Where is the Problem...

        I understand that as a country we're meant to remain neutral when it comes to international issues that arise, but I also feel as though that caused Americans to become more self-centered resulting in a massive individualistic society...

        Though I see how the corporations backing this not-for-profit organization can be misleading, taking away from our own issues that arise in our backyard. I don't believe they should be criticized for still raising some type of awareness, that's benefiting other cultures in need. Raising awareness about any sort of political, socioeconomic, global issue comes with a double edged sword. Though we talk about the issues in America with our gov't we fail to see that there are many countries still suffering from dictatorships. Though we are focusing on Japan aid and their lack of resources we take away from the need to help the homeless right around the corner from our place of business.

           This article for me I feel as though was a waste of a read, we're focusing on the companies that are apart of the organization, and their marketing strategies instead of the actual good that comes from it. Is it really exploitation if someone other than the company is being benefited from their strategies. Isn't the spending of money for advertisements to promote the "causes", hiring of more employees to help run the organization more efficiently, and causing global aid the complete opposite of exploitation?

            If we are really going to discuss media and exploitation, why not discuss PETA and their ads that exploit women in many of their commercials? The way in which they choose to reach their audience is a common strategy used that we have been used to for years now. Why raise hell now? Shouldn't we applaud the organizations for better use of their finances and product to promote the well being of humanity?

My views on Dean not being present in class...

Who would've imagined Professor Dean not being in class today would actually be productive... I did! I maybe alone on this one but I honestly would prefer that everyone in a blue moon a professor would not show up to class and allow the students to govern and teach themselves.

I've never publicly expressed my views one class, well at lease not publicly were Professor Dean could have a say so, but I will now. I'm not a student who has a strong background in political science, as well as technology, and being in class I feel as though I'm listening to a bunch of computers talk, using terminology that I have never come across or words only used in theory in which I still have no understanding of no matter how late I stay up reading, or how many times I read the same piece of material, or how many notes I take in class. When Professor Dean is in class I feel as though she strikes fear into those who do not have some type of background in or understanding of this course. Many classes I tend to just get lost in translation to the point where I want to give up. Luckily, there are many of students in the class where I draw my knowledge from, to be even more honest I'd say majority of my classmates are the reason I have any understanding of what's going on in this class. I understand as a professor she cannot give us the answers to all the questions, and she also cannot guide us through the process it takes to figure the answer out; sometimes we must do it ourselves.  Be real though readers, does anyone else believe she's taking advantage of this though? Does every assignment given need to be so vague? Is it too much to ask to ask to get some form of clarification of these assignments?

Not all is bad with Professor Dean I must say. Allowing us to work together as a class helps solve many of these problems I'm having here. Being in a setting where there are students who have much experience in such a course helps build a bridge between what the professor is talking about and what I am getting out of it. I give much praise to my classmates for dumbing down some of the text, notes, lectures, assignments so that a few of use can grow within the subject, as well as catch up to the speed of the course. My grades may not show that I have a grasp of this course but I must say, I leave each group interaction with my classmates with a completely new outlook of what's going on in DN as well as the world we live in. The fear I mentioned that comes about when Professor Dean enters the room isn't the same when it's just the students. We are not patronized for not clearly asking a question or even cut off for not making sense, instead we are guided to better word what we are trying to say, or given different ways to make the same point. I find it interesting, how she promotes competition within the classroom but I sense more ally work happening.  I don't know, like I said this may just be me but it's how I see class, and how I feel about it. Nothing against Professor Dean as a individual or even a Professor, I just have a different outlook on the way class is taught and ran. Who knows maybe it's just my duty to catch up, now matter how fast the pace everyone else is moving.

Today's class!

What a better way to strike fear into the masses by not showing up for class as the instructor. With no knowledge of  the where abouts of Jodi Dean, the class wonders if at any moment she will burst through the door to check in on us, or if this is some crazy experiment she's trying on the class. What better way to emphasize Andrejavic's chapter 6, as a class we fear over the slim possibilities of something happening, yet there is enough fear to get us to do exactly what you want. Using fear to steer the masses... (Brian's way of comparing this course to the chapters- not exact words) ...

Today's Class Dialogue:

      
·         Fear being used as a marketing strategy to steer masses into a capitalist agenda and self surveillance.

·         Gov’t tricks us into giving up our privacy; ease the minds to get information.

·         Not recognizing the real source of terrorism

·         Gnutella vs Napster  ( Gov’t highlights only certain news {providing half ass information on terrorism only to help ease the mind of the public, such as the urgency of finding Osama Bin Laden as if his capture will put an end to Al  Qaeda  

·         We do not use the technology we have to are fullest potential instead of information gathering that may help the political state of the country

·         Technology is being used by politicians to get an edge on voters

·         People would no longer be engaged in the political process due to the availability of politicians being able to have a message directed towards each individual instead of the mass so now the mass has collective knowledge of the politicians’ intentions/ campaign…

Blogging and trying to hold a class dialogue was not happening for me, but taking notes and transfering topics of discussion in the class room seemed to be more realistic. I feel class discussion could've ran more smoothly if we weren't required to blog while talking, since some members of class were blogging only and some were actually talking which made it much more difficult than normal.

 I find it intriguing to be discussing government surveillance and big brother in a classroom setting when this is a topic of discussion in my neighborhood amongst store owners, drug dealers, preachers, and so on, yet no one really seems to take it seriously because it’s made out to be a theory when in all actuality this is happening.  I feel like this could be a topic of discussion, why the public only sees government surveillance as a thing of the future and not the present? 

Sorry for the repost i forgot to add who was in class today...i dont know everyones name in our class but what I can say is if anyone posted about class today was in class because they recieved the information on what was needed from us.