The Grade I Deserve

As the picture illustrates, I feel I deserve a high grade. Maybe not an A+, since no one is perfect, but I feel I've earned an A. Over the course of the semester, I've completed all of my assignments early, and I never missed one. I even did a couple extra ones, and I commented on other people's blogs when I found their topics interesting. I especially liked reading Sarah's blog.

I feel that I put effort and thought into all of the blogs that I've posted, and they are well written. All of them have to be close to error free grammatically because I edit my work carefully (I judge people by their

writing). I utilized hyperlinks and pictures in almost all of my blogs to give the reader something to look at besides columns upon columns of words, and my pictures all fit nicely; they aren't overwhelming and excessive. Also, when I used videos, they were relevant, used sparingly, and formatted to fit the constraints of my blog. And of course I came to class regularly, which demonstrates I care about learning enough to not skip.

Besides, if I'm only 11 points away from it anyway, by that logic I'd have to do less than failing work. I don't even know how a person would come by that grade unless it's just points for putting one's name on the page and nothing else. I feel like I've exceeded all of the requirements necessary to be successful in this class, so to coincide with that, a high grade would complement my expectations.

Free Topic

I'm quite proud of my column that was in The George-Anne Thursday, so I'm putting it here as well. I received compliments. :)

And, to show that I'm doing this in the spirit of class, I'll add hyperlinks to it.

Freedom of speech should always trump controversy:

On Tuesday, Federal District Court Judge William Downes ruled that it was a First Amendment violation for the University of Wyoming to forbid Bill Ayers, co-founder of Weather Underground, a 1960s radical anti-war group, and current university professor, from speaking on campus.

The judge, who served as a Marine in Vietnam, issued his verdict – despite his contempt for Weather Underground – saying, “Mr. Ayers is a citizen of the United States who wishes to speak, and he need not offer any more justification than that.” He said that a free society must guarantee free speech rights, according to The Huffington Post.

Downes said the reasons the university provided were too vague to deny Ayers the right to speak – the university cited safety concerns as the reason.

Hm, that kind of sounds familiar.

Last March, Ayers was supposed to come speak at Georgia Southern, yet according to an article in the March 3, 2009 edition of The George-Anne, “[t]he event was cancelled last month following concerns from the university that included the security and expense that Ayers’ visit would have entailed.”

But Ayers came to GSU in November, at which time he said, “To say that the only reason I wasn’t invited was because of a safety concern is nonsense. I’m not afraid. I live openly at my house in Chicago.”

So, Ayers did not feel $13,000 in security was necessary, and the cancellation came after complaints from some of the GSU community and some of the Statesboro community. It becomes logical to assume, then, that despite said justification, it is more likely that the controversy created was more of an issue than anything else, and cancelling his visit was the response to succumbing to pressure.

That is a blatant violation of not only Ayers’ rights, but also a violation of the students’ rights who were deprived of an opportunity to hear him speak. A university should, more than almost any other institution, be a place where the free exchange of ideas, controversial or not, is encouraged.

If you don’t support/like Bill Ayers, fine. Don’t attend his presentation. Even protest it if you want, but respect the rights of others who want to hear him, and respect his right to speak. The First Amendment cannot be applied only when it’s convenient; it has to be applied across the board. This court case, one of many, has proven that just because the man is controversial does not mean that First Amendment rights both to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly can be violated.

If people are forbidden from speaking their mind or prevented from hearing opinions from all different sides, then there’s no way to grow. Just because you don’t agree with something doesn’t mean it can’t be said.

Therefore, I am of the opinion that Bill Ayers be invited back to GSU to speak in a venue that is not kept secret from the majority of the school. It is so important that students hear from many different kinds of people, so there’s no reason for the university to deny Ayers the opportunity.

And if there’s controversy again, at least there’s precedent favoring the First Amendment, what is supposed to be one of the core values of our nation.

Support can be shown by writing on the wall of the Facebook group “Sit-In for Academic Freedom at Georgia Southern University.”

Oh, and on a side note, his speech took place at the University of Wyoming without incident.

The Ethics of Breaking the Law

Law is in place to keep society from dissolving. In order to maintain a functioning society, individuals give up some of their free will, knowing that in return the governing are supposed to act fairly and justly.

