ones at fault.  Media constantly commits lies via omission.  Huge corporations run most media, these corporations are involved with many questionable practices.  It is very common for the media to leave out certain parts of a story, or an entire story all together, if it reflects poorly on their owners.  This practice of lying by omission is understandable, but in the end extremely damaging to democracy.  I recently saw an episode of The Rachel Maddow Show where she discusses the lack of income tax paid by some of the wealthiest corporations, she named a half a dozen companies and could have easily left out her show’s owners, GM, but she did not.  The integrity of this act is outstanding.  Ms. Maddow’s audience is correctly educated on the topic and is able to create appropriate opinions and potential solutions because of it. 

It is important for honesty to work both ways.  A populous must educate themselves from all sources available; I am inclined to think of chosen ignorance as a form of lying (in that it prevents one from being honest about a situation, because they do not have all of the facts).  With honesty comes a sense of responsibility.  Both politicians and people must have a way to communicate with one another; availability to hear the truth and to speak the truth is necessary for honesty to happen.  No one needs to tell the truth if there is no place to tell it.  This is why our judicial system is so important.  The courts are a place where honesty is the law.  A person is allowed to remain silent, by taking the fifth, but this is after they are asked directly about something and so omitted piece of information to which it regards is identified and recorded.  I am beginning to see how much more we as a democracy must demand from our public figures.  Perhaps our elected officials should be put before the courts and questioned by the public so we may find out the truth to their dealings.  This way if there was a lie it would be considered perjury, something punishable by law.

Class of 2011, we no longer have time to grasp in the darkness of dishonesty.  Our country is falling apart and honesty in communication is integral if we wish to mend the pieces back together to make our country stronger than ever.   

If we want our society to work we must follow the guidance of its founders, I ask you the graduating class to demand more honesty from yourself and from your public figures.

Works Cited

Hart, Gary. Restoration of the republic: the Jeffersonian ideal in 21st-century America . NY: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Jewett, Professor Thomas. Jefferson, Education and Franchise. 2011. 01 November 2011 <http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/winter96/jefferson.html>.

Kirkpatrick, David. Lobbyists Fight Last Big Plans To Cut Health Care Costs. 10 October 2009. 1 November 2011 <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/health/policy/11cost.html?scp=9&sq=obama,%20health%20care,%20lobbyists,%20insurance,%20pharmaceutical&st=cse>.

Zak, Dan. "The Truth About Lying." 25 November 2007. Washington Post. 2011 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/21/AR2007112102164.html>.

RD3 Freedom Requires Responsibility, Honesty

I would like to congratulate you, the graduating class of 2010.  I am sure all of you have worked very hard to get here.  I hope that you all feel prepared to go out into the world and participate in our great country.  There is a lot of tension in today’s world.  There is a movement happening and it is calling for information to be exposed.  Many of you are familiar with the “Occupy Wall Street” movement; it has received a lot of support from not only other cities in America, but also other cities around the world.  Many question what the motive is behind this movement, if there is a unified demand.  There are many complaints being voiced.  But I think I see a thread that links them together and also connects the movement with something demanded by America’s founders, a demand for honesty.  [THESIS] I believe that the basis of a working democracy is an involved and educated populace to which honesty from both public officials and its citizens is integral.[THESIS]

We are all familiar with the white lie, we have been taught that it is the socially acceptable thing since youth. (Zak)  It is better to lie than allow a person to feel insulted.  But what happens when a person does something that they know is insulting to a person or persons (like stealing) and then lies about it.  This is no longer socially acceptable.  It seems that a lie that is socially acceptable is one that excuses a person of doing something unsuitable (like buying a bad gift), where a socially unacceptable lie is where a person who has done the unsuitable (like stealing) thing is trying get away with it. I could see how a person of power, like a public figure, would feel like it is the best thing to lie to the public so that no one knows exactly how corrupt or unfair a system, such as the democratic system, really is

Thomas Jefferson, one of America’s founders, is quoted as having said, “Wherever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government. (Hart)”  Jefferson held that if four basic principles were followed a democracy would work; one of those principles states: “democracy cannot function without wise and honest officials.” (Jewett) We should expect our elected officials to be our eyes and ears in government.  But most Americans are so busy with work and family that they are unable to keep up with all of the details involved in civic matters.  We hope that our elected officials will make decisions that will benefit the majority, that is to say, that will benefit our working democracy.  A democracy is majority rule after all.  Unfortunately, our elected officials are forced into political games in order to gain/maintain power.  These games include catering to lobbyists (the spokesmen of large corporations), catering to their political party (so people in their party will support them back), and other forms of corruption.  We accept this as the business of politics. 

