Hello. World.

Freewrite 7

This paper does a terrific job of fulfilling the criteria outlined in the document you gave us. In going down the questions, the author has a very relevant message, that institutionalized racism exists throughout communities and society today. Furthermore, he explains in detail what exactly this type of racism is, drawing on quotes and his own prior knowledge. The author does a good job of making sure the reader has a good understanding of his topic. The author also has a thesis statement that does evolve. At first I thought it was a pretty stagnant, but the way he offers up solutions at the end, weaves together quotes with his arguments, and builds arguments off of his primary data is very well done. I especially liked when the author included pictures of the street signs which he talked about; it brought a real sense of reality into his claims and strengthened his arguments in this way. His primary research is very well done; the interviews he uses are essential to building his arguments, and vice versa. Without his primary interviews, such as those with educators and with the police chief, he would have an essentially bland argument with no real backing. The use of real interviews puts quite a perspective on his arguments and once again, brings the relevance of the matter to the front of the readers eyes. It’s clear that his arguments are valid when interweaved with great primary data. Likewise, his source use incorporated smoothly and strategically. Not only that, but he really takes his sources and brings them to the next level by basing questions and arguments off of them. The author doesn’t just drop quotes in only for backing up his arguments, but also builds on them. The dialogue on the 6th page regarding the different reactions to the drug signs is a terrific example of how the author does this well. In regards to the different sources, the author ends with “In comparing the answers, it would seem that those invested in protecting the image of the school would be more likely to give more biased and positive answers than those who have no vested interest. ” This is a great way in which the author brings everything together.

The writers credibility, again, his echoed by his connection with the schools in discussion, being that his hometown is the topic of his entire essay. His connection in this way, as well as the connection to his primary data really gives him a positive ethos. Overall, I found this essay to be A work. His use of primary data, his connection with the arguments and topic, explanation of terms, interweaving of sources, and even the citation format was very well done. The author deserves the highest of marks for a very relevant and interesting paper.

2010: 04/19
CATEGORY: Uncategorized
1 comment

Freewrite 6

My original inquiry as stated in my research proposal was “what is the best way to keep the internet free and equal while satisfying the needs of companies providing the service?” When I set out to research my question, at the beginning, I thought this was an answerable question. However, I think I really thought to fast and made the issue out to be a simple one, with a simple answer; don’t restrict what people can and cannot see at any time, and make sure that there is equality spread across all service providers and customers. I set out thinking that all the major companies were completely against net neutrality, that they wanted to censor the internet and inhibit growth and innovation on the web. While my inquiry hasn’t been too affected, I realize that upon researching, my question is much harder than I thought. I’ve learned that major companies don’t so much want to restrict what people can do on the web; likewise, they still want net neutrality to exist, however they aren’t in favor of government control and regulation. So what do we do here? We have a bunch of geeks rioting silently on the web, freaking out about what the internet could turn into if net neutrality doesn’t make it’s way into law soon. They fear of harsh restrictions, start-ups failing in the arms of major corporations, monopolies, and censorship, certainly a future that no one would ever want for the internet. On the other end of the spectrum, we have major companies and service providers, such as Verizon, AT&T or Comcast, not wanting government control inhibiting what they can and cannot do, and for good reason. I certainly wouldn’t want Washington breathing down my neck every time I require a slow down of network speed in order to push telemedicine data to doctors around the country. Through my research, I’ve found that CEO’s aren’t anti-net neutrality, but rather anti-government regulation. There is a big difference that many people fail to see.

Specific gaps in my research really revolve around where I read and get my sources. Bias is a major issue with the debate on net neutrality; if I go to savetheinternet.org ( a pretty extremist site with a pretty extremist URL) I get a slew of corporation hatred. Of course you can find actually news rather than opinion, but the overall tone is pretty “call your Senators now!”. You could say even it’s a bit of fear mongering. On the other hand, bias is avoidable by visiting court cases, FCC documents, and articles that offer no real bias. Luckily I’ve found those out there. But I guess the real issue, and it is a big one, is that no one has really developed a solution that works for everyone. It’s either all or nothing, and we all know this approach never works. This is the internet; this is something that was made in America and something yes, we need to protect, but at the same time not become extremists about. The tone is so jumpy and fearful right now and I don’t think it really needs to be. I don’t want to get into a discussion here, but such extreme positions make it difficult for me to find the golden path in this debate.