But, as we all know, the latter half of the bargain is not always upheld to the approval of some. We wouldn't be a country if America's founding fathers sat back and accepted laws as Britain proclaimed them.

Therefore, of course there are situations in which it is ethical -- that is, morally correct -- to break the law. Nothing exists purely in black and white. That being said, it is not something that can happen all the time; the law has to be respected most of the time or society will slip into anarchy.

I would also like to clarify that law-breaking for change does not always have to be violent. I am not a supporter of violence under any circumstances because if everybody would just stop fighting to the death, I believe progress would find more success. It's not right, under any circumstances, to kill a person, for example, no matter what point the murderer is trying to get across. It violates the victim's right to live. There have been numerous court cases in which the Supreme Court declared a law unconstitutional, especially when it comes to free speech, and the only way to have that happen was to break said law, so it is possible.

Buddhist monks protest peacefully. So can you.

That being said, I admit that's not how it is for most of us. Realistically, it seems that today, violence is the only way to get attention. It's certainly the case with the media, where the quip is "If it bleeds, it leads." PBS discusses the ethical issues behind such a philosophy. So that people break the law violently for attention is understandable, but it's still not ethical. To elaborate strays off this specific topic, though, and into general media ethics.

The issue we discussed in class regarding the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is bordering on an unethical practice. Yes, they are acting for a good cause, if the number of incidental kills decreases. However, the fact that they haven't killed anyone yet with their chosen means of law-breaking (ramming their boat into fishermen's) is pure luck. It doesn't matter if their cause is to save fish and not humans, frankly. The lives of the fishermen are not suddenly expendable because of their practices, and this is coming from a vegetarian who does not believe it's right to kill animals for mass production. On the flip side, though, if people haven't been taking the SSCS to court because they know their actions are unethical, then they need to take responsibility and rectify those actions.

Ethics is undoubtedly a murky subject to delve into, seeing as there are so many different, personal interpretations of what is right and what is wrong. Really, all that I can say is for the most part, laws need to be respected; however, that does not mean things should be taken without question.

Twilight and Philosophy

Twilight and Philosophy: Vampires, Vegetarians, and the Pursuit of Immortality

Yes, this is a book. I included a picture. And a link to read it from Google books.

But before all of the "Ewww, Twilight!!" commences,  I would just like to say, "Stop; grow up; I don't want to hear it." Critique the series all you want; it is very angsty and dramatic, I know.

However, this book is not so much about the series as it is a philosophical look at the way vampires are portrayed in Stephanie Meyer's books, the roles religion and feminism play, and what it means to really be compassionate.

So far, at least. I haven't finished the book yet.

The way it's laid out, though, each part focuses on one book of the series and the philosophical issues that arise. For example, part one focuses on Twilight.

The issues discussed are:

• You Look Good Enough to Eat: Love, Madness, and the Food Analogy. This discusses the role food plays in pleasurable emotion, and how that relates to the fact that Edward, in essence, wants to express his desires by literally consuming Bella.
• Dying to Eat: The Vegetarian Ethics of Twilight: Is it ethical for a vampire to spare humans but still eat and kill animals? What makes it different? What are the different standards for humans and vampires regarding diet, and does it make one better than the other?
• Can a Vampire Be a Person?: Pretty self-explanatory; there is a differentiation between being human and a person, so it examines which, if any, a Twilight vampire is capable of being.
• Carlisle: More Compassionate Than a Speeding Bullet?: If you've read any the books or seen any of the movies, then you're aware that Carlisle is the one who promotes the "vegetarian" way of life among vampires, and is very caring towards those close to him. So this section looks at different definitions of compassion, and what it is that makes Carlisle's compassion a heightened capability.

All of these are written by different contributors, and they all draw comparisons to legitimate philosophers (Aristotle, Nietzsche, etc.) and philosophical concepts -- they have very informative footnotes -- so it is something worth reading if the reader wants to see how old thoughts are still relevant to pop culture today.

For those who are not interested in Twilight, there are others in the series that may be of interest: 

• X-Men and Philosophy: Astonishing Insight and Uncanny Argument in the Mutant X-Verse
• Family Guy and Philosophy: A Cure for the Petarded
• House and Philosophy: Everybody Lies

As well as ones for Watchmen, Batman, The Office, and more.