My classmates all seem to agree that honesty is an important code to practice: Simon Lee states, “The main reason why we should be honest is that it is a right thing to do.”  Michael Sabetta says, “Consistent honesty builds strong relationships, whereas deception does just the opposite.”  So how is it that we can feel so strongly about the value of honesty and yet we do nothing when it is an almost accepted fact that our own elected officials are dishonest?  It is extremely hypocritical and deeply damaging of us as a society to not hold our public officials accountable to our society’s value system. 

The economic crises these past few years, which culminated in a bailout for many of the major banks with taxpayer money, as well as Obama’s health care plan being edited and rewritten to accommodate insurance and pharmaceutical companies (Kirkpatrick), has brought attention to the fact that the democratic-republic we live in is not working quite the way it should.  It is expected that a politician or anyone else with power (such as CEOs of large corporations) omit truth, lie, or cover up important facts.  This dishonesty is expected from politicians and that expectation is exactly why we allow it. 

To be fair politicians are not the only ones at fault.  Media constantly commits lies via omission.  Huge corporations run most media, these corporations are involved with many questionable practices.  It is very common for the media to leave out certain parts of a story, or an entire story all together, if it reflects poorly on their owners.  This practice of lying by omission is understandable, but in the end extremely dishonest.  I recently saw an episode of The Rachel Maddow Show where she discusses the lack of income tax paid by some of the wealthiest corporations, she named a half a dozen companies and could have easily left out her show’s owners, GM, but she did not.  The integrity of this act is outstanding. 

It is important for honesty to work both ways.  A populous must educate themselves from all sources available; I am inclined to think of chosen ignorance as a form of lying (in that it prevents one from being honest about a situation, because they do not have all of the facts).  With honesty comes a sense of responsibility.  Both politicians and people must have a way to communicate with one another; availability to hear the truth and to speak the truth is necessary for honesty to happen.  No one needs to tell the truth if there is no place to tell it.  This is why our judicial system is so important.  The courts are a place where honesty is the law.  A person is allowed to remain silent, by taking the fifth, but this is after they are asked directly about something and so omitted piece of information to which it regards is identified and recorded.  I am beginning to see how much more we as a democracy must demand from our public figures.  Perhaps our elected officials should be put before the courts and questioned by the public so we may find out the truth to their dealings.  This way if there was a lie it would be considered perjury, something punishable by law. If we want our society to work we must follow the guidance of its founders, I ask you the graduating class to demand more honesty from yourself and from your public figures. 

Works Cited

Hart, Gary. Restoration of the republic: the Jeffersonian ideal in 21st-century America . NY: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Jewett, Professor Thomas. Jefferson, Education and Franchise. 2011. 01 November 2011 <http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/winter96/jefferson.html>.

Kirkpatrick, David. Lobbyists Fight Last Big Plans To Cut Health Care Costs. 10 October 2009. 1 November 2011 <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/health/policy/11cost.html?scp=9&sq=obama,%20health%20care,%20lobbyists,%20insurance,%20pharmaceutical&st=cse>.

Zak, Dan. "The Truth About Lying." 25 November 2007. Washington Post. 2011 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/21/AR2007112102164.html>.

Advertisement's New Clothes FD2

Jessica Suguitan

12 October 2011

FD 2

Advertisement’s New Clothes

America is a deeply capitalistic country; it’s founders held a strong belief in the power of free enterprise.  It is through advertising that enterprises are able to communicate with the public.  Fundamentally, advertisement is a way for people to share their realized dreams/ideas with the community.   I don’t think this is a bad thing.  I also, however, don’t think that the indirectness often used in advertisement is a good thing.  America has regulated businesses and economic practices since colonial times and I see a space for reform in advertising today. [THESIS] The way advertisement is currently practiced has a negative impact on the public and should be reformed with regulations to provide a clearer and henceforth more positive experience for the public. [Thesis]  As advertising mounts itself into every waking moment of our day we must be conscious of the effects that unregulated ads foster in our psyches, society, and natural environment. 

