wonderful opening. . .thank you, shirley. . .looking for my days when i feel bold

"Feeling particularly italic today...."

Hours of news coverage of the death of John Travolta's son, looped images of a floating airplane, posturing politicians rationalizing corporate welfare, quarterbacks and point spreads, and cold weather in winter, while authentic coverage of the carnage in Gaza is completely absent.   Free and independent news media--a long forgotten ideal.  Shirley is holding tightly to her cynicism and her sanity.  If I don't say what I think, I'll stop thinking.  Silence=Death.

Chopstix - agreed on the extensive coverage of the LGA plane - my thoughts exactly! I too had turned the news on to catch some Obama or Gaza coverage and instead I was presented with the footage of the plane in the water and the news reporters giving the same information over and over...this same story was on every other channel I turned to looking for other news.  After about 45 minutes (I can't believe I actually lasted that long!) I finally just turned my TV off.  Yes, it was an amazing land on the part of the pilot and I'm sure everyone on board was terrified and thank goodness everyone is alright - but seriously, was this the most important thing going on in the world at that moment? I doubt it.  This is my frustration with mainstream media news, I rarely feel particularly informed and certainly not challenged to think when I watch it.  As I watch some of the "Top Stories" or even the shorter clips throughout the broadcast, I often find mindself asking outloud "Honestly? This is what you people are claiming is newsworthy?".  Chopstix brought up the medias obsession with Michelle Obama as a fashion icon...there was another great example of this on The Daily Show last week when he showed a clip from local news station where the hosts were "oooohing" and "ahhhhing" over the Obama girls' school menu for their first week of classes. I was embarrassed for them as they cheered for the options of salads and Philly Cheesesteak sandwiches. Again - seriously? Is this really information I need to know? 

I watched NBC Dateline the other night, or part of it anyway, and their special was about Barack and the changes he will bring to Washington: "This Moment, This Time" - did anyone else watch it? The section I was watching focused on the Obama's entertaining guests and the conservatives in Washington being nervous about the new "social pecking order".  I may have missed some interesting or touching moments before or after I watched but I got discouraged and turned the TV off (seems that happens a lot with me!). With that being said, I have seen some truly beautiful moments in the media (websites, photos, TV) revealing the hope and excitement people in the US and around the world have leading up to tomorrow's inauguration...and I'm one filled with hope and excitement as well!

Unrelated to Obama or the plane incident...just one other media-musing...I was watching CBC newsworld the other night and was quite shocked to see coverage from Kandahar in an emergengy room. Shocked because the images were VERY graphic (i actually had to close my eyes at one point) of injured soldiers and a few civilians being brought in.  Not that I enjoyed seeing them obviously, but I was pleased in a way that these horrific images of war were not being hidden or sanitized.   

Hi, please excuse my spelling.

This morning I heard Obama was confronting the issue of Guantanamo from day 1, although I am still not sure what are the steps he's likely to take in this direction.  Nevertheless, this is very important and brings some signs of improvements in terms of US foreign policy.  Analysts have predicted that Obama was going to take advantage of this "honeymoon" in power and make crucial shifts from unilateralism to multilateralism (for instance, the official US envoy to the United Nations will be upgraded to a cabinet position - which will demonstrate a willingness to abide by international law and cooperate with other nations in confronting common issues such as conflicts and climate change).  These moves will also provide more credibility to the US government whenever it decides to use force in the future.  So whoever expected a reversal in US imperial strategy - with its propaganda of "spreading liberal values and democracy" - is surely to be dissapointed.

That said, we need to be patient with this guy: his "honeymoon" with the press will take long simply because he's inhereting a disastrious state of affairs: two wars, a severe recession, etc.  Then, of course, there is Gaza.  This, to me, is the more problematic and disturbing issue (even after the pronunciation of a fragile "ceazefire"). 

During the transition period, Obama was keen on commenting on the recession and his recovery plan.  Once the war in Gaza started, he refused to comment, and his staff kept stating the mantra that "there is only one president at  a time".  Fine.  There is logic to this excuse: Obama did not want to give mixed signals in terms of foreign policy, so we all needed to wait until he got to office.

And then then came the "ceazefire".  Oh, what a coincidence, it came just before Obama got to office.  So then will Obama get a free ride from saying something - anything - about this disastrious war?  I hope not, but then again, this is Israel we are talking about. 

The US House of Representatives voted 390 - 5 to declare "unwavering commitment" to Israel.  Holy shit.  CNN ran alot of the comments by these Congress men and women, as well as many governors, who all spoke of "Israel's right to defend itself from rocket fire."  Talk about a one-sided issue.  Not one spoke of Israel's blockade of the strip, or the prolonged misery of the Palestinians in Gaza.  And if Americans needed any information on the war, "Joe the Plumber" was there to provide his expertise.  Awesome.

The problem is, that this was not a spontaneous war, it was in fact very well planned.  On November, Israel suddenly blocked outside reporters from accessing Gaza.  The actual war - or perhaps we should call it the onslaught by Israel because of its overwhelming disproportionality - was matched by a parallel propaganda campaign by Israel (the government refers to this as "hasbara", which translates to "explanation").  Along with rockets and bombs, Israel also dropped leaflets which blamed Hamas for provoking the war.  A great number of spokespersons were available to provide talking points on Israel's perspective on this war.  Even some websites launched by Israel's army showed videos of "humanitary" action taken by them.

