I don't know if I have told you all this, but I probably have since we have been friends a long while. I take antidepressants on a regular basis. It isn't that I was recently depressed or anything. I have clinical depression. I am supposed to take it everyday like diabetics take insulin. I could potentially not be on them, if I was under the care of a counselor. But I can't afford a counselor and the VA gives me the pills. Usually when I get a new bottle, I set aside about 12. That way when I run out, I call to order the refill and there are still 6 days of pills left to last until the refill gets here. My brilliantness forgot to do the set-aside thing last time. I ran out on Thursday. Today is my fourth day without them. This is incredibly stupid of me, especially with exams fast approaching and all the maddening stress that comes along with them.
I decided to blog about it because I figured it may help me to get by a little easier.
So is there a noticeable difference? Hell yes.
Day One - wow. I am being very very stupid. I went out after school to celebrate my oral arguments being done. I drank 2 beers. That is pretty much the last thing I needed considering alcohol is a depressant. Then I went to a birthday party later that night, had one glass of wine. Next I went over to the dorms, and had another beer. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Someone commented that I seem different.
Day Two - went to study group session. It was extremely difficult to get out of bed. When I finally got to the study session, it was near impossible to focus on the task at hand. I was incredibly exhausted despite getting plenty of sleep. I went home and rented a bunch of movies. I couldn't keep my eyes open past 12. Someone commented that I look different.
Day Three - I should have studied. Instead I slept until 1pm. I woke up and took a friend to the grocery store. While driving back home I was almost falling asleep a the wheel. I then watched movies. Well, a movie. I started to fall asleep at 6pm. I feel like I have mono. This sucks. My body feels like I am carrying around a giant sack of potatoes. So I went to sleep, and slept and slept...
Today - woke up at 7 (late). very very difficult to get out of bed. I went to a fundraiser breakfast, where someone commented that I look "out of it". I then went to Contracts class. Where I couldn't even concentrate enough to play a game on the computer while I was not paying attention in class. I started falling asleep in class. I took a B-complex vitamin. I now have some energy. I don't feel so tired anymore that I could fall asleep at any second. I tried to run some errands on my lunch break and didn't get much done. I am here in Property class right now - Blogging instead of paying attention. I just yawned. I hope my medicine arrives in the mail today... I think the worst thing about this so far is that I can't stay awake.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Friday, April 27, 2007
Can I be a critic too?
Ok so I watched the Devil Wears Prada and although I absolutely hate Meryl Streep, I did enjoy it. Rachel had watched the movie a long time ago and told me it was cute and that was what it was. CUTE. I liked that the main character was someone who isn't completely famous. And I liked that she is young, in her early 20s and trying to start her career. It made her much more relatable. I could relate to her position in her place of work cause she was an admin assistant like I am. What happens in the story was she applied for a position at a modeling magazine. She was hopeless in the fashion area but was able to conform to her surroundings; not without losing herself in the process. She became so busy and uptight that she ended up losing friends in the process, her parents worried about her, she lost her boyfriend and her values. It was very... tame as compared to real life but I like the story line, the point. It seemed real to me.
I think that all of us have been through a situation where we got caught up in what was going on and turned our backs on those people who tried to help us. At least I think everyone has been through that!
I am not much for unknown music which the movie had a lot of, but if you are into music that isn't mainstream there were some good songs on there. Rach sent me a bunch to listen to and I did enjoy them.
Anyone else have an opinion? Did I mention I hate Meryl Streep?
L♥ve, Kasie
I think that all of us have been through a situation where we got caught up in what was going on and turned our backs on those people who tried to help us. At least I think everyone has been through that!
I am not much for unknown music which the movie had a lot of, but if you are into music that isn't mainstream there were some good songs on there. Rach sent me a bunch to listen to and I did enjoy them.
Anyone else have an opinion? Did I mention I hate Meryl Streep?
L♥ve, Kasie
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
PMS...
...Like the Mary J. Blige song. I used to laugh at my mom's mood swings when she was PMSing (yelling at my little sister one second, then asking me what kind of cookies I'd like the next), and am grateful that I didn't get that from her. But man, do I get the strangest cravings. And if I don't get the food I want, I'm like...
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Sorry I forgot about this
Here it is:
I am including the God stuff in this blog. I talked more in my blog found by clicking here.
I believe God is all loving. I don't believe that he makes negative things happen in this world. I think he wants us to all be happy and be nice to one another, to learn from our experiences and to do every good thing we possibly can without losing our selves or our minds in the process. I think He gave us the choice to live in complete bliss or to live through negativity and learn in the process. I think this is where the story of Adam and Eve came from. I don't think that Eve was tricked into biting the apple, I think she made the choice. If you think about it, if we are always happy and always have everthing we want, what do we learn? It's like always handing over money to your children. They don't learn what it is like to earn it, to be without it. There is no appreciation.
I am including the God stuff in this blog. I talked more in my blog found by clicking here.
I believe God is all loving. I don't believe that he makes negative things happen in this world. I think he wants us to all be happy and be nice to one another, to learn from our experiences and to do every good thing we possibly can without losing our selves or our minds in the process. I think He gave us the choice to live in complete bliss or to live through negativity and learn in the process. I think this is where the story of Adam and Eve came from. I don't think that Eve was tricked into biting the apple, I think she made the choice. If you think about it, if we are always happy and always have everthing we want, what do we learn? It's like always handing over money to your children. They don't learn what it is like to earn it, to be without it. There is no appreciation.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
My Contribution to Earth Day
Did you know that coffee is the second most consumed product in the world, second only to oil/petroleum products? Have you heard of fair trade coffee? Shade-grown versus sun-grown?
In honor of Earth Day, here is some education for you. **Fair Warning** This article is long. I don't expect you to read it all. I know we are busy people so if you want a quick summary:
Save our ecosystems, buy shade-grown coffee.
Coffee for the Birds
The Boreal Forest of North America is one of the largest forests in the world, but its size is rapidly declining due to deforestation and demand for sun-grown coffee in America. The declining amount of forest has put over 150 species of songbird, essential to the ecosystem, into endangerment. The songbirds of this ecosystem are essential to the health of the forests in North America and the tropics for many reasons and unless we can stop deforestation for the sun-grown coffee, we are likely to lose these well-known and loved birds forever. Educating our country about the songbird’s role and the benefits of shade-grown coffee versus sun-grown plays an essential part in halting the destruction of the forest and in saving many species of beloved birds.
Benefits of shade-grown coffee
Shade-grown coffee plantations can provide winter homes for some 200 different species of migratory birds such as the Baltimore Oriole or Sharp-shinned Hawk. In addition, permanent residents of the rainforests like hummingbirds and toucans, make their homes on shade-grown coffee plantations. These plantations provide homes to other organisms as well such as amphibians, plants, fungi, and invertebrates. Such biodiversity is due to the fact that shade-grown coffee does not require the clearing of vast amounts of land. In fact, the plantations are hardly recognizable as such since they blend right in with the natural lay of the land (Audubon, n.d.).
A person walking through the rainforest could pass right through a shade-grown coffee plantation and not even know, unless they knew what to look for.
Another benefit to shade-grown coffee plantations is that they are sustainable. Shade-grown coffee plantations keep local farmers in business and can last up to 10 times longer than sun-grown coffee plantations. In addition, since only ripe beans are picked, the taste is much better than sun-grown coffee. A further benefit is that pesticides are not necessary as the birds, along with other animals and plants, which make these plantations their winter homes, keep the pests in check. This means that the surrounding soil and water will be of a higher quality as well. Since pesticides are not necessary, shade-grown coffee plantations are actually cheaper to maintain than sun-grown coffee plantations (Atlanta Audubon, n.d.).
How sun-grown coffee adds to the deforestation problem
Sun-grown coffee adds to the deforestation problem with the kind of system being used. The system used to grow sun-grown coffee increases soil erosion and requires constant doses of fertilizers and pesticides. What this means is that the old forest trees must come down to clear the land. The Songbird Foundation (2006) states “Full-sun coffee plantations are virtually biological deserts. The higher yields tempt farmers to convert to full-sun, and the majority of plantations in Brazil, Colombia, and Costa Rica have already been cleared of trees. Even though full-sun farms are more expensive to maintain — and have significant environmental costs—government agencies often subsidize the transition.”
When the trees from the forest are being cut down to implore sun-grown coffee farms, it creates an environment that is no longer balanced and self-nurturing. Sun-grown coffees also require great amounts of chemicals that help the coffee grow and pesticides to keep out the insects.
Sun-grown coffee plants destroy the environment by depleting up to 90% of the bird species, by eroded the soil and toxic runoff. Also, sun-grown coffee plants stop producing after 10 – 15 years.
Reason for decline of songbird other than coffee
Although sun-grown coffee is the major contributor to the decline of the songbird population, there are many other reasons. Some of the reasons include: deforestation for other sun-grown crops, ground-nesting birds frequently being prayed on by untamed cats and nest invaders like raccoons. Pesticides, fertilizers, and toxins used in today’s world are also killing these birds. Next are the tall buildings. Certain species of migrating birds are prone to flying into tall buildings that are lit up at night. Other reasons include climate and weather; cold fronts, heavy rainfall, and wind. All happen while the songbirds are crossing large bodies of water and may kill these precious birds (Marks, 2006).