Why NOT?

The better question to ask when thinking about why to hire me is why would you not? I am a student who is already a junior in only my fourth semester of college. I am in the Honors Program with a 3.9 GPA, whose degree path includes a B.S. in journalism with political science and German minors. I am set to be the editor-in-chief of GSU's newspaper beginning this summer, a newspaper that is available to approximately 20,000 people.

I am committed to everything that I do and give it my all so that I may proud of it when I finish. I have a strong sense of internal motivation and do things because they should be done, not because I have to or because I'm told to. I'm friendly and sweet, so I get along with many different people, but at the same time, I will not let people walk all over me. I would do anything for those that I care about; I have a firm notion justice that I am constantly working to uphold. I have strong opinions that I love to voice, but I will listen to everyone else's too because I love to learn, and I am especially drawn to learning about people and how the individual operates.

That innate sense of curiosity combined with my desire for change and ability to apply what I learn is what is going to enable me to make a mark on the world. I express myself clearly and concisely -- I am a journalist after all. I know how to communicate effectively with various groups of people, whether they be professionals, peers, students or even children. While artists narrate with pictures, I illustrate with words. I want to call attention to issues that need it and present options to make life better for people everywhere.

I have the drive and ability to make a difference, just give me the chance to let me show you what I can do.

Favorite Superhero: Rogue

From a young age, I never really had a favorite superhero. I've been pretty feminist all my life, it seems, because it always made me so mad that Wonder Woman was really the only well known female superhero, and she wasn't anything worth looking up to. (Example A, above.) It's not very difficult to figure out why it is that she has such strong muscles around her mouth; it's obviously targeted towards male readers. But what kind of girl wants to look up to a woman like that? (Don't answer that, please, because I'd rather not know.)

Practically every female hero is objectified in the comic world, if not through personality, then through dress. And I really don't want to find a favorite superhero in a man who treats women in a misogynistic, outdated manner. (Example B, left.) Sure, the age of superheroes and villains may have reached its height before women started to assert themselves, but I fail to understand why there have not been any strong female role models created since. Even Sailor Moon characters are dressed in a way that appeals to men, despite the fact that many little girls had a favorite as well.

But I did find one female superhero for whom I have definitely developed an affinity: Rogue, of Marvel's X-Men. I adore her. I started watching X-Men: Evolution in middle school, and she was my favorite on that show, and from there I was very into the movies when they came out. Rogue, whose real name is Anna Marie, had such a strong personality and was kind of the outcast of the group, and I especially liked her style (i.e. her hair). Her power is also the best, in my opinion, because she can absorb any power by skin-to-skin contact or kill people if she continues and drains their life force -- ultimate power.

That's probably why she was originally recruited by the "bad guys" before becoming an X-Man. All her life, she's been conflicted because she doesn't want to hurt anyone with her powers and they prevent her from becoming close to anyone. She put the one boy she was ever close to in a permanent coma after impulsively kissing him. Mystique was able to transform the loneliness Rogue felt into anger and then convince her to join the Brotherhood of Mutants. But eventually, all of the memories and powers Rogue had absorbed became too much for her, and she had to seek help from the X-Men so that she could learn to control her powers, thereby becoming "good."

I think it's her tortured soul that I'm drawn to, and that's what makes her my favorite. That, and the fact that she can, in effect, do anything... that doesn't involve contact in affection. 

Seigniorage

I chose this topic because I couldn't pronounce the word, and so I was quite intrigued. So first off, for anyone else who may be curious, it is pronounced "sane-yur-ij".

Basically, it is the difference in what it costs to make a coin and what that coin is worth, face value.  If it costs 5 cents to make a quarter, then the seigniorage is 20 cents. When the money is worth more than it costs to produce, as it does in this example, the government profits. Of course, the government will lose money if the reverse occurs.

The way that it works with dollar bills is slightly different. Today, the Federal Reserve buys and sells treasury bonds from banks, and replaces those bonds with bills. But since there's interest to be collected from bonds, when the bills go out of circulation and the bonds are returned, the government will profit.

A great example of when the government profited from seigniorage is with the collector's series of state quarters. It only costs about 5 cents to make a quarter, so since people don't intend to spend these, the government profits when, for instance, they're purchased from TV for more than their face value of 25 cents.