And then there is the Arab networks.  Most have shown the most gruesome aspects of this war, and as if the images alone weren't enough, they've added dramatic music.  Very passionate indeed, but let us not forget that these scenes of desperation are all too real. 

These depictions have been followed by the actions of some governments around the world (including Qatar, Bolivia and Venezuela) to suspend their ties with Israel.  Some have blamed Israel for acts of "genocide".

And finally, there is Al-Jazeera.  They have not taken the path of the other Arab networks.  According to the Economist, "its coverage has been graphic but sombre in tone."  Al-Jazeera, regardless of its (understandibly) Palestinian-bias, has proven to be the most effective at ruining Israel's chances for success in the propaganda wars.  Important issues such as the bombing of UN establishments and the questioning of Israel's actions as "war crimes" (including the excessive bombings of civil establishments and the use of phosphorous shells) have all been brought to light in part thanks to Al-Jazeera (but also by the International Committee of the Red Cross and even some left-wing groups in Israel).  In short, although Hamas did not win any sympathies from the outside world, it was Israel's image that was ultimately tarnished from this war.

And Obama's response?

For the past few weeks, I have been passively listening to the news about the approaching inauguration of Mr. Barack Obama. As a Canadian, I was elated to see such an articulate, intellectual, and seemingly trustworthy individual elected as President of the United States. I was equally happy to see that a Black African American could be elected and that the colour of your skin or your racial background was no longer a barrier to the White House. 

It is a great day for America for many different reasons. Barack Obama’s Presidential inauguration signifies a great step in US history, as well as perhaps in our consciousness as citizens of the world. Watching the peaceful transition of power, as many democracies like to stress its significance, with the first black President walking in the front door of the US Capitol building, and at the same time witnessing this new world leader escort the former President out the back door, holds great significance. Many would say that Obama was taking the trash out at the back.

A different piece of history which has been raised in all the Obama-mania is the recognition that the White House, and even the US Capitol building, having been built in part on the backs of black slaves during a dark time in the country’s history, have now become the residence and seat of power of said black President. This turning upside-down of American history is really something remarkable.

Of particular interest in media circles is the almost immediate revamping of the official White House Website at www.whitehouse.gov. As Obama was sworn is as the newest US President, the plug was pulled on the former site, and the US administration’s digital front door was brought forward into the cutting edge of Internet use and design. What was previously a mostly static and old fashioned-looking site under Bush and earlier techno-literate Presidents and staff, has emerged as a relatively interactive and Web 2.0 era interface. The new Website style reflects a key message of Obama’s, aiming to make his country’s government more transparent and efficient. The site allows for several ways to Contact Us, has the beginnings of what seems will be a daily administration Blog, and just has a more current and almost personal feel to it. It is also worthy of note that the overhauled site has an Apple-flavoured look and feeling, and this in itself seems to say something about the new direction of Obama’s governance, and if we really want to expand, perhaps a commentary on the future modus operandi of America.

Within the Website there is a large section that profiles the history of past American Presidents, recounting key dates, events and issues which each of the past leaders faced during their term(s). While the previous whitehouse.gov did not have such a component on its site, and it is a valuable addition, in reading through some of the Presidential biographies, one wonders whether this information is official, or rather just the truth according to Obama and Co.? The entire matter of official is brought into question here, since you would think that the White House Website is the place for official (read: real) facts about the US, its leadership and administration. Yet clearly the new Website is the making of Obama and his team, and so it is them who are assembling and presenting its/their content. Who then really defines official or real – whether for the White House or anything else for that matter? In the political realm, since there are always conflicting views on any matter, perhaps there is ultimately no real truth, since truth can be presented and understood in so many different ways. To come to such a realization, or rather conflict in terms, is unexpected from Obama’s new Office.

 All this to say that whitehouse.gov looks like a great initiative, and goes along with the change that Obama has pledged to bring to his country and even to the world. Barack Obama has changed history, and with the hope that he brings along with his Presidency, let’s hope that it’s all for real.

As an avid political junkie, I've been overly satisfied with the amount of substance this past year has had to offer.  Obama is truly an agent for change and an inspiration for the world. I know the world is in a financial crisis, I know the middle east is in shambles but I, for the first time in eight years, feel somewhat optimistic. I no longer dread the latest news from the Whitehouse and am looking forward to pragmatic and rational  policy making coming out of the US. 

Where am I going with this? After listening to Obama's inauguration speech and his myriad of others coupled with new progressive policies I'm finding it hard to refocus on our own politics. The Conservatives are going to unveil their new budget tomorrow and I can't help but feel that it is just going to be more of the same. The conservatives have already proclaimed that a huge chunk of the pie will go to infrastructure and to appease the unquestioning masses, a portion will be allocated to "green" projects. 