Acid rain has also been found to be a big issue. Acid rain results from emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides from coal-burning power plants, cars, and factories. The Clean Air Act amendments introduced in 1990 resulted in reductions of pollutants, but these changes have not stopped the acid rain completely (Seabrook, 2002). Additionally, songbirds migrate in the spring and fall ever year, tending to migrate to the same place. In the twice-a- year conformation, they change from carnivores to vegetarians (Robinson, 1997). With the tropical forests being replaced by grasslands and sun plantations, the habitat the songbirds have grown accustomed to is now diminishing.
To live in both the temperate and tropical worlds and to find sufficient food during their long and often intercontinental flights, songbirds must be flexible opportunists. The songbirds need insects for nourishment during mating season and shade that is provided by the rainforest. The songbirds also help to preserve the trees of the rainforests every year by eating the insects that feed on the trees; this gives the trees a longer lifespan.
Direct links that sun-grown coffee is causing bird decline
Sun-grown coffee plants have a direct effect on migratory birds because they drive all of the wild life that lives in those areas away. The animals that live in the forested areas where the shade-grown coffee is will follow the forests. When the rain forests are cut down and sun-grown coffee is planted, the wild life migrates to other areas and the birds that once were there follow it as well. If deforestation keeps at its current pace, some of these beloved birds are going to disappear just as the trees are disappearing.
The sun-grown coffee is also treated with a lot of pesticides that would not normally be used on the shade-grown coffee. This factor is also making the songbird numbers drop dramatically. The pesticides may contain poisons to these birds. Not only do these pesticides potentially poison the birds, but also they can also potentially poison the other wild life that lives in the area. This creates a trickle down effect. Once the forests are cleared, some of the wild life is gone that the birds rely on. The birds that are left or the prey they rely on may be poisoned, causing the birds to starve or migrate elsewhere.
As an example of natural selection, evolution will claim these songbirds at the hands of men and women. We take these trees that they need to survive. Their natural habitat is with other wild life in forested areas. When they are gone, the birds will stay alive only if they can properly evolve. Studies have shown this is not the case.
Songbirds are an essential part of the Boreal and tropical forest ecosystems and cannot continue to decline in population due to the need of sun-grown coffee. Due to the over-demand in America, the lives of these songbirds are in danger, as well as the health of the forests they live in and migrate to. To help preserve the bird’s lives and the health of our forests, it is important to understand the roles these birds play in the ecosystems they live in and understand that deforestation is not an essential step in growing coffee. We must stop the deforestation for these crops and continue educating people on the alternatives. Growing coffee in shaded areas of the forests cannot only save the forests and the birds; it can produce better tasting coffee as well.
In honor of Earth Day, here is some education for you. **Fair Warning** This article is long. I don't expect you to read it all. I know we are busy people so if you want a quick summary:
Save our ecosystems, buy shade-grown coffee.
Coffee for the Birds
The Boreal Forest of North America is one of the largest forests in the world, but its size is rapidly declining due to deforestation and demand for sun-grown coffee in America. The declining amount of forest has put over 150 species of songbird, essential to the ecosystem, into endangerment. The songbirds of this ecosystem are essential to the health of the forests in North America and the tropics for many reasons and unless we can stop deforestation for the sun-grown coffee, we are likely to lose these well-known and loved birds forever. Educating our country about the songbird’s role and the benefits of shade-grown coffee versus sun-grown plays an essential part in halting the destruction of the forest and in saving many species of beloved birds.
Benefits of shade-grown coffee
Shade-grown coffee plantations can provide winter homes for some 200 different species of migratory birds such as the Baltimore Oriole or Sharp-shinned Hawk. In addition, permanent residents of the rainforests like hummingbirds and toucans, make their homes on shade-grown coffee plantations. These plantations provide homes to other organisms as well such as amphibians, plants, fungi, and invertebrates. Such biodiversity is due to the fact that shade-grown coffee does not require the clearing of vast amounts of land. In fact, the plantations are hardly recognizable as such since they blend right in with the natural lay of the land (Audubon, n.d.).
A person walking through the rainforest could pass right through a shade-grown coffee plantation and not even know, unless they knew what to look for.
Another benefit to shade-grown coffee plantations is that they are sustainable. Shade-grown coffee plantations keep local farmers in business and can last up to 10 times longer than sun-grown coffee plantations. In addition, since only ripe beans are picked, the taste is much better than sun-grown coffee. A further benefit is that pesticides are not necessary as the birds, along with other animals and plants, which make these plantations their winter homes, keep the pests in check. This means that the surrounding soil and water will be of a higher quality as well. Since pesticides are not necessary, shade-grown coffee plantations are actually cheaper to maintain than sun-grown coffee plantations (Atlanta Audubon, n.d.).
How sun-grown coffee adds to the deforestation problem
Sun-grown coffee adds to the deforestation problem with the kind of system being used. The system used to grow sun-grown coffee increases soil erosion and requires constant doses of fertilizers and pesticides. What this means is that the old forest trees must come down to clear the land. The Songbird Foundation (2006) states “Full-sun coffee plantations are virtually biological deserts. The higher yields tempt farmers to convert to full-sun, and the majority of plantations in Brazil, Colombia, and Costa Rica have already been cleared of trees. Even though full-sun farms are more expensive to maintain — and have significant environmental costs—government agencies often subsidize the transition.”
When the trees from the forest are being cut down to implore sun-grown coffee farms, it creates an environment that is no longer balanced and self-nurturing. Sun-grown coffees also require great amounts of chemicals that help the coffee grow and pesticides to keep out the insects.
Sun-grown coffee plants destroy the environment by depleting up to 90% of the bird species, by eroded the soil and toxic runoff. Also, sun-grown coffee plants stop producing after 10 – 15 years.
Reason for decline of songbird other than coffee
Although sun-grown coffee is the major contributor to the decline of the songbird population, there are many other reasons. Some of the reasons include: deforestation for other sun-grown crops, ground-nesting birds frequently being prayed on by untamed cats and nest invaders like raccoons. Pesticides, fertilizers, and toxins used in today’s world are also killing these birds. Next are the tall buildings. Certain species of migrating birds are prone to flying into tall buildings that are lit up at night. Other reasons include climate and weather; cold fronts, heavy rainfall, and wind. All happen while the songbirds are crossing large bodies of water and may kill these precious birds (Marks, 2006).
Acid rain has also been found to be a big issue. Acid rain results from emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides from coal-burning power plants, cars, and factories. The Clean Air Act amendments introduced in 1990 resulted in reductions of pollutants, but these changes have not stopped the acid rain completely (Seabrook, 2002). Additionally, songbirds migrate in the spring and fall ever year, tending to migrate to the same place. In the twice-a- year conformation, they change from carnivores to vegetarians (Robinson, 1997). With the tropical forests being replaced by grasslands and sun plantations, the habitat the songbirds have grown accustomed to is now diminishing.
To live in both the temperate and tropical worlds and to find sufficient food during their long and often intercontinental flights, songbirds must be flexible opportunists. The songbirds need insects for nourishment during mating season and shade that is provided by the rainforest. The songbirds also help to preserve the trees of the rainforests every year by eating the insects that feed on the trees; this gives the trees a longer lifespan.
Direct links that sun-grown coffee is causing bird decline
Sun-grown coffee plants have a direct effect on migratory birds because they drive all of the wild life that lives in those areas away. The animals that live in the forested areas where the shade-grown coffee is will follow the forests. When the rain forests are cut down and sun-grown coffee is planted, the wild life migrates to other areas and the birds that once were there follow it as well. If deforestation keeps at its current pace, some of these beloved birds are going to disappear just as the trees are disappearing.
The sun-grown coffee is also treated with a lot of pesticides that would not normally be used on the shade-grown coffee. This factor is also making the songbird numbers drop dramatically. The pesticides may contain poisons to these birds. Not only do these pesticides potentially poison the birds, but also they can also potentially poison the other wild life that lives in the area. This creates a trickle down effect. Once the forests are cleared, some of the wild life is gone that the birds rely on. The birds that are left or the prey they rely on may be poisoned, causing the birds to starve or migrate elsewhere.
As an example of natural selection, evolution will claim these songbirds at the hands of men and women. We take these trees that they need to survive. Their natural habitat is with other wild life in forested areas. When they are gone, the birds will stay alive only if they can properly evolve. Studies have shown this is not the case.
