|
|
After he has fired Stephen, Chuck comes in the next morning and Caitlin
confronts him about firing Stephen. Why is Caitlin angry with him for
firing Stephen? Whose fault does Chuck say the ordeal is, and what is his
reasoning?
- He says that it is everyone’s fault because they are the ones that let the fake articles go through to print.
Throughout the movie, there are cuts to a scene in which Stephen is
addressing a class at the high school where he went. What does this scene
turn out to be? What is the purpose of these scenes?
-This scene turns out to be an empty classroom. I think this scene means he was trying to tell his story. (How he published all his fake stories and such.)
By the end of the movie, have your feelings towards Stephen changed?
-I felt as if I could not trust him anymore. He lied to everyone through his stories. He is a liar.
After watching the interview, what do you think of the real Stephen Glass?
What do you think of the movie’s portrayal of him?
-The real S. Glass is just as bad as the character portraying him.
How do you feel about Stephen in the beginning of the movie? How does he interact with his coworkers, and what do his coworkers think of him? What do you think of him as he’s telling his coworkers the story about the hacker?
-At the beginning of the movie, he seems happy. He seems happy because he is working for one of the most prestigious newspapers, The New Republic. His coworkers like him and his comical side. Glass’ story “The Hacker” seemed a bit odd as he went through it. His coworkers were a bit suspicious as to if the story was real or fake. However, Glass wrote the story so well that his coworkers, at the beginning of the movie, thought it was the best story ever created.
Would you like to hang out with Stephen (as he’s portrayed in the first five or ten minutes of the movie)?
- He is a very comical guy, but he does lie a lot. I would be skeptical as to hanging out with him for an extended period of time.
What are the ethical dilemmas that Stephen faces? What ethical issues does the film explore through Stephen’s choices? Some may argue that what Stephen has done isn’t wrong. Do you think it’s wrong?
-He wrote stories that were false and then lied about items related to the stories to his editors. Some say what he has done isn’t wrong, but that doesn’t make it right. Glass could ruin the authenticity of the newspaper. He is jeopardizing everything. I think it is completely wrong to do something of that nature.
What ethical dilemmas does Chuck (Stephen’s editor) face? What conflicting duties does he have? Consider Chuck’s choices as editor with the ethical standards Stephen sets up for editors, and consider the conversation he has with the editor of the magazine that discovers Stephen’s article is fabricated?
-The editor is also in trouble for allowing false articles to be printed. He and Glass are jeopardizing the newspaper’s credibility.
Stephen is very persuasive. How does he use the rhetorical appeals in his interactions with people?
-His information is sound because he has notes from his “sources” (fake or not), and his information makes sense, logically speaking. He uses humorous punch-lines to end his stories which appeal to pathos.
(Con’t when the movie is finished…)
Now-a-days, job titles include some of the most ridiculous names. “Sanitation Engineer”, “Construction Manager”, “Hygene Equipment Technician”, and my personal favorite, “Sports Aquatics Engineer” (which is code for “Water Boy”). Job titles get more complicated with each passing generation. People who have crappy jobs, (no pun intended), find ways to make their title sound more sophisticated. The example that was previously mentioned, “Sanitation Engineer” can be brought lower in meaning to “Garbage Man”, plain and simply. However, I do enjoy reading about these titles and listening to people explain what they do and how their title fits them perfectly. It’s just taken too far sometimes. Please, if you are a garbage man, tell everyone that you take in their leftover meatloaf and Green Bean Casserole that was horribly made, and that no one ate, to the big dump. In some cases, that would be the only thing you are able to do in life, thus allowing you to get that job. And don’t “hate on me” because I just spoke the truth. Besides, you should be proud… you ARE making good money.
Now, if I may suggest an upgrade: Biohazard Material Disposal. I see bright, sharp needles in your future.