I do admit, this may be one of the most dramatic moments in Canadian politics, with parliament being prorogued and the threat of a no confidence vote on the heels of the budget I should be captivated, but I'm not. I think I know why; our politicians are as boring as sin; even with CBC's comprehensive  coverage of all things Canadian.

American politicians are noted for being great orators, they inspire and captivate. I honestly can't think of a single Canadian politician, save Trudeau Sr., that had that ability. So it's no surprise that I think Ignatief is an eliteist, uninspiring man and Harper (whom we are stuck with now it seems) is an unwavering ideaologue who will do not much good to Canada as a whole; and his secretive policies and tactics are unsettling to the public.

Why are Canadian youth and citizens tuning in to Obama and American politics rather than our own? I have never heard or seen such a wave of interest in politics from Canadians than Obama's campaign and inauguration.(well just look at what he did in the first 48 hours in office - he closed Guantanamo!!)   Why isn't there such an interest in our own politics? Is this anyone's fault? Politicans? The media?

Even though I don't have the answers to these questions,I just have ideas; I do know that I am getting tired of our lame and uninspiring political lives that I am tuning in more and more to life in America.

Am I a bad Canadian for admitting this?

Until very recently there was never cable TV in my house. I won’t get into the details, but suffice to say, I never got to watch Saturday morning cartoons when I was a kid. Sometime after Christmas, a new HD television made its way into our living room (yes, I know…Not very responsible language on my part) and it was finally time to drink from the holiest of grails: Digital TV. Given the fact that I usually sleep right through Saturday mornings, I haven’t been aware of the monstrosity that airs as part of “ABC Kids” called “The Replacements” (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0816401/) until just this weekend. The episode that I watched entitled: “Field Trippin” (http://www.tv.com/the-replacements/fiddlin-around---field-trippin/episode/938354/summary.html) followed the two main Characters, Todd and Riley (accompanied by a few of their classmates), on an archeological dig to look for treasure.

I’d like to bring a few things to your attention that I noticed during this broadcast:

• The two leading characters are white and they do almost all of the talking. There is a stereotypical “nerd” (another while male), followed by classmates of various ethnicities (Asian, African-American, Latino—one classmate for each ethnicity). There is only one girl amongst the 6 of them.

• When the female character “Riley” begins to freak out when the children become lost, Todd (the leading white male character) smacks her across the face to apparently calm her down. When she questions why he did such a thing, he responds by saying “What? They do it all the time in the movies.”

• At one point the children come to a passageway where a sign reads “only the meek may enter”. At this point, the “nerd” character trips and rolls his way through the passage whilst sharp objects and other dangers fly from the walls, missing him by inches. At which point Riley points out that the only way to make it through the passage is to act like a nerd; and so, one by one, they trip and tumble into the passageway imitating the nerd character and saying things like “I need my inhaler” or speaking in a way so that their voices carry an annoying pitch.

• Finally, when the children stumble upon the treasure chest and open it, they discover ancient texts and a stone tablet with an inscription that reads: “Knowledge is Man’s Greatest Treasure”. At this point the main male character Todd says, “Knowledge??!! What a rip [off]!!!”

Cartoons have become much less violent since the 80’s, but they’ve replaced violence with something far worse in my opinion—Stupidity. It seems that in the 21^st century cartoons are getting dumber and are trying to drag a generation down with them. It’s Disgusting. The messages that are being sent to children in shows like “The Replacements” can arguably cause more damage to society than images of laser guns, because these shows are not being challenged by parents and teachers. It sends the message that shows like this are ok, because they aren’t violent. While the overt images may be less damaging, the covert ones dig in deep to the psyches of young children and once they become deep rooted will be extremely difficult to dislodge.

I grew up in the Niagara region, approximately 70km from the United States border. From an early age I had access to American media; television and radio as well as Canadian media. With a home antenna, one could watch FOX, NBC the American channels or jump to CTV and the CBC. As young teens, we would often criticize the American press. It was simple to see the differences in news coverage if you watched American news followed by the Canadian coverage. Buffalo 6PM news was mostly about Buffalo. We would joke about all the fires in the Buffalo region that were being reported on. There was never any news about Canada although we lived an hour’s drive away. In fact there was little information about other areas of the United States or outside the country.  I quickly came to my own conclusion that most of the American news coverage was too subjective and specific. I became a loyal CBC watcher and listener.

1. be predominantly and distinctively Canadian,
2. reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions,
3. actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression,
4. be in English and in French, reflecting the different needs and circumstances of each official language community, including the particular needs and circumstances of English and French linguistic minorities,
5. strive to be of equivalent quality in English and French,
6. contribute to shared national consciousness and identity,
7. be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means and as resources become available for the purpose, and
8. reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada."¹

Over the last 48 hours, I have both read about plastic Barbie (Shirley’s chapter) and watched real-life Barbie’s on a TLC television show. Both have got me thinking about the pervasiveness of normalized, taken-for-granted societal representations of beauty. First of all, I was flooded with moments of nostalgia while reading Shirley’s That Bitch Has Everything article as it brought back memories of my own Barbie obsessed childhood as a white, middle-class, suburban girl. My introduction into the uber hot pink world of Barbie began on my 6^th birthday when my uncle bought me the inexpensive, narrow-cased, value priced ‘Beach Barbie’. You know, the one with zero accessories and a floral bikini. But I loved her all the same and our relationship quickly flourished.