Songbirds are an essential part of the Boreal and tropical forest ecosystems and cannot continue to decline in population due to the need of sun-grown coffee. Due to the over-demand in America, the lives of these songbirds are in danger, as well as the health of the forests they live in and migrate to. To help preserve the bird’s lives and the health of our forests, it is important to understand the roles these birds play in the ecosystems they live in and understand that deforestation is not an essential step in growing coffee. We must stop the deforestation for these crops and continue educating people on the alternatives. Growing coffee in shaded areas of the forests cannot only save the forests and the birds; it can produce better tasting coffee as well.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
My waking thoughts
Tomorrow is 4/20. In addition to being associated with smoking some yummy cannibis (*cheers*)it is also the day assoiated with being booted from the military a long five years ago. I always think back to the people I left behind on that day. I love love LOVED! the friends I made. It was hard leaving everyone behind. I didn't want to miss out on all the fun that was left to be had. Leaving you guys (Heather, Shaun, Tara... okay Guat and Mindy too) was the hardest thing I ever had to get over. I had no idea how attached I had become to all of you. It's funny that the friends I made in school, the ones I spent 9 years going to school with are non-existant in my life, but the ones I spent such a small amount of time with ended up being the ones I would keep in contact with forever. The bond that I had made with you guys was so strong, it still to this day affects my marriage. At first, I couldn't stop talking about you, referring to my Monterey days in every conversation, ("Well when I was in Monterey Heather said that exact thing, and this is what happened...."). It got old to everyone else quick but not to me. I still take out my scrapbook and stare at the old photos. We were crazy! When we took Heather's meds and all got sick at California Adventure, the crazy Guat driver, field trips to Krispy Kreme and all the other places we'd drive out of our way to go eat at. I found a video I had recorded on my last night in the USAF with Shaun and Heather singing RENT songs. It made me all teary. It also had our cheesy song contest from the May B-day bash when Petronio, Paganucci and Moran drove down to party with us at the Crazy Horse. Such dorks but still funny as ever.
So my point, I miss those days. I don't understand why they couldn't last forever and if I ever have the chance again for all of us to live together and BS like we used to, I think I'd be in heaven. My poor husband doesn't stand a chance.
So my point, I miss those days. I don't understand why they couldn't last forever and if I ever have the chance again for all of us to live together and BS like we used to, I think I'd be in heaven. My poor husband doesn't stand a chance.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Latter Days...
Ok, I just watched this movie Latter Days - surprisingly it was recommended to me by a friend.
I have never experienced anything like this in my movie watching history. Never before have so many average-quality elements joined forces to become a complete and total crap film.
The story takes place in Los Angeles. A Mormon kid from Idaho moves there to do his mission. His studly gay neighbor and his 21 year-old friends make a bet that he can't convert the Mormon. Of course, he doesn't convert the kid - he was already gay- he just never had the temptation so available before. They get caught kissing. The Mormon gets sent home and excommunicated from the church. His family freaks out on him, he tries to kill himself, and he ends up in some institution.
Sound dramatic? It isn't, I swear. I am sure this movie started out better than most. It started as a really brilliant idea for a film. Then as movie-making goes, somehow they end up with a hollow shell of what the film was meant to be.
This movie was completely flat. There were no ups and downs. ______________________ yeah just like that line... and this line __________________________________
Here's me watching Latter Days ------------------------------*--------- that dot in the middle... Was that something dramatic happening in the movie? No. that was my bathroom break.
I have a few choice words to the producers and directors of this movie:
1. GLYCERIN - Seriously. If you made the absolutely stupid choice of hiring a bunch of so-so actors, and you get a so-so script, the next move is not to force a moment where there is no moment. I am just guessing of course, but the script probably said cry at various times (bad script). Or another possibility, the director felt as though several scenes in the movie would not be complete without a big cry. Get Real! The human condition makes us able to show our emotions in an infinite number of ways. If you have a bunch of actors who can't cry when you think they should, then trust them to make their own choices about their character's emotions can be shown through movement (that's called acting by the way). And if you absolutely can not see the scene happen without the cry - a little glycerin never hurt anyone.
2. BLOCKING - was the grip drunk? How hard is it to put tape on the ground and make sure people hit their marks? The cinematography in this movie was amateurish. One shot (i counted only one i swear) was a beautiful one. One little gem buried in a poo pie. It was the scene where Christian is trying to find out where his Mormon boy went. He starts to walk away, the elder says something, Christian turns his head and BAM. Brilliant. And then it died a quick death.
3. LIGHTING - There are more than 3 lighting techniques. I kid you not. Waaay more than 3.
To your credit Directors, I get it. I understand what you were trying to do with the lighting. You wanted to tie the lighting in with the religious theme. That's why you picked high windows and you put your flood lights outside and had the lights hit everyone's foreheads so majestically. It was not a good idea to do that for 50% of the movie. I started to wonder if anyone every thought of flipping the light switch on.
Then you had the outside light. You did pick the right gel at least - congrats.
Sheesh. Why, my friend whose name starts with B? Why this movie?
I have never experienced anything like this in my movie watching history. Never before have so many average-quality elements joined forces to become a complete and total crap film.
The story takes place in Los Angeles. A Mormon kid from Idaho moves there to do his mission. His studly gay neighbor and his 21 year-old friends make a bet that he can't convert the Mormon. Of course, he doesn't convert the kid - he was already gay- he just never had the temptation so available before. They get caught kissing. The Mormon gets sent home and excommunicated from the church. His family freaks out on him, he tries to kill himself, and he ends up in some institution.
Sound dramatic? It isn't, I swear. I am sure this movie started out better than most. It started as a really brilliant idea for a film. Then as movie-making goes, somehow they end up with a hollow shell of what the film was meant to be.
This movie was completely flat. There were no ups and downs. ______________________ yeah just like that line... and this line __________________________________
Here's me watching Latter Days ------------------------------*--------- that dot in the middle... Was that something dramatic happening in the movie? No. that was my bathroom break.
I have a few choice words to the producers and directors of this movie:
1. GLYCERIN - Seriously. If you made the absolutely stupid choice of hiring a bunch of so-so actors, and you get a so-so script, the next move is not to force a moment where there is no moment. I am just guessing of course, but the script probably said cry at various times (bad script). Or another possibility, the director felt as though several scenes in the movie would not be complete without a big cry. Get Real! The human condition makes us able to show our emotions in an infinite number of ways. If you have a bunch of actors who can't cry when you think they should, then trust them to make their own choices about their character's emotions can be shown through movement (that's called acting by the way). And if you absolutely can not see the scene happen without the cry - a little glycerin never hurt anyone.
2. BLOCKING - was the grip drunk? How hard is it to put tape on the ground and make sure people hit their marks? The cinematography in this movie was amateurish. One shot (i counted only one i swear) was a beautiful one. One little gem buried in a poo pie. It was the scene where Christian is trying to find out where his Mormon boy went. He starts to walk away, the elder says something, Christian turns his head and BAM. Brilliant. And then it died a quick death.
3. LIGHTING - There are more than 3 lighting techniques. I kid you not. Waaay more than 3.
To your credit Directors, I get it. I understand what you were trying to do with the lighting. You wanted to tie the lighting in with the religious theme. That's why you picked high windows and you put your flood lights outside and had the lights hit everyone's foreheads so majestically. It was not a good idea to do that for 50% of the movie. I started to wonder if anyone every thought of flipping the light switch on.
Then you had the outside light. You did pick the right gel at least - congrats.
Sheesh. Why, my friend whose name starts with B? Why this movie?
Who is being selfish here?
I need some outside perspective on this:
A few weeks ago, a lot of my friends started pulling retard moves and really hurt my feelings. One in particular. Although I have dealt with those friends and decided a course of action, the hurt still sort of resonates and I have been depressed for those few weeks up until now. I didn't realize at first that my husband was being neglected and a few days ago he finally said something about it. I completely understand his need for assurance right now but I also can not give it to him. I am depressed. It is not about our relationship. No matter how hard I try to tell him it isn't about him, he won't stop trying to seek approval from me. He is making my depression, my issue, about him. It's driving me crazy. Who is being selfish here? Is it me, cause I am ignoring him (not purposely) or is it him, for making this about him? This happens every time I feel a little down, he makes it about himself, takes the attention, takes the energy, the energy I need to get through the day is all focused on him and making sure his ego is stroked. I am so tired right now of caring about things that I don't want to care about so I can just make it through the day and not get fired or kicked out of school. I figured that of anyone in the world, my husband should be the one to understand, to give me a little space to figure out what is wrong but instead he is making it worse. I just don't know who is in the wrong here. Maybe neither of us. Don't know. Tell me what you think people.
A few weeks ago, a lot of my friends started pulling retard moves and really hurt my feelings. One in particular. Although I have dealt with those friends and decided a course of action, the hurt still sort of resonates and I have been depressed for those few weeks up until now. I didn't realize at first that my husband was being neglected and a few days ago he finally said something about it. I completely understand his need for assurance right now but I also can not give it to him. I am depressed. It is not about our relationship. No matter how hard I try to tell him it isn't about him, he won't stop trying to seek approval from me. He is making my depression, my issue, about him. It's driving me crazy. Who is being selfish here? Is it me, cause I am ignoring him (not purposely) or is it him, for making this about him? This happens every time I feel a little down, he makes it about himself, takes the attention, takes the energy, the energy I need to get through the day is all focused on him and making sure his ego is stroked. I am so tired right now of caring about things that I don't want to care about so I can just make it through the day and not get fired or kicked out of school. I figured that of anyone in the world, my husband should be the one to understand, to give me a little space to figure out what is wrong but instead he is making it worse. I just don't know who is in the wrong here. Maybe neither of us. Don't know. Tell me what you think people.