Companies who produce drugs are spreading their products all over the world. Consumers are paying top dollar to get those products in order to live a better life. But are those companies consumer-friendly? I think not. I’ve heard from some people who use drugs to better their lives that drugs were being given out. Most of them as sample, at not cost to the consumer. But what about when the samples run out? How much are we paying to get those once-free drugs and how much are they really costing the pharmaceutical company? The answer is not really clear. We all know those companies want to make as much money as possible without charging the consumer too much. Their standards of “charging too much” are definitely not the same as the consumers’. Drugs should be decently priced so that everyone is able to buy them. If you have no insurance drug companies are after you. Those companies can make a lot more money than from someone who has insurance, and has had it for a long time period. “Self-pay” consumers are the ones who are basically paying the salaries of the employees of drug companies. There is no limit to how much they can charge. A drug can be produce for pennies on the dollar, but are sold with an 800% markup price. Insurance holders get a break. The insurance company contracts with certain drug companies and offers a lower-than-standard price on drugs to insurance-holders. That leaves the rest of us out in the cold… trying to battle the flu or some kind of acute disease because we cannot afford the raised, non-insured price.
In a world where germs are everywhere, we as a society have found ways to kill them. From dirty toilet flusher handles to water, theres something that can be used to clean up the worst germ-infested objects. For someone who has everything they will ever need to clean up the germs, VIOlight has come up with a ultraviolet (UV) wand that can be used to decontaminate hard surfaces. UV light changes the DNA of the microorganism so that it disables its reproduction ability, thus minimizing and killing off the bacteria.
If it wasn’t so expensive ($80-$180) I would invest in one. I know I’m one of those germaphobes.
[These types of articles interest me. This is why I picked this type of article to blog about.]
Work Cited:
Chansanchai, Athima. “In a germ-phobic era, we’re talkin’ dirty devices.” MSNBC. 06 Feb 2008. 6 Feb 2008 .
Have you ever actually looked at your bills lately? Cell phone bills… credit card bills… or maybe your water bill? They add ridiculous charges on your bill and slap the tag “tax” on it. Other companies aren’t that smart and just claim the extra charge as a “charge”, probing the receiver of the bill to get on the phone and complain. So why, you may ask, are companies adding on to present charges? The answer is simple: Companies use hidden charges to generate more revenue. They want to make more money so that it can pay its employees royalties. Consumers obviously don’t want to pay more money for something they can get cheap. On a more personal note, I sure don’t want to pay more than I have to.
I have personally been a victim of these charges. I have to call up the company and find out why they are charging me. Most of the time they claim that it was a mistake. Mistakes do happen… I’m sure… but they cannot happen every month. It started out with my credit card bill. Then it progressively reached my cell phone and bank statements. The bank I use charges me when I write a check! Keep in mind… this checking account is supposedly free. My routine includes contacting the bank via telephone or walking into a branch, statement in hand. And, as I would expect, I walk out fifty-seven cents richer. There is no reason why they would debit my account mere pennies. Now, as the hand turns, if they have a good reason to take my money by all means, go for it. If I used a service: great reason. But if my money was your bank, YOU should be paying ME! And that’s what we call interest… I’ll leave that story out for another day.
Getting straight to the point, I personally will not give a homeless person any money… unless:
(1) They have actually been through a war that fought for this country
(2) They’re honest about what they’re going to do with the money.
(3) I go into the store with them and buy them FOOD!
(4) I’m in a good mood or am financially stable.
Other than that, I don’t think anyone should get free, non-taxable money. Homeless people should work, unless of course they are disabled either mentally or physically. If they can get free money, the Government should give us more money. Or at least lower the taxes… but that’s a another story.
Ah, another day has past. I find that there’s still not enough hours in a day for everything to get done. I’m organized to the max… and still feel like there’s a mess. Chemistry is kicking my butt! I mean, don’t get me wrong… I want to become a doctor, and of course, chemistry is in my future. I just wish there were some easy method to solving these problems! I just need to learn why every step of the solving process happens. I believe that everything happens for a reason. Once I get that down, the problems will no longer be problems.