I question how much of the Barbie mentality regarding who and what is beautiful shaped my notions of beauty.  How influential were Mattel and other makers of hetero-feminized girly toys in shaping the lens through which I perceived what is acceptable, valued and normal when it comes to relationships, fashion and physical appearance? Sure in my teenage years I wasn’t running to the pharmacy in search of bleach blond hair dye nor or putting my body through the agony of trying to attain body measurements similar to those of Barbie, (rumour has it that if Barbie was a real woman, her body measurements would be so radically disproportionate that she would surely die, or at the very least fall over), but my standards of beauty were often unrealistic and often echoed the discourse surrounding beauty characteristic of the Barbie world.

This is not to say that my perceptions were completely warped and I spent my high school years walking the halls like a plastic, ditzy bimbo. There were multiple aspects of my identity that ran perpendicular with prescriptions of emphasized femininity (for instance, engaging in ‘masculine’ sports like soccer, baseball and Kung-Fu until grade 12), but not everything I was bombarded with as a child was easily deflected or resisted and perhaps my seemingly innocent Barbie play during my formative years played a role in some of the values, definitions and notions I upheld of what beauty is and should be during my adolescence.

Coincidentally, my enjoyment with surfing around YouTube by clicking on the elusive ‘related videos’ on the right hand side of the screen led to my discovery of the TLC show Toddler’s & Tiara’s. I am not sure which emotion was the most pronounced; horrified, saddened, disgusted or perhaps an equal amount of the three. As I (and classmate Jen) watched for the first time a show completely focused around the American beauty pageant world, in which young girls (some as young as 3 months old!) compete in various ways (swimsuit, talent, etc) for top prize, it saddened me to witness the extremity of emphasized standards of beauty in the lives of these middle-aged, beauty pageant mom’s. The beauty pageant mothers gushed on and on about how beautiful their daughter is after they ‘doll them up’ – meaning shaving their legs, applying fake eyelashes and pounds of make-up, taking them for manicures and tanning sessions, etc. It is the mom’s that appear to want to win the beauty crown and $1000 and vicariously live through their daughters – spending thousands of dollars for pink sequined costumes, frilly hairpieces, professional headshots and the like. All in hopes of winning (through their daughters) the ultimate beauty prize in America. The beauty pageant world is overemphasizing a disturbing standard of female beauty – one which is being completely brainwashed/indoctrinated into every aspect of these young girl’s lives and which teachers them that only their external appearances are important. I hope that when these girls grow up, they have opportunities to exert more agency than they are typically permitted to and can resist this Barbie existence they live – as it I fear it breeds many more negative’s than positives.

(To watch show, just search Toddlers & Tiara's on YouTube...it is is multiple parts, but easy to follow)

The Fifth Estate just aired a show called "Strangers in Paradise", they describe the program as the following:

"Strangers in Paradise is the story of the lure, seduction and potential addiction of creating a “second life” online. Imagined lives in a virtual world, where users can make their dreams come true — what could possibly be wrong with that? For some, a lot. The fallout of a fictional virtual life can have far-reaching repercussions for their real lives.

Millions of people worldwide visit the Second Life site; 2.5 million are registered users. Through the online game they explore their fantasies by creating their own “avatar”—a user’s idealized persona that embodies the physique and personality of his or her dreams. Want to be better looking, have more money, live in a mansion, travel to exotic places, have the wedding and honeymoon you felt you never had? Second Life makes all that possible in the virtual world. It costs real money in the real world to play this game, but there may be another expense: the cost to players’ real lives. Some players would rather spend more time online in this virtual world than living their real lives." http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2008-2009/strangers_in_paradise/

As I  started to watch this program, I had no previous knowledge of this video game - I entered as a Second Life virgin. I sat down on my couch with an open mind, wondering how interesting it is that media and technology has influenced and infiltrated our lives- but even more so, BECOME our lives.
As the show progressed, I realized that these showcased individuals in the program were absolutely entrenched in Second Life and had difficulty seperating their actual lives with their virtual ones. The people in the program would spend hours and hours everyday playing this game. They created "avatars" - fake personas that would live out all their fantasies and dreams in this virtual space. The "avatars" could interact with eachother, talk, move and socialize , even have sex! Their avatars had the chance to own fancy cars, be model thin, muscular and be rich beyond reason. All you have to do is sign up, create a persona and allow yourself to be drawn into the allure of Second Life.

Whether you are overweight, bald or have acne you can make all those things disappear with the click of the mouse as you sculpt your persona into a muscular, tall, dark and handsome mate for any young, sexy, thin woman to enjoy.
How disappointing it must be to meet your virtual lover in real life and see their actual appearance!

I have to ask, how is it possible that technology has stolen us from our real lives?! If it is part of the human condition to want to explore, dream and fantasize - what did our ancestors use as escapism? What did people do before Second Life? 2.5 million users are registered on Second Life!
What are they escaping from?