I'm in a Happy Bunny mood
I admit I'm not sure how "suck a butt" ever became an insult--still, it's funny!
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
I'm the Green Lantern...
Which super hero are you? Take this quiz to find out...
http://www.thesuperheroquiz.com/
http://www.thesuperheroquiz.com/
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
By the way....
That last post was one of my papers from Undergrad. I went through and corrected a few things, but the stats are from 2004.
yay
yay
Another Rant...
Telecommunications Act of 1996
Remember when cable TV meant fifty or so channels? Suddenly overnight it changed to 900, and the picture became clearer overnight as well. Many people have never heard of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 because the television networks never breathed a word of it to the American public. The Act is a nasty piece of legislation that took away a $70 billion broadcast medium from the citizens of the United States and gave it to corporations for free. News networks have an obligation, while doing business in a democracy, to report all newsworthy items of importance to the lives of the American people. The networks did not report the Act because they were some of the biggest beneficiaries of it.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the watchdog for all the communications media, whose only responsibility is to the citizens. They too were responsible for the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Competition of any kind in a free market in important, however the Act is being used by big corporations - not to foster competition - but to lessen it. According to the FCC’s statement from October of 2000 regarding the Telecommunications Act, “the FCC is taking actions to foster telecommunications competition and consumer choice in multiple tenant environments,” (FCC para.1). The FCC went on to say that “while the adopted measures will help to significantly advance competition and customer choice, they may well be insufficient in themselves to secure a full measure of choice for businesses,” (FCC para. 4). The news release did not express how much of a problem competition previously was in multiple tenant environments.
An on-going debate is the FCC’s 35 percent rule. The rule states that no single network can own so many individual television stations that they collectively reach more than 35 percent of the U.S. television audience. Prior to 1996, this rule was known as the 25 percent rule. Both Viacom and News Corp. are in violation of the 35% cap and have yet to sell off any of their stations.
Vivendi Universal (Europe’s answer to AOL Time Warner), is the colossus of privatized water industry, from Puerto Rico to the United Kingdom. In 2000, Vivendi merged with media company Seagram, doing this integrated them with film, music, and mobile phones. Vivendi now owns Universal Music Group, which has a 22 percent share of the global music market and include labels like Polygram and Motown. In addition, Vivendi owns Havas, a company which consists of 60 publishing houses selling 80 million books and 40 million CD-ROMs a year. They own five “Universal Studio Experiences” theme parks from Barcelona to Beijing. Universal Studios, part of Vivendi, has networks and cinemas across the world (mediachannel.org chart).
Many of us have seen the magazine inserts advertising 11 CDs for one penny from BMG. They can afford to do this with BMG’s enormous revenue. BMG stands for Bertelsmann Music Group, and they took in $16.3 billion in 2000. BMG owns 200 music labels worldwide. Bertelsmann also owns many online ventures including Lycos and Barnes & Noble.com. In television they own RTL network, they have 22 television stations and 18 radio stations in 10 countries and they are Europe’s biggest broadcasting corporation. Bertelsmann is also the world’s biggest publisher, with Random House shifting over a million books a day in the United States alone. They own 80 magazines, UK’s channel 5, consumer databases, call centers, and they have Adidas as a client. An interesting fact about Bertelsmann is that “they were a major printer of Nazi material during the ‘Third Reich’,” (mediachannel.org chart).
Wondering how far corporate influence can go? Just look at Celebration, Florida. This town is planned and owned by Disney, “which regulates everything from who can move in, to the height of the residents’ hedges” (mediachannel.org chart). Disney’s revenue topped out at $23.4 billion in 2000. Disney owns 10 television stations, 29 radio stations, and a major network – ABC. The Walt Disney Company has several film studios including: Touchstone, Miramax, Buena Vista, and four others. Their cable networks broadcast the Disney channel in 8 countries and ESPN in over 165 countries. Not only does Disney have rights to many Broadway theatrical productions, but they also have five magazine publishing groups, four newspapers, 18 online ventures, 6 music labels, several hockey and baseball teams, 27 hotels, 2 cruise ships, many theme parks, and 720 Disney Stores. This kind of monopolizing seriously affects the public’s ability to get information. For example, “[i]n 1998 ABC news discarded an investigative report that raised embarrassing questions about hiring and safety practices at Disney World,” (mediachannel.org chart).
AOL Time Warner is perhaps the largest among the four U.S. media giants, with revenues upwards of $32 billion. They have 12 television companies including Warner Brothers and 29 cable operations including CNN. AOL also has partnered with Time Warner Cable with 13 million customers in the United States. AOL controls Time, Fortune, and 33 other magazines with 120 million readers. They also own the entire Turner Entertainment Corporation. AOL has 27 million subscribers who spend most of their time on AOL alone. AOL only has companies available for their consumers that are owned by AOL Time Warner (mediachannel.org chart). This is called a synergy. An example of this is, when a customer signs onto their AOL account to access the internet, they will only be able to view sites that have business connections to AOL.
When a person turns on their television in the United States, they have four choices: Viacom, AOL Time Warner, Disney, or News Corporation. Most Americans believe they have over 900 choices available because they see 900 channels. In fact, alls 900 channels are owned by these 4 companies. Never has so much media been controlled by so few.
Prior to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC limited the number of channels one company could broadcast from. No company could have more than 12. Now not only do corporations have many more than 12, but they can also buy small percentages of each other’s channels. In essence, this makes them one-voice, with one interest, and discourages competition. Competition brings down prices for consumers and acts as a system of checks and balances. In the words of Senator Bob Dole of Kansas, “apparently the democratic process is not good enough for most broadcasters,” he said during his speech against the Telecommunications Act (turnoffyourtv.com para.6). He was a surprising opponent, but unfortunately none of his speech was broadcast. He also said, “TV broadcasters are now running ads and so-called public service announcements claiming that TV will die without this huge corporate welfare program (referring to the Telecommunications Act),” (turnoffyourtv.com para.6).
The United States is a democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people. Therefore, the television and radio airwaves are meant to belong to the people. That is why our representatives in Congress used to decide who could use the media and for what purpose. That is why the FCC was created, in order to make sure the media is only being used for purposes to benefit the people and our democratic process.
The radio has an electronic spectrum that has been divided up and licensed out to broadcasters by Congress and the FCC. In the past, if someone wanted to have something broadcast over the public airwaves, they would have to get a license from the government. Licenses are typically sold at auction so that the revenue created can benefit public government programs. In addition, television has a digital spectrum that was sold in small pieces at auction, until the media corporations decided it was time for a change.
The Telecommunications Act allows corporations to own pieces of each other and buy other companies. This deregulates the industry allowing competitors to come together and create a monopoly. By the year 2000, all of the smaller broadcasters were owned by the big media conglomerates, making only six media companies in the entire world.
A handful of people now decide what is newsworthy for 220 million Americans causing an elimination of diversity on television and the public from being informed on real issues.
The digital spectrum that belonged to the people was given away. It was not even auctioned off. Experts say that had the digital spectrum been auctioned off, it would have given the people $70 billion. The corporations got the entire digital spectrum and free licenses to do with as they please. They have no responsibility to the people or to our democracy. It is extremely harmful to our society to have such a big part of communication owned by so few – who are not being regulated. If the digital spectrum belonged to the people again, it would allow for new television broadcasts that might show a more diverse opinion. The news you get on channel 7 might not be the exact same information as on channels 9 and 12. The people would regulate how much of the broadcast should be designated towards educational programming and local elections.
If candidates running for election could have free air time allotted, then they wouldn’t have to spend so much on advertising to get elected. It makes sense that politicians running for office get free air time, especially for the presidential election, because this election is important for democracy, and the people have a right to be informed. Elections should not go to the highest bidder – whoever has the most money to spend on advertising. If all the elected officials needed millions to get where they are today, then all that money must have come from somewhere. Our politicians are now obligated to their contributors, rather than their constituents they are meant to represent.
Another way the Telecommunications Act hurts democracy is by allowing the media to decide the format of the on air debates. Only Democrats and Republicans have enough money from their parties to get into a debate. Other political parties can’t afford to participate. Therefore, the public isn’t hearing from all the candidates. They aren’t being informed of all their choices. This results in an impenetrable two-party system. All of our founding fathers agreed that numerous political parties are necessary for a strong democracy.
This is a problem also in regards to free speech. Sure we can say what we want, but how many people can we reach? Not many if we can’t use the media. And if millions of Americans gathered to protest a wrongdoing, the news stations simply can choose to not cover it (Anna Nicole Smith might get higher ratings). If this sounds scary, then consider that it has already happened. Important political protests with thousands of people have occurred, and the rest of the people never heard anything about it. Is free speech just a contest of ‘whoever has the most money gets the most of their message across’? That is not what our founders had in mind. It certainly is not democratic. What kind of a choice is it if you have to get your news from CNN, MSNBC, or FOX and they all own pieces of each other and have the same interests?