In terms of original ideas, it’s really hard to say. I think for the most part I’m originally in the sense that I think I see the light a little more than the others picking sides here. I want there to be an answer that benefits everyone and doesn’t pit consumer vs provider against one another. I guess that’s my originality in a nut shell. I haven’t seen too much of this talking yet.

Thesis: With consumer and provider pitted against one another in the debate of net neutrality, it can be quick to make the judgement that there must be a winner. However, perhaps we need to take a step back and really look at the issues at hand. Then we may see that there doesn’t have to be a single winner, but rather a solution that benefits both parties.

2010: 04/14
CATEGORY: Uncategorized
1 comment

Source Exercise

Internet regulation is certainly a touchy subject; while the mainstream tends to sway towards keeping the web neutral, major companies and CEO’s have been putting their foot down and note the hindering effects of net neutrality legislation turning into actual law. Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam, while agreeing with the notion that “end users have a final say about web experiences” (M. Perez, Information Week), still affirms that government regulation will only slow down innovation on the internet, rather than promote it, a point of view that is usually the other way around. Many agree that without network neutrality, that is, an internet that is not monopolized by major businesses and companies, innovation will slowly decline as control falls into the hands of providers. However, many major companies feel that regulation will only slow this innovation, rather than promote it. As George H. Pike, a professor of law at the University of Pittsburgh specialized in online legalities puts it, “restrictions may have the unintended consequence of restricting innovation, particularly in the content or technologies that are bandwidth-sensitive…mobile service providers argue that they need maximum flexibility” (‘Information Today’). The general consensus by internet providers is that restrictions on companies would limit how they are able to control their network in the event that they need to.

2010: 04/08
CATEGORY: Uncategorized
1 comment

Freewrite 4

Source 1:
a) The author of this article is George H Pike. After doing some research on him, I learned that he is a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh. In his online bio on the U Pitt website, it reads “George Pike’s expertise in on-line legal research not only provides tremendous support for the Pitt Law School faculty, students, and staff. His continuing legal education courses on internet law and resources are immensely popular with the practicing bar, as well.” His work with online legal issues has brought him to become a regular contributor to the online journal Information Today, which is where this article is found. The online journal, Information Today is no affiliated with any specific website or organization. It’s articles, for the most part, were based on contribution, with contributors being scholars in their respected areas as seen by the author of this specific article. George H Pike certainly has credibility in the field on online legal issues.

b) I believe the primary intended audience is those who frequently read this online journal, or those who are using it for research purposes as I am. It would be a little hard to “stumble” upon this on the web. Because of this, I would classify it’s audience as scholars, written by scholars and those that are reading to gain insight for research. I found this article to be pretty understandable and would say that although I do believe that scholars most likely read these articles, I was still able to get a lot of out it without being an “expert” on the issues.

c) I would classify the purpose of this source as educational or academic, seeing that it is written by an expert in the field and that is was found a professional online journal. This source fits well into the journal because it is discussing issues with the regulation of the internet, and the source is filled with articles on technology, the internet, and online businesses/legalities. Information Today is a journal for the new age of online use. This source fits in well. The sources purpose is to educate those about net neutrality, and also to give a sense of what the current status is. This article was published in March 2010, only a short while ago, and offers insight into a long time debate and where things stand now. The article featured no real bias, but rather showed both sides and how each one can be justified.

d) I would use the following words to describe this article: Valid, Balanced, Credible, Current, Comprehensive and Relevant.

Source 2: The author of this source is Marin Perez, the associate editor of the website Information Week. I couldn’t find too much other information about him other than this fact, and that he writes constantly about tech related news around the web. He is also a contributor to Cnet.com, another technology-news oriented website. Being a tech geek, I would assume he does have some biases towards net neutrality and is all for it, as most techies that frequently use the internet/stay updated with the current news are. Because he is pretty well known around the web, he has the authority of being updated and current with technology/online related news and has quite a following on the websites he contributes on. The website Information Week is run by Techweb, a organization that operates technology driven content websites around the internet.

b) I would think that the intended audience is the average person, as this article is featured on a tech website rather than a professional journal as with the previous article. I could easily see someone Googling and finding this website, as it’s pretty popular with tech geeks and has a plethora of information, ranging from gadgets to online legal issues. It’s a pretty diverse website all revolving around the world of technology, social media, and the internet.

c) The purpose of this website is best described as somewhere between New Media and Personal. The guys/gals writing for this website aren’t paid by newpapers or magazines, but rather they are bloggers writing in a professional field. It’s different than working for a newspaper, but also far away from John Doe’s personal website. This site get’s millions of hits per day and has a lot of active users/writers. I would certainly call it professional. The sources purpose is to give some current news/opinions by people on the issue of net neutrality. It isn’t so much to educate but rather just inform people that know about the topic what is currently going on, and how people are reacting to the issues at hand.

d) I would describe this article as : Valid, Reliable, Balanced, Limited, Relevant and Current.