I don't want to harp on users of Second Life, but I have to wonder, if after it is all done, was it worth it? The users in the program, The Fifth Estate, went through divorce, marital difficulties and emotional pain due to their use of Second Life. Is it worth it? Why did it take a video game for the housewife from Pennsylvania to realize that she was unhappy in her marriage?! I couldn't believe that her husband stood by her side and seemed okay with her flying off to England to meet her virtual love in real life. Grow a backbone buddy! Lady, sit down and talk to your spouse about your feelings and have an honest talk instead of logging onto Second Life.

On another note, if you look at the game Second Life, the graphics are insane. The 3D animation is so convincing and beautiful that any person, media savvy or not, would be intrigued. The animation itself is pretty accurate to real life, movements are smooth, sounds are amplified and the sex looks real. The creators have found a endless market where technology meets fantasy. The game will never die because people are always trying to find a way to escape their mudane jobs, loveless marriages and overscheduled lives. In other words, what's the difference between a Second Life user and a drinker, a yoga go-er or recreational drug user? Aren't they all finding a way to escape reality?!

Moreover, what purpose has technology served if it destroys our real lives? Has Second Life done more harm than good, or was the program only showcasing the few bad cases?
What happens when someone's virtual fantasy takes over their real life? It is in this situation that technology has seperated people instead of connecting them. I can't help but sympathize with the children, who were basically ignored by their mother as she played hours and hours online; in this case technology has done nothing but damage relationships. I can bet that her children don't view technology or this game as a positive influence in their lives - it took their mother away from them.
I know that there are facts about the users' lives that I am unaware of, however, it seems like technology when mixed with human emotions has disasterous results. There must be a middle ground with technology, a safe space where we can use it and not let it use us; but how do we know when we've crossed that line?

  I thought I had posted this on January 26th. I am way behind the times now, but am reposting anyways. 

I have also had the opportunity to read the Article from Kinderculture (2004) by Shirley Steinberg and Joe Kincheloe. Specifically of interest to me is the chapter on Barbie, very cleverly entitled The Bitch Who Has Everything.  This has been an especially interesting chapter for me to read, as I have never, in my whole life owned a Barbie doll. Yes, it is true, me, a girl born in 1982 missed a whole Barbie filled childhood and came out on the other side with just as many body issues, a desire to look like the tiny plastic women, dying to own that many cloths and dreaming of having just as many pink cars. I wanted every thing that “Bitch” had, but until reading this chapter, I had no idea even half of this Barbie world existed. I am feeling a little out of the loop. 

My parents, were to say the least, ‘different’ than most of my friends parents. My mother cried when I was four after I ate meat for the first time, and again when I slept with a plastic doll that I had received for Christmas one year. She vowed that I would never grow up thinking that I should want to resemble the blond image of the ever popular Barbie Doll. But, oh how I hated her for that decision. I wanted one of these plastic dolls more than anything else in the world sometimes. 

By the time I was five I started to realize there was something different about me. I didn’t have my own dolls to bring to birthday parties or wheel to the park in a giant pink suitcase. I always had to borrow the one someone else had chosen not to play with. Usually I played Ken. I did get a Wonder Women  and a Shera doll once, but the other girls told me that they couldn't play with Barbie. They were too much like boys. I was sad. I wanted a Barbie. I wanted to ‘fit’ in. 

Barbie was way better, the girls convinced me of that, and no matter how hard my mom tried, I still found someone to lend me a Barbie to play with, and much to her chagrin, I dove head first into the world of Barbies behind her back and at every opportunity I could. My mother’s attempted censorship didn’t really work out the way she would have hoped. Barbie found her way to me, to my mind and into my thoughts about myself. No barbie ever physically came home with me however, and no barbie was ever just mine. It felt like torture when I was a kid. But now, with this rather tough lesson now far behind me, there are still no Barbies living at my house. And, I am not surprised that as an adult, I am drawn to thinking and pondering the role these Barbies can play in our lives as women, how we think, feel and act as women in a ‘mans’ world. Seeing it our job to cook and clean and be the best at everything we try, all the while being in a body with unrealistic proportions. Not to mention, doing all of this while standing on your tip toes. I make my man do the dishes and help me with cooking and I wonder if this is because I never had a Barbie to teach me to walk on my toes while serving his every command. 

Needless to say, I would have to argue that total censorship does not always work in the way we intended it to. I would say that we as educators and parents who want to teach children to ‘read’ the Barbie message critically, need to use them as tools for learning and not dispel the importance this little plastic doll has in our everyday lives. Weather Barbie and Ken have a place to live in your house or if you have to borrow one from a friend. Maybe some day I will own a Barbie, but for now I just ponder how to understand them. Do I want my own girls brining home Barbie? 