This issue stretches across the whole information giving medium, not just television. After World War II, 80 % of the newspapers in the U.S. were owned by independent companies; now, only fifteen corporations own half of the newspaper business. Four giant companies own the motion picture industry.
In the book Passionate Declarations, by Howard Zinn, “In 1973 the Supreme Court decided that CBS had a right to refuse an ad placed by a group of business executives who opposed the war in Vietnam,” (Zinn pg.212). The majority said that the government should not interfere with the right of CBS to sell time to whomever it wanted. In saying that, they were approving the right of CBS to ignore concerned citizens, and the government was saying that it doesn’t feel concerned citizens have a right to the airwaves. Corporations are in control of public interest now.
In 2003, there was a public hearing in Atlanta attended by two dissident FCC commissioners and 600 concerned citizens. They assembled to register their opposition to the media consolidation was to happen on June 2nd. According to Meredith Hobbs, in her article entitled “Just Say No to Supersized Media,” Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps, FCC commissioners, started the meeting by saying: “We are on the eve of the most sweeping and potentially most destructive overhaul of ownership laws in the history of American broadcast,” (Hobbs para. 5). Most of the public has no idea what’s happening. Readers of the mainstream press and listeners of mainstream airwaves may have been interested in attending the hearing in Atlanta, if they’d heard about it. The hearing was only publicized in the city’s alternative weekly, and by two community radio stations (Hobbs para. 21).
In fact, the press did not cover this hearing, the only public hearing on the ownership issue. None of the networks covered this event, nor did the cable outlets, and neither did the Boston Globe, the Providence Journal, the Hartford Courant, the New York Times, the New York Daily News, the Philadelphia Inquirer, USA Today, the Baltimore Sun, the Atlanta Constitution, the Miami Herald, the Dallas Morning News, the Houston Chronicle, the Arizona Republic, the San Diego Tribune, the Portland Oregonian, the Denver Post, the Kansas City Star, the Indianapolis Star or the Detroit Free Press. The media companies don’t want the public to know about this issue because it only benefits them, and it is hurtful to the American public. With the Telecommunications Act of 1996, media giants have gotten bigger and virtually eliminated all competition.
The media promised that the Telecom Act would bring lower prices for consumers. According to a non-partisan web-site called TomPaine.com, since the Telecom Act was implemented “cable rates are up 24 percent, in-state long distance rates are up 10 percent, and Consumers Union estimates that average consumers are paying an extra $3 to $4 billion a year in line-item charges,” (tompaine.com para.1). Congress has the power to revoke the licenses that were given away to those big businesses at any time. They need to do so.
Works Cited
Hobbs, Meredith. “Just Say No to Supersized Media.” Salon.com. 29 May 2000. 29 June 2004.
“Mergermania: The Effects of the 1996 Telecommunications Act.” Kill Your Television. 29 June 2004..
“The McCain Letters: What They Really Mean.” TomPaine.com. 14 Jan. 2000. Project of The Institute for America’s Future. 29 June 2004..
“Ultra Concentrated Media: Top Selling Brands.” Mediachannel.org. 2000. New Internationalist On-Line. 29 June 2004.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Acts to Foster Telecommunications Competition and Consumer Choice in Multiple Tenant Environments. 12 Oct. 2000. 29 June 2004..
Zinn, Howard. Passionate Declarations. New York: Harper, 2003.
Remember when cable TV meant fifty or so channels? Suddenly overnight it changed to 900, and the picture became clearer overnight as well. Many people have never heard of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 because the television networks never breathed a word of it to the American public. The Act is a nasty piece of legislation that took away a $70 billion broadcast medium from the citizens of the United States and gave it to corporations for free. News networks have an obligation, while doing business in a democracy, to report all newsworthy items of importance to the lives of the American people. The networks did not report the Act because they were some of the biggest beneficiaries of it.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the watchdog for all the communications media, whose only responsibility is to the citizens. They too were responsible for the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Competition of any kind in a free market in important, however the Act is being used by big corporations - not to foster competition - but to lessen it. According to the FCC’s statement from October of 2000 regarding the Telecommunications Act, “the FCC is taking actions to foster telecommunications competition and consumer choice in multiple tenant environments,” (FCC para.1). The FCC went on to say that “while the adopted measures will help to significantly advance competition and customer choice, they may well be insufficient in themselves to secure a full measure of choice for businesses,” (FCC para. 4). The news release did not express how much of a problem competition previously was in multiple tenant environments.
An on-going debate is the FCC’s 35 percent rule. The rule states that no single network can own so many individual television stations that they collectively reach more than 35 percent of the U.S. television audience. Prior to 1996, this rule was known as the 25 percent rule. Both Viacom and News Corp. are in violation of the 35% cap and have yet to sell off any of their stations.
Vivendi Universal (Europe’s answer to AOL Time Warner), is the colossus of privatized water industry, from Puerto Rico to the United Kingdom. In 2000, Vivendi merged with media company Seagram, doing this integrated them with film, music, and mobile phones. Vivendi now owns Universal Music Group, which has a 22 percent share of the global music market and include labels like Polygram and Motown. In addition, Vivendi owns Havas, a company which consists of 60 publishing houses selling 80 million books and 40 million CD-ROMs a year. They own five “Universal Studio Experiences” theme parks from Barcelona to Beijing. Universal Studios, part of Vivendi, has networks and cinemas across the world (mediachannel.org chart).
Many of us have seen the magazine inserts advertising 11 CDs for one penny from BMG. They can afford to do this with BMG’s enormous revenue. BMG stands for Bertelsmann Music Group, and they took in $16.3 billion in 2000. BMG owns 200 music labels worldwide. Bertelsmann also owns many online ventures including Lycos and Barnes & Noble.com. In television they own RTL network, they have 22 television stations and 18 radio stations in 10 countries and they are Europe’s biggest broadcasting corporation. Bertelsmann is also the world’s biggest publisher, with Random House shifting over a million books a day in the United States alone. They own 80 magazines, UK’s channel 5, consumer databases, call centers, and they have Adidas as a client. An interesting fact about Bertelsmann is that “they were a major printer of Nazi material during the ‘Third Reich’,” (mediachannel.org chart).
Wondering how far corporate influence can go? Just look at Celebration, Florida. This town is planned and owned by Disney, “which regulates everything from who can move in, to the height of the residents’ hedges” (mediachannel.org chart). Disney’s revenue topped out at $23.4 billion in 2000. Disney owns 10 television stations, 29 radio stations, and a major network – ABC. The Walt Disney Company has several film studios including: Touchstone, Miramax, Buena Vista, and four others. Their cable networks broadcast the Disney channel in 8 countries and ESPN in over 165 countries. Not only does Disney have rights to many Broadway theatrical productions, but they also have five magazine publishing groups, four newspapers, 18 online ventures, 6 music labels, several hockey and baseball teams, 27 hotels, 2 cruise ships, many theme parks, and 720 Disney Stores. This kind of monopolizing seriously affects the public’s ability to get information. For example, “[i]n 1998 ABC news discarded an investigative report that raised embarrassing questions about hiring and safety practices at Disney World,” (mediachannel.org chart).
AOL Time Warner is perhaps the largest among the four U.S. media giants, with revenues upwards of $32 billion. They have 12 television companies including Warner Brothers and 29 cable operations including CNN. AOL also has partnered with Time Warner Cable with 13 million customers in the United States. AOL controls Time, Fortune, and 33 other magazines with 120 million readers. They also own the entire Turner Entertainment Corporation. AOL has 27 million subscribers who spend most of their time on AOL alone. AOL only has companies available for their consumers that are owned by AOL Time Warner (mediachannel.org chart). This is called a synergy. An example of this is, when a customer signs onto their AOL account to access the internet, they will only be able to view sites that have business connections to AOL.
When a person turns on their television in the United States, they have four choices: Viacom, AOL Time Warner, Disney, or News Corporation. Most Americans believe they have over 900 choices available because they see 900 channels. In fact, alls 900 channels are owned by these 4 companies. Never has so much media been controlled by so few.
Prior to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC limited the number of channels one company could broadcast from. No company could have more than 12. Now not only do corporations have many more than 12, but they can also buy small percentages of each other’s channels. In essence, this makes them one-voice, with one interest, and discourages competition. Competition brings down prices for consumers and acts as a system of checks and balances. In the words of Senator Bob Dole of Kansas, “apparently the democratic process is not good enough for most broadcasters,” he said during his speech against the Telecommunications Act (turnoffyourtv.com para.6). He was a surprising opponent, but unfortunately none of his speech was broadcast. He also said, “TV broadcasters are now running ads and so-called public service announcements claiming that TV will die without this huge corporate welfare program (referring to the Telecommunications Act),” (turnoffyourtv.com para.6).
