#ui12

[ui12]

(re)considering genetics and breast cancer

more contemplation dealing with the BRAC1 and BRAC2 repairing genes, among other supposedly genetic factors from researchers.  Definitely reminds me of some propaganda crit. we read the other week.  Scare tactics.  Unfounded publications.  There's even a disclaimer that says the study has not been peer reviewed yet.  Take from it what you will.  

http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/SABCS/36331?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[ui12]

(re) considering iconic images

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/most-powerful-images-of-2012?utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=buzzfeed

I came across this post and thought of our discussion of iconic images and how an image becomes an icon.  These are the 45 most viewed photos of 2012, so I thought that in some way they must be iconic, or at least symbolic of something.  The one of the people in Colorado, especially, seems like it has subliminal messages.  All of the crosses (not that they are necessarily a bad thing) speak to this whole country being Christian or religious in some way, and seeing religion as a way to respond and cope with disaster.  Realistically, much more is needed in that kind of situation.  The lighting and the clouds in the picture add to the foreboding and daunting tenor of the scene as well.  

In the photo of the tourists sunbathing in front of the sinking cruise ship, there seems to be an air of disinterest in the epic event as the people are not staring at the ship, but in other directions, seeming calm.  They are not panicked or anything.  It makes it seem like a normal day when tragedy strikes...is this how we feel about tragedy? Should it be normalized?  The lack of compassion in the picture contrasts the crazy event.  

What would Sontag and Mitchell have thought of this?  Mitchell says that "the picture now has...a central topic of discussion in the human sciences in the way that language did."  He also says that "contemporary visual culture...is too palable, too deeply embedded in technologies of desire, domination, and violence," which is interesting when looking at these images, many of which are centered around violence, corporate actions, domination centered, etc.  

[ui12]

(re)considering rhetoric in advertising

Snails Snorting Salt: http://www.personal.psu.edu/lmc5455/blogs/la_101_h_e-portfolio/rhetorical-analysis-of-an-advertisement.html.  

After reading Majdik and Platt's essay last night, I was intrigued by the metonymy used in the BRACAnalysis adds.  I realized that metonymic structuring is used in many advertisements, including the popular "above the influence" commercials and adds. 

In the snail-snorting-salt add, it is clear that the snails are meant to be teenagers or young adults about to participate in the intake of drugs.  Obviously, salt is deadly to snails in any circumstance, and the add aims to parallel snails snorting salt with people doing drugs (namely cocaine, I presume).  Of course, in the BRACAnalysis issue, there is potential risk (5-10%) that a mutated gene will be found for cancer (actually, hereditary ovarian or breast cancer).  Likewise, there is potential risk that someone will die from cocaine or other drugs.  Yet both overstep their realistic implications in favor of shock value and immense moral implications directed at the audience.  The audience is also a skewed target.  Majdik and Platt state that "Interjecting responsibility—and with it,possibility for praise or blame, meeting expectations or incurring guilt—into the rhetorical orientation" is a dangerous process that leads to lexical oversimplification and distortion of the message.  

The visual and lexical rhetoric in many advertisements are half-truths a lot of the time, lending themselves to overstepping the realistic components of [BRACAnalysis] and drugs.  

[ui12]

(re)considering children and rhetoric

http://earlyed.newamerica.net/blogposts/2009/why_ask_why_a_new_report_looks_at_childrens_questions-24154

Rhetoric seems like a very adult topic.  What role do children play in developing language and rhetoric?  And how does rhetoric and discussion early in life play into a children's development?  Are we prepared, when we reach adulthood, to engage in rhetorical discussion and educate ourselves on public policy and science and medicine and other integral issues in our lives and in the world?  Should we be required to take a rhetoric class or a critical thinking class before we graduate high school?  When should children start to be conditioned or taught to engage in political and rhetorical discussions?  This talks about researchers and children 2-8 years old participating in language discussions.  Take a look.  

"since all things are negotiated through language and socially agreed upon..."

[ui12]

(re)considering Prop64 and I502

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/amendment-64-passes-in-co_n_2079899.html

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2012/11/the_feds_react_to_marijuana_legalization_leap_cheers_norm_stamper.php

These articles explain how prop64 in Colorado and Initiative 502 in Washington State passed through state elections Tuesday.  Both of these measures legalize recreational marijuana in those states.  (Oregon's measure 80, unfortunately, did not pass).  They also cover the federal governments reaction. 

What will be interesting to see unfold is how the Federal government reacts to this.  Marijuana is still classified as a schedule 1 drug by the feds and the DEA under the controlled substances act.  THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HOW THE STASES OF JURISTICTION has effects on PUBLIC POLICY.  In the previous decade, marijuana has been talked about on mostly a medical basis when it comes to legalization, but this recreational usage really turns the tables.  It changes the ENTIRE DEFINITION of how the cannabis plant can be used and REGULATED.  

Here's the statement from Emily Langlie, Spokesperson U.S. Attorney's Office:

The Department of Justice's enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act remains unchanged. In enacting the Controlled Substances Act, Congress determined that marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance. The Department is reviewing the ballot initiative here and in other states and has no additional comment at this time.

HOW NICE OF THEM TO SAY THAT THEY HAVE NO ADDITIONAL COMMENT AND SIMPLY REITERATE A LAW THAT EVERYBODY ALREADY KNOWS.  I guess that is how they think rhetoric should be used.  When it comes to the Feds reviewing the ballot initiatives, it has to be asked what kind of disparities and problems will there be in terms of the STASES OF DEFINITION.  

Deputy Attorney General James Cole said: "We're going to take a look at whether or not there are dangers to the community from the sale of marijuana and we're going to go after those dangers"

In response to Cole's statement...how can you go after "dangers" before you're certain that they even exist!? 

The supporters of these measures, and marijuana supporters across the nation may agree with the following: 

Neill Franklin, Executive Director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and 34-year veteran of the Baltimore and Maryland State police departments:

"And when the rest of the country follows the lead pioneered by the voters of Colorado and Washington, we'll be closer to living in a country with a drug policy that is truly about public safety."

These measures are both highly important and influential in the US ALREADY.  They have made a huge splash in the media, forcing the feds to take the issue seriously.  I encourage all of you to read and educate yourselves on the original initiatives and propositions.  I502 is almost 100 pages long, but it is well worth the read.  It outlines literally everything anyone could ask about the legalization of recreational marijuana in Washington.  

Although this seems like a victory for many pro-pot people, there are certain aspects of each measure that caused supporters of marijuana to oppose these bills.  Driving restrictions, among others, are concerns for marijuana smokers because they fear that regulation will increase because of legalization.  WHAT WILL HAPPEN?  WHERE WILL THIS TAKE THE COUNTRY?  WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS?  WHAT WILL THE FEDS DO?  

[ui12]

reconsidering insurance and climate change after sandy

"Old infrastructure" not holding up to new weather patterns.  

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/31/how-much-will-sandy-cost-ask-the-insurers.html

[ui12]

(Re)considering Native American Environmentalism

This video of spoken word poetry demonstrates the Native American belief of All My Relation in a contemporary setting. 

All My Relations (älˑ mīˑ rē·lāˑ·shnz):

n.pr an expression that asserts the basic philosophy of many Native Americans, according to which plants, stones, two-leggeds, animals, sky, earth, moon, spirit helpers, ancestors and—most significantly—the Great Spirit are related; good health results from harmony between all beings.

[ui12]

(Re)Considering Wolves Part 2

In "The Three Vertically Challenged Pigs" we see the wolf in another light. In this story the wolf searches for his "manifest destiny" by trying to take over the pigs land.