Are you ready for some FOOTBALL???!!!! Ah yes, last night the pinnacle of American Commercialism returned once again to give us talking animals, explosions and slapstick. Notably absent this year (aside from minorities who weren’t athletes) was the Big 3. I’m talking of course about GM, Ford and Chrysler.  While there were no American car ads, I did note 2 Toyota commercials (who can blame them, they just recently outsold GM, so clearly they are not feeling the hunger pangs for sales the Big 3 are); 2 Hyundai commercials (their cars are made in Korea… go figure); and two luxury car ads (Audi & Acura) which didn’t even attempt to make them look affordable.  Hyundai did give a nod to the downward spiraling economy by pledging its “Hyundai Assurance Policy” which would refund you in full, without affecting your credit rating, if you lost your income within one year of purchasing one of their cars—which, of all the ads that were aimed at someone thinking of buying a new car, was probably the most effective. It did underline the most popular theme of the night which was “workplace anxiety”, with “overcoming adversity” as a close second. Bud Light, Doritos, Cars.com, E-trade, H & R Block, Monster.com (twice!),  priceline.com, careerbuilder.com, cash4gold.com all showed either ways to earn more money or employees dissatisfied with their jobs.  Honda put a rather morbid spin on the economy by showing its cost effective, reliable Honda Accord driving down a long dark tunnel with a light at the end. Now I’m aware this can also be interpreted in a positive way. That, in fact, this is not the image of somebody (or the economy) dying, but rather, the wonderful happiness that awaits us after we weather the storm, the light at the end of the tunnel if you will, however let’s not forget that the light at the end of the tunnel is in fact the AFTER-life, and while it may be this warm fuzzy place, you still have to die to get there. But I’ll recognize the positive connotation of weathering the storm, simply because it’s a good lead in to my next point about overcoming adversity. A lot of inspirational black people telling stories about how they made it to pro-football, as I said before while African Americans dominated this commercial genre, they were essentially none existent in the workplace motif. Even the Budweiser Clydesdale commercials were about overcoming adversity. Clearly a message that the American people need to hear, “Just hold on… while we sell off stocks and get bailed out—but the rest of you tough it out!” In the infamous words of Calvin’s father:  “It builds character.” I also noticed plenty of movie promos, but while the ads were sending inspirational, overcoming adversity messages through beer, the movies were not. Virtually every movie promo was a comedy or an action flick. The most controversial being “Angels & Demons” but the whole Vatican conspiracy was quickly overpowered by explosions and Tom Hank’s not-so-ridiculous-this-time hair. The perfect distraction: The country’s in crisis – “Go to the movies and forget about it! While we milk your money, blah, blah, (you’ve heard it before; I’m getting bored repeating myself)”. The one ad that surprised me was “Telaflora”. While nearly all the companies were using hope, cash incentives, comedy and celebrities to sell their products. Telaflora used fear. They attempted to scare both sexes by creating a fear that their Valentines gifts and/or expectations would not meet their partner’s standards. Telaflora would remove this fear (which probably didn’t exist until the viewers saw the ad…) by hand delivering flowers, instead of having them arrive “in a box”. However, if you think about it… either way your partner is getting flowers. Having a guy in delivery shorts hand them to you doesn’t really make a huge difference. Feel free to sound off.

oops posted twice... and can't seem to just remove...so i'll just do this.

Obama screws up, or so he says.  I think the fact that three of his potential cabinet members failed to pass the "tax" exam (remember that Tim Geithner, who also failed to pay taxes, was nevertheless picked for his position as Secretary of the Treasury, due to urgency on this matter), demonstrates how complicated this tax system really is.  In other words, everyone is a crook!  Think about it, it is simply impossible that a person can pay every single tax dollar that is due.  The interesting part of this episode really is that just two weeks into his presidency, Obama is already admitting to "severe" mistakes.  Honestly, I think this at least shows some returned decency (if there was ever any) into public offices.  This is a recent episode, so I'd like to see how the media will respond to this over the next few days.

One thing that is absent from the media is the real chaotic mess that is global affairs right now.  I mean, think about it: the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States recently cited Obama as having said that China is manipulating its currency (which is obviously true, but nevertheless dangerous, if you think that the current crisis is indeed global and therefore requires global action).  That either took a lot of courage, or was an unintenional slip (or a miscommunication) on behalf of the Obama team.  Remember that China basically funded the Iraq war, and guess who's going to fund the stimulus package if it ever passes?  Right: China.

Protectionism is rightly an issue here in Canada, especially in regards to the "Buy American" ammendment that was added to the Stimulus package.  Today in the Globe and Mail, I saw an interesting article pointing to the fact it was a Canadian who in fact lobbied on behalf of the US Steel Producers for the inclusion of this clause.  This is interesting because another buzzword that has been going around is "The Great Depression."  Many journals were quick to point that what in fact agravated the depression was protectionism worldwide, but yet it seems inevitable that in the current crisis we resort to these habits, regardless of the numerous summits held by world leaders that promised not to do this same thing.

The fact is that this world is governed by "immediate gratification."  People in general (and especially politicians, but shit, to their defense, at least they are there doing something rather than commenting from the sidelines) do not plan for the longterm.  THis is why there is little initiative in terms of education and energy policy, for instance, both issues that require of us to look into the long term.