The United States is a democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people. Therefore, the television and radio airwaves are meant to belong to the people. That is why our representatives in Congress used to decide who could use the media and for what purpose. That is why the FCC was created, in order to make sure the media is only being used for purposes to benefit the people and our democratic process.
The radio has an electronic spectrum that has been divided up and licensed out to broadcasters by Congress and the FCC. In the past, if someone wanted to have something broadcast over the public airwaves, they would have to get a license from the government. Licenses are typically sold at auction so that the revenue created can benefit public government programs. In addition, television has a digital spectrum that was sold in small pieces at auction, until the media corporations decided it was time for a change.
The Telecommunications Act allows corporations to own pieces of each other and buy other companies. This deregulates the industry allowing competitors to come together and create a monopoly. By the year 2000, all of the smaller broadcasters were owned by the big media conglomerates, making only six media companies in the entire world.
A handful of people now decide what is newsworthy for 220 million Americans causing an elimination of diversity on television and the public from being informed on real issues.
The digital spectrum that belonged to the people was given away. It was not even auctioned off. Experts say that had the digital spectrum been auctioned off, it would have given the people $70 billion. The corporations got the entire digital spectrum and free licenses to do with as they please. They have no responsibility to the people or to our democracy. It is extremely harmful to our society to have such a big part of communication owned by so few – who are not being regulated. If the digital spectrum belonged to the people again, it would allow for new television broadcasts that might show a more diverse opinion. The news you get on channel 7 might not be the exact same information as on channels 9 and 12. The people would regulate how much of the broadcast should be designated towards educational programming and local elections.
If candidates running for election could have free air time allotted, then they wouldn’t have to spend so much on advertising to get elected. It makes sense that politicians running for office get free air time, especially for the presidential election, because this election is important for democracy, and the people have a right to be informed. Elections should not go to the highest bidder – whoever has the most money to spend on advertising. If all the elected officials needed millions to get where they are today, then all that money must have come from somewhere. Our politicians are now obligated to their contributors, rather than their constituents they are meant to represent.
Another way the Telecommunications Act hurts democracy is by allowing the media to decide the format of the on air debates. Only Democrats and Republicans have enough money from their parties to get into a debate. Other political parties can’t afford to participate. Therefore, the public isn’t hearing from all the candidates. They aren’t being informed of all their choices. This results in an impenetrable two-party system. All of our founding fathers agreed that numerous political parties are necessary for a strong democracy.
This is a problem also in regards to free speech. Sure we can say what we want, but how many people can we reach? Not many if we can’t use the media. And if millions of Americans gathered to protest a wrongdoing, the news stations simply can choose to not cover it (Anna Nicole Smith might get higher ratings). If this sounds scary, then consider that it has already happened. Important political protests with thousands of people have occurred, and the rest of the people never heard anything about it. Is free speech just a contest of ‘whoever has the most money gets the most of their message across’? That is not what our founders had in mind. It certainly is not democratic. What kind of a choice is it if you have to get your news from CNN, MSNBC, or FOX and they all own pieces of each other and have the same interests?
This issue stretches across the whole information giving medium, not just television. After World War II, 80 % of the newspapers in the U.S. were owned by independent companies; now, only fifteen corporations own half of the newspaper business. Four giant companies own the motion picture industry.
In the book Passionate Declarations, by Howard Zinn, “In 1973 the Supreme Court decided that CBS had a right to refuse an ad placed by a group of business executives who opposed the war in Vietnam,” (Zinn pg.212). The majority said that the government should not interfere with the right of CBS to sell time to whomever it wanted. In saying that, they were approving the right of CBS to ignore concerned citizens, and the government was saying that it doesn’t feel concerned citizens have a right to the airwaves. Corporations are in control of public interest now.
In 2003, there was a public hearing in Atlanta attended by two dissident FCC commissioners and 600 concerned citizens. They assembled to register their opposition to the media consolidation was to happen on June 2nd. According to Meredith Hobbs, in her article entitled “Just Say No to Supersized Media,” Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps, FCC commissioners, started the meeting by saying: “We are on the eve of the most sweeping and potentially most destructive overhaul of ownership laws in the history of American broadcast,” (Hobbs para. 5). Most of the public has no idea what’s happening. Readers of the mainstream press and listeners of mainstream airwaves may have been interested in attending the hearing in Atlanta, if they’d heard about it. The hearing was only publicized in the city’s alternative weekly, and by two community radio stations (Hobbs para. 21).
In fact, the press did not cover this hearing, the only public hearing on the ownership issue. None of the networks covered this event, nor did the cable outlets, and neither did the Boston Globe, the Providence Journal, the Hartford Courant, the New York Times, the New York Daily News, the Philadelphia Inquirer, USA Today, the Baltimore Sun, the Atlanta Constitution, the Miami Herald, the Dallas Morning News, the Houston Chronicle, the Arizona Republic, the San Diego Tribune, the Portland Oregonian, the Denver Post, the Kansas City Star, the Indianapolis Star or the Detroit Free Press. The media companies don’t want the public to know about this issue because it only benefits them, and it is hurtful to the American public. With the Telecommunications Act of 1996, media giants have gotten bigger and virtually eliminated all competition.
The media promised that the Telecom Act would bring lower prices for consumers. According to a non-partisan web-site called TomPaine.com, since the Telecom Act was implemented “cable rates are up 24 percent, in-state long distance rates are up 10 percent, and Consumers Union estimates that average consumers are paying an extra $3 to $4 billion a year in line-item charges,” (tompaine.com para.1). Congress has the power to revoke the licenses that were given away to those big businesses at any time. They need to do so.
Works Cited
Hobbs, Meredith. “Just Say No to Supersized Media.” Salon.com. 29 May 2000. 29 June 2004.
“Mergermania: The Effects of the 1996 Telecommunications Act.” Kill Your Television. 29 June 2004.
“The McCain Letters: What They Really Mean.” TomPaine.com. 14 Jan. 2000. Project of The Institute for America’s Future. 29 June 2004.
“Ultra Concentrated Media: Top Selling Brands.” Mediachannel.org. 2000. New Internationalist On-Line. 29 June 2004.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Acts to Foster Telecommunications Competition and Consumer Choice in Multiple Tenant Environments. 12 Oct. 2000. 29 June 2004.
Zinn, Howard. Passionate Declarations. New York: Harper, 2003.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
The news is... interesting.
I was wondering what every one thinks of the Rutgers Women's basketball team comment.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Yay Pictures...
KASIE AND TARA WITH GOOFY 2002
ME AT MY GRADUATION 2006
href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2I5cin6g4rEXk5dxVMKzHsGp1m2BFjmqBFb6vOpX_VIYe9uEcaNFxddloLh78BNzjWiuqcbvb0_JyhuqBoKSYZ0UUuRMwIkFC0JTyVbLJAE4i7KZgJvZIfyfwuu8eFqguN-ZVfFAz9FoZ/s1600-h/DSC00322.JPG">
MY CAT DANA - a.k.a "boopers"
This one cracks me up...
This forward has been going around forever...
Have any of you received this before?
20 Ways to Maintain a Healthy Level of Insanity :
1. At Lunch Time, Sit In Your Parked Car With Sunglasses on and point a Hair Dryer At Passing Cars. See If They Slow Down.
2. Page Yourself Over The Intercom. Don't Disguise Your Voice.
3. Every Time Someone Asks You To Do Something, Ask If They Want Fries with that.
4. Put Your Garbage Can On Your Desk And Label It "In."
5. Put Decaf In The Coffee Maker For 3 Weeks. Once Everyone has Gotten Over Their Caffeine Addictions, Switch to Espresso.
6. In The Memo Field Of All Your Checks, Write "For Smuggling Diamonds"
7. Finish All Your sentences with "In Accordance With The Prophecy."
8. Don t use any punctuation
9. As Often As Possible, Skip Rather Than Walk.
10. Order a Diet Water whenever you go out to eat with a serious face.
11. Specify That Your Drive-through Order Is
"To Go."
12. Sing Along At The Opera
13. Go To A Poetry Recital And Ask Why The Poems Don't Rhyme
14. Put Mosquito Netting Around Your Work Area And Play tropical Sounds All Day.
15. Five Days In Advance , Tell Your Friends You Can't Attend Their Party Because You're Not In The Mood.
16. Have Your Co-workers Address You By Your Wrestling Name, Rock Bottom.
17. When The Money Comes Out The ATM, Scream "I Won!, I Won!"
18. When Leaving The Zoo, Start Running Towards The Parking lot, Yelling "Run For Your Lives, They're Loose!!"
19. Tell Your Children Over Dinner. "Due To The Economy, We Are Going To Have To Let One Of You Go."
Have any of you received this before?
20 Ways to Maintain a Healthy Level of Insanity :
1. At Lunch Time, Sit In Your Parked Car With Sunglasses on and point a Hair Dryer At Passing Cars. See If They Slow Down.