Both of these sources have very similar descriptors; they are both very valid, current, and balanced. In this way, both these sources are similar; they talk about the same topics and discuss intelligent talk. There are some major differences how ever. I will say that I found the first source more credible just because he did more in-depth analysis of the issues and really explained everything, where as the second source assumed that the reader knew about the issues and was simply just reporting on news. Also, because I couldn’t find much background information on the author of the second article, he lost some credibility. I was able to find an online bio and some great background info on the first author, which really boosted his writing and words overall. He certainly convinced me that he knew what he was talking about, coming from a background of online legal issues. Furthermore, the fact that the first source came from a professional journal made it a little more credible than the other source. This isn’t to say that I don’t think Information Week is a professional website with intelligent authors, but it certainly helped lean my feelings toward the professional journal. After all, George Pike is an expert on these legal issues that he discusses.

2010: 04/08
CATEGORY: Uncategorized
1 comment

a Boy’s Life

It’s hard to say whether or not I would classify this essay as an argument for something. I think it’s implication is clear; that the oppression and homophobia in some parts of the United States is clear, and that there are links between straights killing gays. The article pointed out a some 40,000 lesbien/gay deaths occurring in this manner. The case of Matthew Shepard however is one that can be argued in many ways. Did Shepard make a suggestion at the two men? Was he expected some sexual gain from them when they left the bar? Was his sexual orientation the reason for his death? Or was it a drug deal gone wrong? After all, the two men were on a 5 day high with no sleep; perhaps Shepard thought he was going buy drugs off the two men. Then again, I think the reason why the author used this case, as opposed to other murder cases is clear; he wanted to bring in a connection between Matthew Shepard’s terrible death and the general outlook on what it is to be a “man” in society. Also, the author may have been arguing in hope that people realize the terrible stresses that homosexuals in the United States undergo, as they are looked down upon, mocked, hated, and oppressed by many, many people in this country. The author feels that it’s despicable that homosexuals have to hide their sexual orientation out of these fears that manifest themselves. Her purpose perhaps is that she wanted to show the reader that these terrible crimes have a relationship, and that Matthew Shepard’s death perhaps occurred soley because he was looked at as a “wuss” and a “fag”. As terrible as it is, she wanted to make it clear that this is a reality in our country.

I think this writer is a “good” writer. She is clearly making a statement, but at the same time, incoporates quotations, historical information, and factual information about the case very well, to form a strong, coherent essay. There wasn’t a part, in my opinion, where I was confused or wondered why she included this. Everything was fluent and intelligent; I admired her style of writing, as it certainly kept me motivated to continue on and finish the entire essay.

2010: 04/06
CATEGORY: Uncategorized
Write comment

Rhetoric

This article “Tear Down This Wall” (2007), written by Robert A. Di leso, Jr. of the website Good.is, composed an infographic displaying walls throughout the world, all used for different ways in order to keep people apart or out of a space. The website Good.is displays blogs from a variety of different people, ranging from graphic designers to composers. The “Transparency” area of the website displays many graphical/pictorial organizations of data, in order to prove a point or show an issue. It is quite effective in fact, as we are drawn to the images and the text within, since they explore many different issues in creative ways. For this example, the author, who is in fact a designer who has worked for such companies as the New York Times and Time Inc, is able to draw the reader to the text by using pictures, such as the “amount of chopsticks” to relate to the size of the wall. This image-text was published on a website that covers a variety of topics; the issues of walls wasn’t something that fit the overall genre of topics, as they range from politics, day to day life, and economics. The viewer is most likely one who is current with issues, and enjoys gathering interpretations from some creative infographics, as they are found all over this website. The overall tone of this piece follows one that is concerned, or even intrigued perhaps, with the way humans wall themselves off from each other. Each of these different walls, such as the Great Wall of China, used to keep invaders out of China, or the wall on the border of the United States, used to stop people from illegally entering, all have different connotations, but one goal; stop people. Readers should be knowledgeable about the topics at hand, in order to deeply understand the issues, or even to catch errors in the image-text.

