Week 32: Well, that's all everybody. Thanks for coming.

I'll keep my answer to last week's question pretty brief. Pretty much, from what I was able to dig up on Criss, he used to make claims to having these supernatural powers, but as his popularity increased, his image shifted to more of just an entertainer than a psychic. He doesn't really make claims that he has these powers, it's more something that he wants the audience to assume.


This week has been all about the controversy of alternative medicines. Do they really work? If they don't, should they be allowed to sell them? Can they be harmful? Why doesn't the FDA approve them. I'm just going to begin by saying that when in comes to alternative medine, I'm a major skeptic. I don't believe that any of what is being sold can cure you, I don't think footrubs will make negative energy leave my body, and I don't believe that placing a bunch of tiny needles in my body will help my chi. My opinion, however, doesn't seem to be a common one because people are still buying these products that aren't proven to work. I personally don't understand why people waste their time, but clearly there's something drawing them to the products.


So the question is, is okay to sell these placebos? Some would argue yes because if someone's dumb enough to pay for it, that's their own fault. Well, that seems unfair because I honestly don't know enough nor do I have the time to learn everything about what works and what doesn't. It seems like these companies are cheating the public because they are taking advantage of the fact that so many people know so little about medication. There's no way something that has been diluted down to where it is nonexistant would work, but there are plenty of people out there that don't know that that's what "homeopathic" means.


There also hasn't been enough research to prove that every alternative drug that is taken is 100% safe to be consumed. Sometimes they react with a prescription and harm, or in some cases even kill the consumer. When there isn't enough research on something, that seems like a red flag to me. It should be saying to our government "This isn't ready for public consumption yet", not "Oh what the hell, it's their choice to risk it." So maybe hospitals should stop offering this phony medicine in an extra wing of the building just to make a quick buck. Maybe the government should decide that the drug isn't ready for the public. Maybe the consumer should stop buying into that kind of thing. Yeah, that would be nice.





Sources:

Homeopathy. Photograph. The Penzance Horse. Web. http://www.thepenzancehorse.com/2009/NEWSLETTERS/JULAUG09/homeopathy-stockexhng.jpg.

That Mitchell and Webb Look: Homeopathic A&E. Youtube. Web.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0.

Week 30/ 31: Magic!

Last week I wanted to know what happened to Rwanda after the genocide of 1994. After the Patriotic Front defeated the Hutu army, Rwanda was still faced with poverty, destruction, and major diseases like cholera. The Front began rebuilding from scratch, insuring that the MRND (the ruling party during the genocide), would never be able to regain power. Surprisingly, with little international aid, the RPF completely rebuilt the government and the economy from scratch, a feat that seems really difficult in hindsight. The first presidential elections were held in 1994.

These past two weeks we shifted gears quite a bit. We finished off the Rwandan discussion towards the beginning of the week, and we're now looking at the principles of magic. We have begun to analyze what makes magic possible, and why our minds allow us to see things that aren't there. All magicians follow the 7 main basic principles of magic:

1. Palm- concealing an object
2. Ditch- Removing the object
3. Steal- take a needed object inconspicuously
4. Load- get the object into position
5. Simulation- pretend to do something to distract the audience
6. Misdirection- lead the audience in a completely wrong direction
7. Switch- swap the two objects

Voila! Magic. Fortunately, it's much more complicated than that. All this is occurring within seconds of each other, keeping the audience completely in the dark as to what's going on. The main illusion that the magician creates is really just a trick of the mind. Nothing is occurring that bends the laws of nature, but the audience allows for our minds to be tricked into thinking it does. Magic is completely reliant on human psychology. For example, the Barnum Effect is the ability to convince someone that something completely false is entirely true.

Most of the tricks performed by magicians require the audience to not be at full attention, where misdirection comes in. Misdirection is used to point the audience exactly where the magician wants them to look in order to continue the trick undetected. It might be a simple point of the finger or something even more subtle and difficult to pick up. Often, misdirection is the hardest thing in a trick to spot when it is occurring because it is the most crucial in any illusion. If it is not carried out correctly, then the trick can be ruined.