It’s hard to imagine a world without advertisements.  They are around every corner, they are in our homes, they are in the church newsletters, and are in our schools.  Essentially we are being asked by these companies to judge, to believe, and to trust them.  This is a lot of energy to ask from an individual, it can cause a person to shut down and not pay attention to advertisements all together.  To prevent this advertisers try to give something back to its audience, to keep them entertained, to avoid the audience from turning away.  Ads are created that make us laugh, or touch us in a way that holds a deeper meaning than the product being advertised ever could.  Though this does provide a more enjoyable experience for the audience, it is very indirect and often creates an ad that holds little or no information pertaining to the product itself.  I give the following advertisement as an example:

The commercial from Old Spice begins with a man in a bathroom wearing a towel.  He asks the audience (specifically the women in the audience) to look at their man and then back at him, he repeats this direction a few times (to the point of absurdity) he makes a joke, saying "sadly he isn't me" he begins his argument that your man could, at least, smell like him. Suddenly the scene changes, he's on a yacht, a tied sweater is draped over him, he holds an oyster with tickets "to that thing you love," (continuing to direct you to look at your man and back at him), the tickets turn into diamonds and the spokesman claims the following:

"Anything is possible when your man smells like a man and not a lady."

The commercial holds a non sequitur fallacy.  The non sequitur fallacy is defined as a conclusion that does not logically follow the premise.  The premise, that your man smells like a man and not a lady, in no way leads to the conclusion that anything is possible.   The genius of this commercial is that it is very tongue in cheek.  It’s use of completely random but hilarious moments winks at the audience implying that everyone knows this is absurd, so just laugh and enjoy.  This commercial is very entertaining and leaves the audience amused.  The product is fun and so hopes to relate to an audience that likes to have fun (a younger, male audience).  The commercial is so entertaining that most people wouldn’t even think to ask other questions about the product.  Questions asking how the product is made, where it is made, what is it made from, is the product environmentally sustainable, etc.  Creating such an absurd environment is a house of smoke and mirrors and the audience has only enough time to recognize the product that is being sold and the ideas selling it. 

My classmate, Tiffany Gushiken, agrees that advertisements use manipulative and distracting tactics: “Ads have become so integrated into our environment and culture that many people accept the messages without thinking. Ads create unnecessary, materialistic  'wants' in a society that would rather act ignorant to the actual 'needs' of its people and the rest of the world.” (Italics added) (Gushiken)

Personally, I have no issue with creating materialistic wants.  We live in a world of symbol and meaning, materialistic items are often the best way for a culture to communicate these complex ideas.  Advertisement does the job of walking the line between interpreting cultural concepts and introducing a product that can aid in understanding or relating to them.

The problem is that we live in an age where we have seen and can measure the negative impacts of industrialization.  With advertising so unregulated a person often focuses more on the cultural concept than the actual material item and what that material item’s reality is as it relates to the environment in which it is made.

I believe it is important that we take responsibility by educating ourselves as consumers in the products we purchase. 

Carolyn Rose-Slane is aware of advertisements use of cultural concepts stating that advertisements are negative because they: “employ psychological research to make people believe they need the “new” or “better” products… many people, more now than ever in our history, accrue debt while succumbing to the struggle to maintain the appearance of keeping up with the latest “cool” trend.” (Rose-Slane) The economic impact on the consumer is not the only societal question at hand. 

An important issue regarding the creation of a product is the living conditions of the people who make the product.  I have seen this marketing tool once before in a cereal ad.  The advertisement was for a cereal called “Honey Bunches of Oats” it showed the factory the cereal was made in and featured workers.  They were all very happy describing the product and of the pride they had in creating it.  I found this to be very effective, it was nice for me to know that the people who made the product seemed to be taken care of by the company who employed them.  Unfortunately, this happy picture is most often not the case.   In 2000 the Dept of Labor reported that in the United States nearly half of the workers in the garment industry worked under “sweatshop” conditions.  (Feminist.org)  Many of the brands the majority of Americans purchase from other countries has been found to have greatly violated human rights.   (International Labor Rights Forum)

I recently saw an advertisement for a Nissan truck.  A sand buggy is stuck on a nearly 90 degree incline when out of nowhere a Nissan truck comes speeding up behind it and pushes it to the top.  I was incredulous of what was claimed by this advertisement, to say the least.  Upon researching the commercial I discovered that it was completely fake and the use of (to the trained eye) poor CGI graphics and the exaggerated ability of a road truck in sand was intended to be enough for the consumer to know that it was a joke.  Also, upon further viewing on youtube, the ad does begin with a very tiny, very translucent text stating: “fictionalization. do not attempt.  The advertisement gives the consumer a wink and a nod implying that the consumer is smart enough to know the ad is fake and will look it up on the internet to find out more, possibly bringing the consumer to their website where they can find out more about the product.   It is a very smart use of humor, consumer knowledge, and marketing tactics to bring the consumer to the company.  If the consumer doesn’t get the joke in the ad, this is not a problem; the consumer will believe that the truck is just that powerful. 