In terms of the claims outlined in this image-text, I did agree with most of it. I did find errors however, such as the author saying the Berlin wall was taken down in 1980, when it was in fact 1989. Also, I felt that the author misinterpreted the part about the Gaza Strip and West Bank walls, as they were constructed not really to divide Palestinian territories, but rather to keep suicide bombers from easily crossing the line. It was a response to stop terrorist attacks in Israel, not so much to mark territory lines. In my opinion, the author is biased towards the way we “keep ourselves apart.” I feel as if he is approaching his writing as negative; that these barriers are a bad thing, when in fact many of them do serve actually purposes. Of course, such monstrosities such as the DMZ between the Koreas, or the Berlin Wall which he mentions are obviously “negative” barriers, but I don’t think the Great Wall is so much “keeping people apart” as it is from stopping invasions. The title of this piece makes it seem as if all of these barriers are bad, when in fact, many of them serve effective purposes.

2010: 03/30
CATEGORY: Uncategorized
Write comment

Primary Research

I plan on using the analysis method to conduct my primary research.

1. I want to discover and gain more insight into court cases and legal actions regarding my topic. Net neutrality is becoming a legal debate more and more, as people want to see legislation appear. At first, it was a movement brought on by fear that did not attract very much attention, but now it is turning into a national issue.

2. I plan on discovering it by finding these court cases and legal documents on the internet. I’ve already found court cases which discuss the issue of net neutrality, and also a legal document discussing the guidelines of the web, laid out by the FCC. I hope to find more of these examples to bring into my paper.

3. I’m going to analyze court cases and legal actions of net neutrality.

4.The internet provides me with all the information I need in regards to court cases. They are a simple click away. The same goes for the other legislation I want to incorporate. The majority of these things, which I’ve already found, can be located online.

5-6. Biases in general include picking the side that we want to keep the internet free and open, as this is a well accepted view point and almost an obvious side to choose. Of course people want to keep websites and internet providers equal and neutral. I will have to be able to look at both sides of the issue without choosing a side that the majority of people believe in. By using legal documents, I am using concrete evidence that cannot have a bias; a court case or FCC document cannot be bias. By using these types of sources I will avoid bias. Other sources such as news articles or blogs will not be as unbias as these documents.

7. I expect to discover a lot of legal action and legislation that is either in the works or is active now. I’ve already found some great sources and I plan on finding even more. There is no doubt that I will be successful in this regard.

2010: 03/24
CATEGORY: Uncategorized
Write comment

Free Write #2

The start of this semester entered me into a world I never really knew existed. Sure, I’ve looked day by day at signs in society, graffiti around me, advertisements, or other visuals, but they meant little to me other than what they were on the surface. In studying geosemiotics, it is hard to look at signs in society and have this same surface level meaning; everything is much deeper. I may see an ad on the television and try to analyze it and give my opinions on it’s effectiveness. When talking to someone, it’s interesting to see how their body language is affecting the conversation. It’s all too analytical now. In our studies this semester, I was most interested/enjoyed our discussion of advertisements as well as our discussions on secure spaces. Advertisements always interested me as they are a means of showing the public an object or message in a creative way (or at least it should be creative). There are great ads and bad ads; it’s interesting to see examine why these ads are good or bad. I would tend to do this myself, but in learning about the ways to analyze advertisements, I’m able to put some sort of method to sorting out what I like and don’t like, and why I feel these ways. My favorite class discussion was the day that everyone presented their ads, and we sat and talked in depth about each one. It was interesting seeing what everyone felt about each ad; I liked getting a different perspective from each person, as well as sharing my own thoughts and ideas. It sparked an interesting discussion, especially about the Montana Anti-Meth campaign.

Secure spaces were also of interest to me, as our discussion sparked some ideas for my research project. In class, we talked about how most of us didn’t mind being watched by cameras, as we had nothing to fear. However, in previous generations, many may feel that CCTV is infringing on certain rights, or at least makes the majority of people feel uncomfortable. For some, the thought of constantly being monitored is bothersome. It is simply too much to have a camera watching them throughout the day as they walk by them. My classmates and I had a different feeling, a feeling that may be echoed by the majority of people my age, that as long as we are law abiding, then we having nothing to fear. If we don’t stand out in a crowd, then we shouldn’t have to worry about standing out in the eyes of a camera lens. We aren’t individuals in the eye of a camera. There are thousands of people that may walk by a street camera every day. What makes me stand out more than the person next to me? Perhaps our generation is no longer afraid of surveillance.