2. Page Yourself Over The Intercom. Don't Disguise Your Voice.
3. Every Time Someone Asks You To Do Something, Ask If They Want Fries with that.
4. Put Your Garbage Can On Your Desk And Label It "In."
5. Put Decaf In The Coffee Maker For 3 Weeks. Once Everyone has Gotten Over Their Caffeine Addictions, Switch to Espresso.
6. In The Memo Field Of All Your Checks, Write "For Smuggling Diamonds"
7. Finish All Your sentences with "In Accordance With The Prophecy."
8. Don t use any punctuation
9. As Often As Possible, Skip Rather Than Walk.
10. Order a Diet Water whenever you go out to eat with a serious face.
11. Specify That Your Drive-through Order Is
"To Go."
12. Sing Along At The Opera
13. Go To A Poetry Recital And Ask Why The Poems Don't Rhyme
14. Put Mosquito Netting Around Your Work Area And Play tropical Sounds All Day.
15. Five Days In Advance , Tell Your Friends You Can't Attend Their Party Because You're Not In The Mood.
16. Have Your Co-workers Address You By Your Wrestling Name, Rock Bottom.
17. When The Money Comes Out The ATM, Scream "I Won!, I Won!"
18. When Leaving The Zoo, Start Running Towards The Parking lot, Yelling "Run For Your Lives, They're Loose!!"
19. Tell Your Children Over Dinner. "Due To The Economy, We Are Going To Have To Let One Of You Go."
First Day back after Spring Break...
I am in the first class, on the first day back after my Spring Break. Just so everyone knows, an advertisement does not create a Contract. You can't hold the business to give you what they advertised. Wow, I am so glad I learned that.
______________
Yes, I am writing this in class. This issue has really been done to death, but that is the quintessential law school experience. Wait, the prof just said you could hold the store to their advertisement. So is it a contract? I am so confused. I will have to consult my other books at home and figure this out. Contacts class is a waste of time. I think I am doing pretty well though going on 2 and a half hours of sleep. I couldn't sleep because I have been staying up late and sleeping really late. Today is the day to realign my schedule.
______________
48 minutes left of class... I went on a movie binge yesterday. In an effort to make my boring class time more exciting, I will list these movies and my critique of them below:
SAVING FACE - This movie was a surprisingly terrific. Usually when I get a gay or lesbian movie, I prepare myself for the worst. The acting was very good, with the exception of the main character. She was attempting to get the message across that her character was anxiety ridden. She got the message across, but she did do a little to much indication. What I mean by indication is that she was forcing body language into her actions that was unnatural for what the average person would do in her situation. Her shoulders were tense and around her ears the whole time. I thought she could have done a little more with her movements and less with the shoulder tension.
The story is about a Chinese American, 20-something woman raised in Queens, New York. She is a surgeon and her mother is constantly trying to fix her up the a Chinese husband. The conflict comes in because she is gay. Of course, she is closeted because of her culture and family pressures. She meets another Chinese American woman who is a dancer and gay. They fall in love but this girl is not in the closet and gets really frustrated with the main character - Wilhemina (Wil). The movie is actually way better than it sounds. Wil's relationship with her mother transcends culture, and is a powerful vignette. I think the mother/daughter relationship is really the main theme of the movie and not the love story.
It isn't until the mother has her own problems that make her an outcast in their community that she finally comes to accept her daughter.
MILLIONS - great movie. The story is about a boy whose mom died. He becomes obsessed with the idea of saints, thinking hi mother has become a saint. He knows all the saints and sees and talks to them all the time. People think the kid is a little loony. I bag shows up filled with money. He tries to give it to the poor, but he lives in a wealthy area in England and he can't find many poor people. The kid is really adorable. He takes the people asking for donations for the homeless to Pizza Hut for lunch. This group of Mormons say they don't have material things so he gives them thousands of dollars anonymously. They go out and buy a big screen tv
The story takes place a few days before the British Pound turns into the Euro. The boy and his brother have to find a way to convert all the money into Euros without anyone being suspicious, otherwise all the money will be worthless.
The bad guy is the man who stole the money. He knows the boys found his money and he wants it back. He threatens the kid and follows him around all the time.
Cute movie - Some of the kid's obsession with saints reminds me of the movie WIDE AWAKE. Also the money change craziness is the same as it was portrayed in GOODBYE LENIN. Both of those are better movies than this, but this is still a good and heartwarming story with a lesson that money is just paper in the end.
ZOOM: ACADEMY OF SUPERHEROES - I know. I know. I like kids' movies ok? That said, stay away from this one. The story is completely unoriginal and stolen from other movies. Tim Allen is annoying and his acting was really mediocre and lacking depth. He just seemed exhausted. Courteney Cox does a pretty good job. The bottom line is that the movie is just horribly written and shouldn't have been made.
HALF NELSON - Go out and rent this movie right now! Phenomenal acting! I am a big loser at remembering characters names. The main character - the teacher, is a junkie. He is a functional junkie but he is teetering on the edge. He is an inspiring teacher for his students. He throws the curriculum out the window and teaches them as though they were in college. In one scene he talks about yin and yang and how good and evil must exist together. I think this is the theme for the whole movie.
The teacher is spiraling downward fast, and one of his students finds him smoking crack in the bathroom. She knows what he is doing because her brother is in jail for selling drugs. The movie goes into the development of their friendship. Her friendship helps him want to do better, but he is just a mess. Ultimately, it is his friendship with her that changes the girls fate in becoming a drug dealer just like her brother.
FLUSHED AWAY - if you are in the mood for a kids' cartoon movie, this isn't bad. The best thing about it I can say is that the voices and animation are top notch. The story is pretty weak, the moral being that it is better to have people in your life than be alone, or something like that. You can do better though if you are looking for a kids' cartoon. Go rent ROBOTS
A GOOD YEAR - this movie is worth renting just for the gorgeous setting. Russell Crowe can act. The spell the movie cast over me was broken when Russell Crowe and his love interest, Fanny something, said they had met when they were kids. HE IS SO OBVIOUSLY 20 YEARS OLDER THAN HER. I could slap the casting director. They show them as kids spending the summer together and they look the same age as kids.
If you try to overlook this ridiculous lie and poor judgment on the part of the CSA, it is a much better film than I expected. And the theme is one of my favorites - choosing to live and enjoy your life and all the relationships in it over being a workaholic and asshole.
MAN OF THE YEAR - I am totally biased in my assessment of this film. Robin Williams play a comedian (what a stretch) who runs for president. He accidentally actually becomes president, and tries to do the right thing. The right thing would be to give up his office because he was elected by mistake. A tough decision to make. I say I am biased because all of the politics the comedian espouses are exactly my political views 100%. AS far as the comedy, it was only so-so
______________________
Whew! I think that's all the movies I saw. If anyone has seen, or rents any of the above let me know what you think.
1 minute of class left...
______________
Yes, I am writing this in class. This issue has really been done to death, but that is the quintessential law school experience. Wait, the prof just said you could hold the store to their advertisement. So is it a contract? I am so confused. I will have to consult my other books at home and figure this out. Contacts class is a waste of time. I think I am doing pretty well though going on 2 and a half hours of sleep. I couldn't sleep because I have been staying up late and sleeping really late. Today is the day to realign my schedule.
______________
48 minutes left of class... I went on a movie binge yesterday. In an effort to make my boring class time more exciting, I will list these movies and my critique of them below:
SAVING FACE - This movie was a surprisingly terrific. Usually when I get a gay or lesbian movie, I prepare myself for the worst. The acting was very good, with the exception of the main character. She was attempting to get the message across that her character was anxiety ridden. She got the message across, but she did do a little to much indication. What I mean by indication is that she was forcing body language into her actions that was unnatural for what the average person would do in her situation. Her shoulders were tense and around her ears the whole time. I thought she could have done a little more with her movements and less with the shoulder tension.
The story is about a Chinese American, 20-something woman raised in Queens, New York. She is a surgeon and her mother is constantly trying to fix her up the a Chinese husband. The conflict comes in because she is gay. Of course, she is closeted because of her culture and family pressures. She meets another Chinese American woman who is a dancer and gay. They fall in love but this girl is not in the closet and gets really frustrated with the main character - Wilhemina (Wil). The movie is actually way better than it sounds. Wil's relationship with her mother transcends culture, and is a powerful vignette. I think the mother/daughter relationship is really the main theme of the movie and not the love story.
It isn't until the mother has her own problems that make her an outcast in their community that she finally comes to accept her daughter.
MILLIONS - great movie. The story is about a boy whose mom died. He becomes obsessed with the idea of saints, thinking hi mother has become a saint. He knows all the saints and sees and talks to them all the time. People think the kid is a little loony. I bag shows up filled with money. He tries to give it to the poor, but he lives in a wealthy area in England and he can't find many poor people. The kid is really adorable. He takes the people asking for donations for the homeless to Pizza Hut for lunch. This group of Mormons say they don't have material things so he gives them thousands of dollars anonymously. They go out and buy a big screen tv
The story takes place a few days before the British Pound turns into the Euro. The boy and his brother have to find a way to convert all the money into Euros without anyone being suspicious, otherwise all the money will be worthless.