Even the way we look at media falls into this "immediate gratification" scheme, and the media is generally conscious of this and therefore perpetuates it.  For this class, I've opened up to other news websites such as CNN and even Fox News, and honestly sometimes I'm not sure if I'm getting news or if someone is trying to sell me something.  One notion which is strongly growing on me as a consequence of these initiatives is the need for "media literacy" throughout the school curriculum.  Just how this would work is what I'm currently thinking about.  But seriously, something has to be done, we must critically look at what's going on with technologies and our learning experience.  Lately, in the class I am TAing, I've been noticing that more and more students carry their labtops to class, and they're spending the entire class bascially between facebook and the teacher's lecture; although I have seen a particular girl who switches between the professor's lecture and wikipedia, so when the professor is talking about "the great depression", she immediately looks up the topic online. This last example may seem more productive in terms of learning, but I want to pose an issue: learning and the ability to concentrate go hand in hand, so what does this technology "explosion" say about our current ability to concentrate?  Look at people: most can't watch TV without munching on something.  Alot can't go to classrooms without a labtop, and they spend most of their time, nevertheless, surfing idlely the internet.  And if we can't concentrate, then we can't really do anything, and eventually everything gets down for us.  Long live freedom.

    Watching American football is always a painful experience for me. I will even come right out and say that I detest the sport. Maybe it is because I don’t fully understand it, despite being dragged to my younger brothers games growing up. Jen and I decided it would be best to watch the game in mute, glancing up every once and a while to check if the commercials were on. The Quebec commercials that were on during the game were typical; lots of able-bodied, hetero white men selling products to these same male customers. I thought that perhaps because of the financial situation, companies would be pitching inexpensive, affordable products. However, products repeatedly advertised included macho, gas guzzling Nissan sports cars, Ford F-150 trucks and large plasma screen TV’s. And so, I got bored with the commercials (and disappointed we would not be viewing the ‘epic’ million dollar American commercials) and instead turned my attention to marketing within the game itself. (I did however watch the supposed “Top 5 Funniest Superbowl 2009 Commercials” on YouTube the next day. I thoroughly enjoyed the careerbuilder.com commercial – great, loved the narrative and repetitiveness).    No longer having a TV, I was suddenly reminded how much the viewer is bombarded with subtle product placements in televised sporting events. For instance, the coach’s headsets had Motorola scribed all over them. Small Reebok logos adorned jerseys. Then there was both the Gatorade Half-time report and the Bridgestone Tires Halftime show. People ingest these images or messages without even realizing it. It is no wonder children can easily identify images of multiple logos and brands as toddlers; from the time they are plopped in front of the TV, they are submersed in (albeit subtle) brand bombardment. Then when it comes time to buy a new phone, new shoes, a case of sports beverages or winter tires, the four aforementioned brands have the power to potentially subconsciously influence the choice of the customer. Oh, those sneaky (aka brilliant) marketing departments. It makes more and more sense to me why psychologists are often consulted within marketing departments of corporations. They relay how best to tap into the unconscious of the customer and prime them with feelings, desires and motivations through advertising. Completing an undergrad in Psychology, I am perturbed by those who have no qualms with exploiting and abusing their acquired knowledge of human nature by engineering consent within the domain of corporate marketing. For the Top 5 Funniest Commercials List check out:http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-02-02/best-super-bowl-ads-2009/ For more on the Psychology of marketing and the influence of Freud’s Psychoanalytic theories on advertising and politics, YouTube the documentary “The Century of Self.” It is in 4 easy-to-find parts.

It was surprising that "we" did not know the long-lasting public transit strike in Ottawa, which in fact has lasted for over two months. It is located only two hours away from Montreal, but few people seem to have heard about it. Was it hidden by Obama inauguration? Media select what we need to know and talk about.

BTW, this is a typical mass media report when such strike breaks up.

(CBC) //-------------------------------------------------

<!--
xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
rdf:about="http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourview/ottawa/2008/12/your_transit_strike_stories.html"
trackback:ping="http://mt.nm.cbc.ca/MT/mt-tb.cgi/28089"
dc:title="Your transit strike stories"
dc:identifier="http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourview/ottawa/2008/12/your_transit_strike_stories.html"
dc:subject=""
dc:description="Ottawa commuters were left scrambling for a way to get to work or school after more than 2,200 OC Transpo drivers, dispatchers and maintenance workers walked off the job at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2008. The strike began in..."
dc:creator="yvottawa"
dc:date="2008-12-11T10:41:34-05:00" />

-->

Ottawa commuters were left scrambling for a way to get to work or school after more than 2,200 OC Transpo drivers, dispatchers and maintenance workers walked off the job at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2008. The strike began in the middle of a winter storm that dumped about 30 centimetres of snow on the region. This is also the exam period for many university students.

How has the strike affected you? How are you coping?

-------------------------------------------------------------

Mass media's favorite menu is making a confrontation between strikers and the public by arousing anger and emphasizing inconvenience that the public experience. Thnanks to this practice, one needs to make extra effort to find out causes of a strike because they tend not to be readily available on the mass media. (Oh well, I plan to look into this report in depth, but I got no time!!) 