In terms of specific sites that interest me, I’m curious about what people my age feel about space on the internet and secure spaces we may find there. This is something that has not been discussed and I think it has potential for growth into large being. The internet is most peoples new domain; it is where they spend the majority of time, in a cloud where there is public and private spaces. We experience these spaces every single day we open our web browser, while it may be something that goes unnoticed. Are there limits to what we can do in public space? Net neutrality is a big topic now a days, and is certainly an issue I would love to do more research on. Should the internet be something that is equal, or should heavy users or websites that have a lot of traffic be off a pay to play system? What are the social and financial implications with these decisions?

As I begin describing above, for my research project I would love to talk about public space on the internet and where it may be going in the future. The government and large companies are always trying to figure out how to do with congestion on the internet, and many people oppose this. They feel it limits innovation on the web and will only hold back it’s potential if regulations and rules are put forth. Net Neutrality would be put forth to ensure that service providers never charge to view certain websites (for example, paying X amount of dollars for a Youtube/Google/Facebook package), which many fear will happen in the near future. Users may have to pay ISPs for website bundles, where as now they have access to everything on the internet for free. Viewing charges may be a future for the internet if Net Neutrality regulations are not put in place. I think this links to the issues of public space we have been talking about; the government and businesses are able to privatize and modify public space now, and this is something we may see happening on the internet in the years to come. I think this is a little known issue to many, and something that needs to get out there in order to prevent negative consequences on internet users.

2010: 03/05
CATEGORY: Free Write
Write comment

Secured Spaces

In the image above, the house is being secured by a chainlink fence. In addition, the fence even has barbed wire to make sure that no one even attempts to climb it, to risk injury. The fence is clearly put up to stop any social interaction, at least social interaction that the occupents of the house do not want. Those from outside will only be welcomed in by the occupants of the house and only at their discretion. I think it’s obvious that these are also the people who put this fence up. In terms of a motive for such extreme actions of security, I think something must of happened to the owner of this house that compelled them to enclose themselves off from others in such a way. Perhaps constant break ins in the house itself, or even around the neighbor hood provoked this fencing to occur. Regardless, in my opinion I think such actions are a little extreme and unnecessary, but we might get another story from the owner of the house. I think this clearly affirms many of Flusty’s arguments, but more specifically that people are becoming too obsessed with security. If this doesn’t scream obsession then I don’t know what else does. In researching these images, this one stuck out the most for me because it’s something that you rarely see everyday. I’ve never seen a house so “secure” with fencing and barb wire. It makes me think there seriously must be some crazy people inside.

The camera in the image above is something we may typically find on a street corner of a city such as New York or LA, usually placed around intersections. They may deter speeding or traffic violations of the sort, as people may be cautious and law-abidding if they see a camera above their cars. The government most likely put these up, either on a city or state level, for the reasons I stated above. These cameras attempt to limit social interaction because people will tend to ignore other things in an effort to obey the law and not make any “slip-ups” when they feel that they are being watched. I know I’m surely more cautious about my speed when I see a camera up ahead; I’d rather obey the law then risk getting a hefty speeding ticket. I think these cameras are effective in preventing motor accidents, and they are especially useful when accidents do occur, as they provide concrete evidence that may make the legal processes easier. The camera is a perfect witness in the eyes of the law; it has no judgements, opinions or prejudices. In terms of my opinions of cameras as a means of security, I honestly do not have a problem with them. It doesn’t bother me to have a camera on me because I know that it has it’s eyes on millions of other people as well. I’m not an individual in the eyes of a camera, I’m just a number. What makes me so different? This is a constant issue between generations and I think that my generation is just more secure about these issues and technology in general. We live our lives online and share information any day and none of us have a problem with it. We aren’t paranoid about these issues anymore.

Finally, this last picture shows a gated community, complete with a large fence and security booths. It looks like a picture out of a magazine; the prime example of a gated community. This picture, like most gated communities, puts out an image of “we don’t want you here, unless you are one of us”; the sort of mentality that welcomes inhabitants but labels all other strangers as dangerous. At least in my opinion this is what these communities entail. I think Flusty would agree with me; that these communities separate the rich and the poor, because as we all know, usually the inhabitants are of a wealthier status. The fencing, security booths and overall look, that every house is the same down the block are just prime examples of the luxurious secured spaces that Flusty discusses. They typically draw a line between classes in society. Gated communities are a tough subject. I’m not going to declare the occupants of these places as all bad people because of where they live. It is there choice to live in the environment they choose. If they have the money to make this choice then good for them. Who am I to judge what they do? However, subconsciously they are contributing to the security obsessed society that many of us live in and by living in these areas, may be looked upon as exhorting their wealth for all to see. It’s a tough call.