The bad guy is the man who stole the money. He knows the boys found his money and he wants it back. He threatens the kid and follows him around all the time.
Cute movie - Some of the kid's obsession with saints reminds me of the movie WIDE AWAKE. Also the money change craziness is the same as it was portrayed in GOODBYE LENIN. Both of those are better movies than this, but this is still a good and heartwarming story with a lesson that money is just paper in the end.
ZOOM: ACADEMY OF SUPERHEROES - I know. I know. I like kids' movies ok? That said, stay away from this one. The story is completely unoriginal and stolen from other movies. Tim Allen is annoying and his acting was really mediocre and lacking depth. He just seemed exhausted. Courteney Cox does a pretty good job. The bottom line is that the movie is just horribly written and shouldn't have been made.
HALF NELSON - Go out and rent this movie right now! Phenomenal acting! I am a big loser at remembering characters names. The main character - the teacher, is a junkie. He is a functional junkie but he is teetering on the edge. He is an inspiring teacher for his students. He throws the curriculum out the window and teaches them as though they were in college. In one scene he talks about yin and yang and how good and evil must exist together. I think this is the theme for the whole movie.
The teacher is spiraling downward fast, and one of his students finds him smoking crack in the bathroom. She knows what he is doing because her brother is in jail for selling drugs. The movie goes into the development of their friendship. Her friendship helps him want to do better, but he is just a mess. Ultimately, it is his friendship with her that changes the girls fate in becoming a drug dealer just like her brother.
FLUSHED AWAY - if you are in the mood for a kids' cartoon movie, this isn't bad. The best thing about it I can say is that the voices and animation are top notch. The story is pretty weak, the moral being that it is better to have people in your life than be alone, or something like that. You can do better though if you are looking for a kids' cartoon. Go rent ROBOTS
A GOOD YEAR - this movie is worth renting just for the gorgeous setting. Russell Crowe can act. The spell the movie cast over me was broken when Russell Crowe and his love interest, Fanny something, said they had met when they were kids. HE IS SO OBVIOUSLY 20 YEARS OLDER THAN HER. I could slap the casting director. They show them as kids spending the summer together and they look the same age as kids.
If you try to overlook this ridiculous lie and poor judgment on the part of the CSA, it is a much better film than I expected. And the theme is one of my favorites - choosing to live and enjoy your life and all the relationships in it over being a workaholic and asshole.
MAN OF THE YEAR - I am totally biased in my assessment of this film. Robin Williams play a comedian (what a stretch) who runs for president. He accidentally actually becomes president, and tries to do the right thing. The right thing would be to give up his office because he was elected by mistake. A tough decision to make. I say I am biased because all of the politics the comedian espouses are exactly my political views 100%. AS far as the comedy, it was only so-so
______________________
Whew! I think that's all the movies I saw. If anyone has seen, or rents any of the above let me know what you think.
1 minute of class left...
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Wish me luck
Monday night: I asked for a raise today. I asked for more hours too. It didn't start out too great. I actually told my boss this morning that I was planning on leaving for a job more related to my field of study. He told me he didn't think that was the entire reason. It actually was the main reason. The smaller reasons were the pay, the hours (or lack of), the lack of no place to be promoted to, and the schedule. I am also bored. But I decided to make the change now because we have been short on money lately. I had already planned on leaving about a year after I had been working there and it has been over a year. Anyhow, he said he thought I was lying about the reason I wanted to leave so I told him about our money issues. He flipped out and attacked me saying how I'm a liar and disrespected him and I let him down by lying. "Uh... what the f*** are you talking about!" I was, am, still confused about his point.
Tuesday lunch time: So this morning I had an interview and I did not tell my boss about it. I actually did lie this time. The interview was awesome! I have no idea if I got the job, or if I will even take it but just seeing where I stand was enough to make my day. They wanted me in the accounting department and told me I was qualified and... I don't know it just made my day okay? I am half hoping they want me, half hoping they don't. Hoping they don't cause the drive is twice my current (45 minutes), earlier hours, and I'm dreading telling my boss I'm leaving (again). Hoping I did get it because it has more hours and better scheduling and will give me much more experience than I have now. I have no idea what it pays. There goes my bosses theory that I'm financially motivated. "Dude, my HAPPINESS is my motivation. Quit telling me otherwise!"
Love how I throw that California "dude" in there, doncha?
OK must do work. Oh no word on whether I am getting a raise. Kinda don't want it anymore. Just want new jobby.
BYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Tuesday lunch time: So this morning I had an interview and I did not tell my boss about it. I actually did lie this time. The interview was awesome! I have no idea if I got the job, or if I will even take it but just seeing where I stand was enough to make my day. They wanted me in the accounting department and told me I was qualified and... I don't know it just made my day okay? I am half hoping they want me, half hoping they don't. Hoping they don't cause the drive is twice my current (45 minutes), earlier hours, and I'm dreading telling my boss I'm leaving (again). Hoping I did get it because it has more hours and better scheduling and will give me much more experience than I have now. I have no idea what it pays. There goes my bosses theory that I'm financially motivated. "Dude, my HAPPINESS is my motivation. Quit telling me otherwise!"
Love how I throw that California "dude" in there, doncha?
OK must do work. Oh no word on whether I am getting a raise. Kinda don't want it anymore. Just want new jobby.
BYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Hello Insomnia, my old friend...
Firstly, it's 1 a.m. and i have been trying to sleep since 10 p.m.
Secondly, what's up with the large number of views to our profiles? Are there seriously people other than us reading the blog?
Thirdly, Emery tried to sign on to make a post, but stupid blog thingie wouldn't let him. Never fear, I will fix it! (or Kasie cuz she's better at that stuff)
Fourthly, I changed the subheading - do y'all like it? You can change it up and make it better. I thought we should describe what the blog is for.
Finally, why can't I sleep?!
____________________________________
Hmmm...
Whenever I sign on here I feel as though I have something really brilliant to say. It's right there on the edge of my thought process. But no, there's nothing. Just your plain jane, average, run-of-the-mill words.
more words.
OK, at the risk of having this topic brought up again in mixed company, I gotta say I'm totally stressing about my hair. MY HAIR IS THINNING ON TOP!!! I just noticed this evil alien phenomenon a couple of weeks ago. You can see my scalp. WTF?! I'm 26...
Twentysix... According to the internet, which substitutes as my family physician in times of crisis or hypochondria, this hair loss could be stress related - a.k.a. law school related.
Or, it could be genetic and therefore permanent. I had one bald grandpa. No women in my family have ever had thinning hair, and they've used tons of chemicals on their hair.
If my hair doesn't come back in full force by the time finals are over, I will be forced to see a real doctor, buy rogaine, and wear a wig.
Actually I think I know where this is coming from. Rather than blame my wonderful ancestors for bad genes, I think I will blame the evil writing professor who is always a meanie. Should we call him Mr. Meanie or Hairstealer? Or, we could call him the worst thing to hit law school since the socratic method.
In case you are wondering... the answer is Yes, I do know that I sound five years old.
____________________________
I think I will try milk.
My sweet and wonderful girlfriend gave me a back massage and it totally didn't make me sleep.
i am going to try again to fall asleep,
wish me luck...
Secondly, what's up with the large number of views to our profiles? Are there seriously people other than us reading the blog?
Thirdly, Emery tried to sign on to make a post, but stupid blog thingie wouldn't let him. Never fear, I will fix it! (or Kasie cuz she's better at that stuff)
Fourthly, I changed the subheading - do y'all like it? You can change it up and make it better. I thought we should describe what the blog is for.
Finally, why can't I sleep?!
____________________________________
Hmmm...
Whenever I sign on here I feel as though I have something really brilliant to say. It's right there on the edge of my thought process. But no, there's nothing. Just your plain jane, average, run-of-the-mill words.
more words.
OK, at the risk of having this topic brought up again in mixed company, I gotta say I'm totally stressing about my hair. MY HAIR IS THINNING ON TOP!!! I just noticed this evil alien phenomenon a couple of weeks ago. You can see my scalp. WTF?! I'm 26...
Twentysix... According to the internet, which substitutes as my family physician in times of crisis or hypochondria, this hair loss could be stress related - a.k.a. law school related.
Or, it could be genetic and therefore permanent. I had one bald grandpa. No women in my family have ever had thinning hair, and they've used tons of chemicals on their hair.
If my hair doesn't come back in full force by the time finals are over, I will be forced to see a real doctor, buy rogaine, and wear a wig.
Actually I think I know where this is coming from. Rather than blame my wonderful ancestors for bad genes, I think I will blame the evil writing professor who is always a meanie. Should we call him Mr. Meanie or Hairstealer? Or, we could call him the worst thing to hit law school since the socratic method.
In case you are wondering... the answer is Yes, I do know that I sound five years old.
____________________________
I think I will try milk.
My sweet and wonderful girlfriend gave me a back massage and it totally didn't make me sleep.
i am going to try again to fall asleep,
wish me luck...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)