My first chemistry exam is today. I don’t feel prepared at all. Looks like cramming has to take place. But this time it’s not the night before… its right before the exam. We’ll see how this one ends up.
…And don’t even get my started on Pre-Calc! Math USED to be my best subject. Now I feel as if I’ve never taken the class before! I’ve taken Calculus 1 in high school. And, not to brag, but I did pretty well. I’m in Pre-Calc now… and I feel dumb! The teacher is fantastic and the work isn’t too bad. I don’t understand why I don’t understand! More studying… more practice. That should help.
(I guess I still haven’t gotten a hang of this blogging thing. But… it is a great venting place.)
For this assignment, I analyzed the YouTube videos between the Democrats Hiliary Clinton and Barack Obama and the Republicans: Ruday Giuliani, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney.
Both parties discuss meaningless subjects! They are not looking at the big picture. Their entire debates surface small topics or subtopics in their campaigns. Why do people always bring up the past? “You said….when you were riding a horse around your barn!” This is just childish behavior.
However, as the video goes on from the Republican debate, they do start talking about the immigration problem. Yes, I realize that it is a huge and complicated problem, but someone needs to address it without putting anyone else down. People feel differently about this subject and the politicians are aware of it. They use their feelings about that topic to persuade their audience. For example, Mayor Ruday Giuliani talked about how he allowed illegal immigrants who were in school the right to stay in school because it would be inhumane to leave them on the side of the street. He also stated that in New York, where he is the mayor, he allowed illegals hospital care because forbiding it would also be inhumane. “…illegals are people, too” (Giuliani) (These show two uses of pathos).
The ethos and logos perspective can be interpreted differently. In my opinion, the candidates do not focus on the ethos as much as the other two rhetorical parts. The logos; it must be heavily used in such debates. Logic has an enormous part in debating. If the candidates do not speak logically, they will (1) get torn-up by the others, and (2) will decrease their chance of getting elected.
For years, the world has been talking about a “Greener Earth”. But what does that really mean? Does it mean we should plant more trees or recycle more? Automakers think differently. As for them, they also have been talking about making the planet a better place to live… starting with the ozone. As the topic appears in papers repeatedly, automakers have found small ways to use up newer, longer-lasting resources. Moving away from using the now-one-hundred dollars a barrel oil, they have found ways of using battery-powered cars and other modes of transportation.
Starting in California, automaker General Motors introduced a pure-electric vehicle in 1996, cleverly named the EV1. The cars were cheap and they definitely were environmentally friendly. Citizens of California bought them. GM built over 400 power stations throughout the state for owners of the EV1 to use and recharge their cars. Sadly, there are downsides to this great piece of ecofriendly solution: The cars could not travel more than 29-30 miles on a single charge.
Batteries used in the EV1 were of the Nickel-Metal Hydride family, (Ni-MH). Newer batteries, developed by Stanford R. Ovshinsky, were introduced to the EV1, making the cars able to run longer on a charge. This change in batteries used in the EV1 allowed for 100-120 miles to be driven before the vehicle would need to be replenished of electricity. Last, but not least, another battery family came into play: The Lithium Ion batteries. Used in combination with Ovshinsky’s newfound development, the EV1′s had the ability to run just a bit longer. As GM was putting the final touches on its environmentally-friendly car, another company was getting jealous.
Daimler-Chrysler wanted a piece of the action. They fought with the state on mandates to allow more research to be done on these types of cars. The EV1s were ruining business for other automakers. The routine maintainance on the cars were virtually nonexistant. A regular routine maintanance would include rotating the tires and filling up the washer fluid. All the oil changes, replacement parts, and others such as those were huge business to automakers. The bringing of this car would decrease business for the other makers of cars. Through a series of events in a short amount of time, the EV1s were ordered to be destroyed. People had their cars repossessed; it left people crying.
In conclusion, automakers talk a lot of hype about making a car that will change the Earth… but no one company seems to do anything about it.
|
|