I would like to see more regulations in advertisement.  I love the humor and the irony found in ads, but I think it is important that we cut through a lot of the nonsense that is often found in advertisements and begin to connect consumers with what a product’s impact is on the world that we all share.  This means that I would like advertisements to have certain guidelines that revolve around a) what the product is made of b) where the product is made and the effect the company has had on the community there and c) the old standard of advertisement: how the product is beneficial to the consumer. 

We live in capitalistic society, a society built on enterprise, advertisements are a way to spread not only ideas, but also ideas realized.  It is our responsibility as an audience to demand clarity and meaning in our communication.  The misconceptions currently promoted in advertisements lack respect for both the consumer’s time and energy.  If we are to move forward in advertising, if we are going to create an environment that is conscious and progressive for both the company and the consumer, we must create new guidelines. 

Bibliography

Answers.com. Government Regulation of Business. 2011. 12 10 2011 <http://www.answers.com/topic/government-regulation-of-business>.

Feminist.org. "Feminists against Sweatshops." 2009. Feminst.org. 12 10 2011 <http://feminist.org/other/sweatshops/sweatfaq.html>.

Gushiken, Tiffany. "Pro Forum, Laulima Discussions and Private Messages." 22 9 2011. Laulima English 215. 12 10 2011 <https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e>.

International Labor Rights Forum. "2010 Sweatshop Hall of Shame." 2011. International Labor Rights Forum. 12 10 2011 <http://www.laborrights.org/creating-a-sweatfree-world/sweatshops/resources/12211>.

Nissan. You Tube. 2011. 12 10 2011 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uZzRcvKMFY>.

Old Spice. You Tube. 2011. 12 10 2011 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owGykVbfgUE>.

Rose-Slane, Caroline. "Pro Forum Laulima Discussions and Private Messages." 23 09 2011. Laulima English 215. 12 10 2011 <https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/site/KAP.XLSENG215js.201210/page/70638c63-3d48-4275-828a-7e37acace01e>.

Log of Completed Activities
_x__ Sep. 19- Intro to Paper #2. Read the Guidelines for Paper #2.
__x_ Sep. 23- Laulima Discussion: Ad Pros and Cons
_x__ Sep. 26- Complete readings for paper #2.
_x__ Sep. 30- Laulima Discussion: Logical Fallacies Exercise
__x_ Oct. 3- Submit RD2 [50 pts]. Review the guidelines.
_x__ Oct. 7- Submit three RD2 evaluations [50 pts]. Review the guidelines.
_x__ Oct. 12-17 – Submit FD2 [125 pts]. Review the guidelines.

Advertisement's New Clothes

Jessica Suguitan

3 October 2011

RD 2

Advertisement’s New Clothes

America is a capitalistic country; it is founded upon the belief in the power of free enterprise.  Advertisements are how these enterprises communicate with the public, essentially, a way for people to share their realized dreams/ideas with the community.   I don’t think this is a bad thing.  I also, however, don’t think that the tongue in cheek humor, the irony, the fear tactics, and the indirectness in advertisement is a good thing.  I see a space for reform in advertising.  So at the moment, I would have to say that I think that the way advertisement is done has a negative impact on people.  [THESIS] Though I honestly don’t believe that advertisement is inherently negative, I do believe that the way it is currently being practiced has a negative impact on the public and it needs to be regulated and reformed in order to provide a more positive experience for people.[Thesis]  We live in an age where we have seen and can measure the negative impact of industrialization and I believe it is important that we take responsibility for this impact by educating ourselves as consumers in the products we purchase. 

It’s hard to imagine a world without advertisements.  They are around every corner, they are in our homes, they are in the church newsletters, they are in our schools.  As advertising mounts itself into every waking moment of our day we must think of the effect that it is having on our psyche.  Essentially we are being asked by these companies to judge, to believe, and to trust them.  This is a lot of energy to ask from an individual, it can cause a person to shut down and not pay attention to advertisements all together.  To prevent this, advertisers try to give something back to its audience, to keep them entertained, to avoid the audience from turning away.  Ads are created that make us laugh, or touch us in a way that holds a deeper meaning than the product being advertised ever could.  Though this does provide a more enjoyable experience for the audience, in the end there is a sense of indirectness and manipulation.  This creates a hidden meaning experience.