Over the years, magic has had the opportunity to evolve with technology. As science becomes more in-depth, magic has the ability to grow and become more elaborate. Technology is often used by many magicians as a means of making their tricks more impressive and even more difficult to figure out. For instance, in the video we watched, a magician used a computer program where he was able to plot out an extensive illusion that made it appear that he moved a mountain. Technology that wouldn't have been readily available 20 years ago can now help illusionists perform what seems to be the impossible.

What I found most interesting was the relationships between magicians and "psychics". I had no idea they hated each other. I didn't even know that there was much of a difference between the two, but as James Randi explains, magicians let you know from the start that they are going to try to fool you. They let you know their performance isn't real, leaving it up to you to figure out how it is done. "Psychics" (note the quotation marks) on the hand, claim that their power is purely supernatural and that what they perform cannot in any way be replicated by mortals. People like Uri Geller make claims that they have unobtainable gifts.

So what's the harm in that? Why does it matter if someone claims to have these paranormal abilities? Well, for one thing, if a magician and a psychic perform the same show, who are people more inclined to go see. Probably the guy who claims his magic is real, not some parlor trick. It makes sense because we go to magic shows to see magic, so naturally we want to see those guys that can read minds and do things that normal humans can't. Therefore it not only takes business away from magicians, but also makes them look inferior. That is why magicians like James Randi spend so much time trying to expose frauds like Uri Geller.

But it still seems strange that people would believe claims made by people like Geller. Science proves that what they do is impossible, yet people still believe it. It's because we want to be amazed. We let our minds get fooled because we want magic and the impossible to be real. A magician never reveals his tricks because deep down we don't want him to. Most of us like to keep the mystery a secret because otherwise it loses its impressiveness.

The movie alluded quite often to Criss Angel. I am familiar with a lot of his work, but I have no idea where he stands on the whole "magician vs. psychic" debacle. Does he claim to have supernatural powers like Uri Geller? Iunno. I'd like to find out, though because he seems to be one of the most recognizable faces in the magic industry currently.

Sources:
Penn and Teller. Photograph. Vox. Web. http://a0.vox.com/6a00c2251d306b604a00cd978a2c98f9cc-320pi.

Uri Geller. Photograph. Crockatt and Powell. Web. http://crockattandpowell.com/blog/uploaded_images/Uri-744501.jpg.

Week 29: Ghosts of Rwanda

Last week I wanted to read up a little more on the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, so I could better understand the opinions of both sides of the argument. I didn't know that the conflict originated back in the early 19th century when the Ottoman Empire was under control of Palestine. At that time, the conflict was completely religious based and had nothing to do with nationality. After the Ottoman Empire was defeated in World War I, it was unclear to whom the land should belong. The Jewish people thought they deserved to have the land back, while the Muslims thought since they already occupied it, they deserved it. Thus the Conflict began. Matters only became worse when the British Mandate of Palestine forced many Palestinians out of their homes, making them bitter towards the Israeli people.

This week we began watching the film "Ghosts of Rwanda", which focuses on the Rwandan Genocide of 1994. I had to do some background research to completely understand what was going on. It appears that Rwanda was a Dutch territory until 1962. At that point, they granted full power and control to the Tutsi people, who, even though they were the minority, were the native people of Rwanda. This angered the Hutu, who were foreign people but made up the majority of the population. In 1994, the plane of a Hutu president was shot down. In response, the Interhamwe ordered a large amount of machetes which they then used to slaughter over 800 thousand Tutsi and moderate Hutu political leaders.

The documentary takes a western perspective of Americans who witnessed the genocide and survived. It was haunting to hear the amount of violence that went on and the brutality of it all. The UN tried to offer protection, but found it too overwhelming, and they had to pull out and leave all those people to fend for themselves. Although it doesn't seem fair that they would do that, at the same time it makes sense. They were putting soldiers lives' at risk for something that seemed inevitable. Just saving the Americans isn't fair at all, but if Tutsi people were loaded into a car or onto an airplane, it puts the lives of everyone at an even greater risk. They had to save as many people as they could, and that unfortunately meant leaving a lot of people to die.

A lot of parallels can be drawn between the Rwandan Genocide and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For one thing, the major causes for violence among both occurrences were disputes over land ownership as well as racial discrimination. That being said, what is going on in Israel is a fight between two equally guilty parties, while the Rwandan genocide was just one side exterminating the other.