The commercial from Old Spice begins with a man in a bathroom wearing a towel.  He asks the audience (specifically the women in the audience) to look at their man and then back at him, he repeats this direction a few times (to the point of absurdity) he makes a joke, saying "sadly he isn't me" he begins his argument that your man could, at least, smell like him. Suddenly the scene changes, he's on a yacht, a tied sweater is draped over him, he holds an oyster with tickets "to that thing you love," (continuing to direct you to look at your man and back at him), the tickets turn into diamonds and the spokesman claims the following:

"Anything is possible when your man smells like a man and not a lady."

The commercial holds a non sequitur fallacy.  The non sequitur fallacy is defined as a conclusion that does not logically follow the premise.  The premise, that your man smells like a man and not a lady, in no way leads to the conclusion that anything is possible.   The genius of this commercial is that it is very tongue in cheek.  It’s use of completely random but hilarious moments winks at the audience implying that everyone know this is absurd, so just laugh and enjoy.  This commercial is very entertaining and leaves the audience amused.  The product is fun and so hopes to relate to an audience that likes to have fun (a younger, male audience).  The commercial is so entertaining that most people wouldn’t even think to ask other questions about the product.  Questions asking how it is made, where it is made, what is it made from, is the product environmentally sustainable, etc.  Creating such an absurd environment is a house of smoke and mirrors and the audience has only enough time to recognize the product that is being sold and the ideas selling it. 

My classmate, Tiffany Gushiken, agrees that advertisements use manipulative and distracting tactics: “Ads have become so integrated into our environment and culture that many people accept the messages without thinking. Ads create unnecessary, materialistic  'wants' in a society that would rather act ignorant to the actual 'needs' of its people and the rest of the world.” (Italics added)  Personally, I don’t have an issue with creating materialistic wants.  We live in a world of symbol and meaning, materialistic items are often the best way for a culture to communicate these complex ideas.  Advertisement does the job of walking the line between interpreting these cultural concepts and introducing the product that would aid in understanding or relating to them.  Advertising is so unregulated, however, that a person often focuses more on the cultural concept than the actual material item and what that material item’s reality is as it relates to the environment in which it is created.

Carolyn Rose-Slane is aware of advertisements use of cultural concepts stating that advertisements are negative because they: “employ psychological research to make people believe they need the “new” or “better” products… many people, more now than ever in our history, accrue debt while succumbing to the struggle to maintain the appearance of keeping up with the latest “cool” trend.”  The economic impact on the consumer is not the only societal question at hand.  An important issue regarding the creation of a product is the living conditions of the people who make the product.  I have seen this marketing tool once before in a cereal ad.  The advertisement was for a cereal called “Honey Bunches of Oats” it showed the factory the cereal was made in and featured workers.  They were all very happy describing the product and of the pride they had in creating it.  I found this to be very effective, it was nice for me to know that the people who made the product seemed to be taken care of by the company who employed them. 

I would like to see more regulations in advertisement.  I love the humor and the irony found in ads, but I think it is important that we cut through a lot of the nonsense that is often found in advertisements and begin to connect consumers with what a products impact is on the world that we all share.  This means that I would like advertisements to have certain guidelines that revolve around a) what the product is made of b) where the product is made and the effect the company has had on the community there c) the old standard of advertisement: how the product is beneficial to the consumer. 

I recently saw an advertisement for a Nissan truck.  A sand buggy is stuck on a nearly 90 degree incline when out of nowhere a Nissan truck comes speeding up behind it and pushes it to the top.  I was credulous of what was claimed by this advertisement, to say the least.  Upon researching the commercial I discovered that it was completely fake and the use of (to the trained eye) poor CGI graphics and the exaggerated ability of a road truck in sand was intended to be enough for the consumer to know that it was a joke.  Also, upon further viewing on youtube, the ad does begin with a very tiny, very translucent text stating: “fictionalization. do not attempt.  The advertisement gives the consumer a wink and a nod implying that the consumer is smart enough to know the ad is fake and will look it up on the internet to find out more, possibly bringing the consumer to their website where they can find out more about the product.   It is a very smart use of humor, consumer knowledge, and marketing tactics to bring the consumer to the company.  If the consumer doesn’t get the joke in the ad, this is not a problem; the consumer will believe that the truck is just that powerful. 

We live in capitalistic society, a society built on enterprise, advertisements are a way to spread not only ideas, but also ideas realized.  It is our responsibility as an audience to demand quality in our communication.  If advertisements must be around they must not waste our time with faulty suggestions.  The misconceptions currently promoted in advertisements lack respect for the consumer’s time and energy.  If we are to move forward in advertising and create an environment that is positive for both the company and the consumer we must create new guidelines.