I found it interesting that in my research I read that Rwanda has made a full recovery and is now a model for other third-world countries. My interest has been peaked. I'd like to know how long this transformation took, what ethnic group holds office, and what makes them a role model. I hope by this next week I'll be able to answer all of those.

Sources:

Ghosts of Rwanda. Photograph. Content Reserve. Web. .

Interahamwe. Photograph. All Things Pass. Web. .

Week 28: Promises

This week we started our unit on the Documentary "Promises", which takes place in Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank. Promises follows the lives of seven young Israeli and Palestinian children and gets their viewpoints on the current conflict on their turf. The movie is interesting because all the children seem to have taken some perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and they all are very well-informed on the subject, despite their young ages. The documentary gives great incite on the war, and covers both sides respectively. The seven children live within 20 minutes of each other, but different cultural backgrounds show drastic differences in opinions in each of the children.

Daniel and Yarko are two Israeli children that have been raised in a more secular surrounding, which as provided them with a more moderate standpoint on the Conflict. Yarko and Daniel don't hate Palestinians, and ask B.Z. several times if they can meet one because they've never had the opportunity. The two boys show little bias against any race of people, but rather would get to know someone before they judge him. This is apparent in their desire to meet Faraj, a Palestinian boy whom they want to befriend. Their parents, whom are non-practicing as well, decide to allow them to meet Faraj.

Faraj is from a refugee camp in the West Bank, and he supports the Hamas but is on the fence on his opinions of Israelis. At first, he views them only as the oppressor whom he must stand up against, but begins to show more sympathy after meeting Daniel and Yarko. The three boys connect and Faraj begins to realize that not all Israelis fall under the stereotype that he had perceived of them. However, he still strongly believes that he has the birthright to his grandmother's old property that she was forced out of during the British Mandate of Palestine. He has the oportunity to visit her old home with her, only to discover that it had been bombed by Israelis.

Moishe and Mahmoud represent the radical opinions of their parents, but from opposing sides. Moishe, who lives in the West Bank, firmly believes that the Israelis have absolute right to the land of Israel, and he shows an extreme disgust of Arabs. He states at one point in the film that he would annihilate every last Arab if he had the chance. Mahmoud is on the other side of the spectrum, a strong supporter of the Hamas, and believes that the Israelis have no right being in their land. Living in East Jerusalem, he is somewhat integrated with both sides. Neither boy has any interest in meeting the other, and both have very violent attitudes toward the other.

Shlomo is a Hasidic Jew that lives in Jerusalem, and grew up with very Western thinking because his father is from America. His practices are very traditional, but he shows an understanding towards the Arabs that Moishe does not share. Shlomo does not believe that the Palestinians are justified or right, but he can understand where they are coming from and has no violent feelings toward anyone.

Sanabel is a Palestinian who's father is curently in prison for being a journalist. She has justified bitter feelings against the Israelis but wants her father back more than anything.

The movie is very interesting because it shows so many different perspectives from such bright, young children. This next week I'd like read more up on the background of the conflict so I can better understand how it started and formulate my own opinion on it.

Sources:

Moishe. Photograph. Umass. Web. http://www.umass.edu/jewish/uploads/basicContentWidget/i_10744/02_Promises_Moishe.jpg.

Promises DVD Cover. Photograph. Fulvue Drive-in. Web. http://www.fulvuedrive-in.com/cover/PROMISES.jpg.

Week 26/27: 30 Days

Over the past two weeks, we've been finishing up our 30 Days unit. After wrapping up "Off the Grid", where two city-dwellers were forced to spend a month in an eco-friendly environment, we moved on to "Out-sourcing." Christopher Jopin, who had recently lost is job to an Indian, spent thirty days in India, performing an "American's" work. It gave him a new perspective on the reality of life outside of America. After spending 30 days working the hours that an Indian man was forced to work, he realized how much he had taken life in America for granted. The majority of India is in poverty, so jobs are of higher necessity to stay alive in India than in America. Most Indians work at the same time Americans are awake, which is late at night in India because it's halfway across the globe.

Not only did Chris encounter these struggles, but he was faced with some of the horrors that Indians have to live with, like violent riots after the death of a politician. Chris's eyes were opened to the prejudice against women that many Indian men participate in. It was interesting to me that such a large transformation occurred when Chris came to the realization that these people weren't just stealing American jobs without putting any effort in. They are just as smart and hard-working as Americans, and they deserve jobs as much as any American citizen.

After "Outsourcing," "Immigration" provided probably one of the most stubborn participants on the show. Frank Jorge is a Cuban American who immigrated here legally with his parents during the Cuban Revolution. Frank is also a gun-toting Minuteman who strongly believes that no one that enters this country illegally should be granted any kind of rights while on U.S. soil. Frank was forced to spend 30 days with no identity, living with a family of illegals, and had to get a job as a day laborer with almost no pay.

If the 30 days were to have gone as Morgan planned, Frank would have undergone the biggest change out of any of the participants. However, Frank showed a lot of close-mindedness to changing his ways no matter what the family through at him. What surprised me most was that Frank even travelled to Mexico and saw what his host family had to live in back in Mexico, yet after the episode was released he showed strong discontent in how the episode made him appear to have a change in heart. Frank shows his disgusted in the episode fabrication here.

"Minimum Wage" followed Morgan and his fiancee Alex as they tried to survive on the bare essentials for 30 Days. They had to find minimum wage jobs, an apartment, and a way to work every morning. They seemed to have a good system worked out until other complications and obstacles were through into the mix. They almost go bankrupt when Morgan's niece and nephew come to visit, and he feels obligated to entertain them during their stay.

This is meant to emulate the difficulty of raising a child when caught up in poverty. They blow through half of the money that they worked so hard to earn to provide entertainment for the kids (a trip to the movies) as well as celebrating Alex's birthday. One thing they weren't paying attention to was that the buses don't run all night. Therefore, after Morgan's and Alex's night out, they are forced to call an expensive cab because they have no other way home.

When Alex is hospitalized for a urinary tract infection, Morgan has no other option but to take on a second job, one that involves a lot of manual labor. Much like a lot of people trying to make it on minimum wage, Morgan overworks himself and breaks his wrist, putting him out of work and leaving him with a huge hospital bill. After they tally up their complete list of bills, the two realize they've already sunk into 3 months of debt just from one month of living on minimum wage.

"Jail" place Morgan in a Henrico County minimum security prison for 30 days where he must spend the time acting and treated like an inmate. The main goal of this episode is to prove that prison isn't doing a very good job of rehabilitation or providing specific care for inmates suffering from withdrawal. Those inmates are on their own for the duration of their sentences, and many of the ones released will just wind up back in prison. Morgan set out to prove that prison was a harsh punishment for petty crimes, and his 3 days in solitary showed how dehumanizing such living conditions can be.

Sources:

Frank Jorge. Photograph. Blazing Monk. Web.< http://www.blazingmonk.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/jorge.jpg>.

Jorge, Frank. "Thirty Days With Illegal Aliens—And A Fabricated Conversion." Letter. 18 July 2006. VDare. Web. <>.

Morgan Spurlock. Photograph. Top News. Web. <>.

Week 25: Hear No Evil

Last week I really just wanted to take it easy and do some research on Heather and her family. Luckily, when i got to class on Monday, Mr. Couillard had already done all the work for me. It turns out, as disclosed by the follow-up video we watched, she did end up receiving the cochlear implant a few years after Sound and Fury took place. In fact, her brothers and mom even went through the operation. Heather's speech is understandable, and she gets along with her hearing classmates very well. Some of the things she's accomplished, like becoming star athlete on her basketball team, would not have been possible had it not been for her cochlear implant. She still remains very involved in the Deaf Community and moves between that and the hearing world effortlessly. Things could have turned out much worse. The implant could have not worked as well as it needed to, or she could have become totally disconnected from the rest of her family and the Deaf Community. However, none of this was the case and the story had a happy ending.

This week was pretty interesting as we starting watching episodes from the TV show 30 Days, in which someone has to survive 30 days in a polar opposite community from what they're used to. The episode we watched this past week placed a devout, conservative Christian in the heart of a Muslim society. He was forced to comply with all the teachings of Muhammad and participate in the rituals performed, including prayer 5 times a day. This struck difficult for Dave, because he was being forced to pray to a god that he did not perceive to be his God. Even though any Muslim would argue that He is the same God, Dave still could not commit to this ideology and believed that prayer to Allah was strictly against everything he believed in.

I also found it interesting that as soon as he put on the typical Islam attire, Dave was suddenly treated differently. Most people wouldn't admit to being racist, but found themselves giving Dave awkward glances. He was even stopped by airport security and thoroughly searched before being allowed to proceed to his plane. He was definitely opened to the discrimination Muslim Americans face everyday, and I think it caused him to show more sympathy towards the Islam community after the experiment was over, even if he and his host family had their disagreements.

This week, we'll be finishing up the second episode, where two city folks have to spend life in a society completely cut off from pollution to the environment. I honestly don't think they'll make, they're struggling way more than Dave did. I'd like to look more into this idea of the hippie commune that leaves as little a carbon footprint as possible. Are there very many in the US? How open are they to outsiders? Do they all have similar ideologies?

Sources:

Islam Symbol. Photograph. Wikispaces. Web. http://trcs.wikispaces.com/file/view/605islam.gif/38779016/605islam.gif.

30 Days. Photograph. FX Network. Web. http://www.fxnetworks.com/shows/originals/30days/images/30days_home.gif.

24: Whoo!

The film we started last week really got me thinking about the argument over cochlear implants and why there is even an argument. If we had disabilities and there was a cure for them, wouldn't we want the cure? Wouldn't we want to be able to blend in with society? I got thinking about it, and the rest of the video helped me look at both sides as well.

Originally, I assumed that everyone would want this cochlear implant or would support those who were getting the surgery. When we learned that most deaf people were opposed to it, I couldn't exactly understand why they wouldn't want a treatment for their disability, and I was really confused why they would go through the trouble of hindering others going through the procedure, shunning them even. The deaf community seemed really close-minded at first, but it's for good reason. The implant is a threat to the life they know. I don't know about you, but if a procedure was going to change the way I've been living my entire life and make me adapt and completely start from scratch, I'd be very hesitant. However, that example still doesn't explain why their so hesitant to others going through the procedure. The reason is simple, they're scared. The deaf community is afraid that their children are going to grow up without having any understanding or knowledge of the deaf way of life, sign language will die out, and there won't be any more traces of deaf culture. Sure the idea seems a little far-fetched, but if something were slowly destroying everything you loved, would you let things run their course?

I don't necessarily agree with this point of view, but it's important to understand the deaf side of the story, rather than dismissing them as a bunch of crazy, close-minded people that are jealous of their children and don't want the best for them. Sure, they were very un-open to discussion, and there's no excuse for that. They needed to respect the opinions of the hearing few, instead of just ganging up on them and attacking them verbally (which they did repeatedly). However, none of us will fully be able to comprehend what it's like to be deaf, since none of us are. Therefore, we have no right to tell them what's right for their children or themselves. We can't force a life-altering procedure on a mass group of people, it just can't be done and shouldn't be done.

The other side of the argument makes plenty of valid points as well, which makes it difficult to pick sides in the argument. The grandmother explains that people will have a better standard of living and more opportunities in the world if they receive cochlear implants. They will have more job opportunities because there's no "hindrance" from a lack of hearing. There's a lot that deaf people miss out on in life; sound is beautiful, and they can't experience music or any other beautiful sounds that hearing people have the privilege of experiences everyday.

The documentary was frustrating to me because both sides had valid arguments, but there was such a large cultural gap between them that they couldn't comprehend that the opposing argument was valid. Each side was very close-minded and absolutely convinced that they were 100% right and there was no room for discussion. It was irritating when one side would come up with a very good point, and when the other side didn't have a rebuttal, they would just dismiss it.

For next week, I'd like to just look more into where everything stands right now. The documentary left everything open and unresolved. Is there more of a story out there? We shall see.

Sources:

Cochlear Implant. Photograph. Hearing Pocket. Web. http://www.hearingpocket.com/images/childrens_cochlear_implant_clothing.jpg.

Sound and Fury. Photograph. DisThis! Web. http://disthis.org/images/sound-n-fury.jpg.