The Super Bowl commercials are just not they used to be. I found myself being surprised this year at commercials and the different direction that they have appeared to take.  In previous years, the seemingly sole objective was to promote sex, for example using women in inebriated states caused by drinking “smooth beer”.   This year the commercials seemed to have had less women being objectified and more humor, to the point that while watching the Doritos Crystal Ball commercial I found myself actually laughing out loud. But is all the hype really worth it, the commercials are now an integral part of watching the Super Bowl. They are probably just as important an element as the half-time show or the game itself. Why are we so obsessed with these 30 seconds short stories? Perhaps it is the outrageous amount of money that these cost to broadcast… or maybe it is just because from one year to the other we never know what to expect. All of these ads seek to surprise, shock, make us laugh, make us remember them the next day or the next time we are at the grocery store and discuss them at the water cooler at work.

Probably more interesting to ponder are not the ads that have been broadcast but rather the ones that have not been accepted to air by the various television networks. What can we learn about the values of the industry that has created them and about the principles of the networks that have banned them? In this era of technology, where we all are going to have access to the ads through the wide use of the World Wide Web, isn’t the action of banning an ad only attracting more attention to it. 

Laurent Cantet (Director). (2008).

This claustrophobic classroom is full of tensions between a teacher and his students and among students. But they are only visible tensions. Other teachers come into play and the seemingly fair and prudent principal keeps invisible tension to the end of the film. There are neither evils nor angels. Every teacher tries to keep their feet on an acrobat string suspended several feet above a dangerously dormant war, which stems from a long history of political disfranchisement and colonial-minded purposeful alienation.

A documentary-like taste of this film is not just coming from the fact that multiple cameras were used to shoot the classroom. None of the actors are actually professionals. Students' actions are so spontaneous that I tend to forget it was specially staged. So immersed in the film, I painfully read an uncompromising distance between François (the teacher) and his students. I believe he is rather a good teacher although not ideal. He has to endure anger and frustration while approaching individual students patiently. He knows Souleymane's problem was trivial in the beginning, but he is not a hero after all. He, as a victim of the school system, needs to save himself as well. Students playing major roles also show a different personality  at different moments. Each kid lives in complexity their life environment brings to them. Seeing the diverse personalities in each character is another charm of this film.

When Esmeralda talks about Socretes in the end of the film, François smiles at her. Certain tension penetrating throughout the film dissolves at that moment. At the same time, certain authority that François possessed lapses away, I feel.

Valentine's Day has taken a really different turn from its pagan origins where they used to whip young women in order to ensure their fertility. Then in the 3rd century, a Christian priest by the name of Valentine decided that the law forbidding people to marry (so that the men would concetrate better on battle) was unjust and married people in secret. He was eventually caught and sentenced to death and fell in love with his jailor's daughter .On the day of his death(February 14th), he gave her a note signed 'From your Valentine'. WoW! Now this is a several billion dolllar industry!!!!! Commercials are telling us how we should be expressing our love - through buying their products and by doing what they tell us, we are sure to be successful in our love life.There seems to be an added pressure to the Valentine's Day hype by the media in that if you don't get those dozen roses or chocolates or romantic dinner, then your significant other just does not love you enough. "Poor you" is the unsaid message.  Like Christmas, it has been commercialized right out of its original meaning. The simple meaning of acknowledging a loved one is lost amidst the glitz and competition.

Yes, I guess this makes us modern..........but does it make it right? Individuals have to be very strong and good critical thinkers not to fall for some of this brain washing. We all have been 'sucked in' at different times in our lives and made to think that this is what we want and if we do not get it, we feel we have been short-changed. The concentration is not on finding a deep, meaningful, lasting relationship. Very little of it is actually about love but more about spending money and one-upmanship.

Last year I was shocked into realizing how much the media attention of Valentine's Day affects our every day life when I tried to go out to dinner with my son on that evening. We had been at appointments all afternoon and decided that since it was so late, we would just grab a bite to eat out on the way home. Every restaurant was set up for romantic dinners with 'special' menus and very 'special' prices,too! We decided to go home after all and make our own supper that night and made a mental note to never try to go out for dinner on Valentine'sDay again!

Given my age, I remember fondly the days before technology... As kids we spent every waking moment playing outside, inventing games, using our imaginations and enjoying fresh air. Summer nights, we would beg our parents to let us stay outside just a little longer. We skipped rope, played elastic, jumped in puddles during rainstorms, traded hockey cards, went bike riding and played hide and seek. What a difference a few decades makes! No wonder so many people my age feel disconnected from the youth of today. Kids today are wired differently- they perceive and interact in the world very differently than we did. As a result, it is imperative for we as teachers to understand what our students are watching, reading, playing, and how they are communicating. For our teaching to be relevant we are obliged to take the time to get to know our students and to figure out what makes them tick. But shouldn’t we also ensure that this and future generations anticipate what the future may bring and equip them to meet the challenges of a tomorrow that may be very different than today...

This brings me to a very interesting question brought up in class last week. Someone said that technology is here to stay, so we better just get used to it. But what if technology isn’t here to stay? What if in the absence of basic human needs become more important than technology? I have been pondering this question ever since. It’s funny how we take things for granted and make assumptions about what the future might look like. Maybe that’s a way for us to placate our fears of a future we cannot possibly fathom. The notion that all of the knowledge and information in the world could someday be lost due to a catastrophe, is a frightening scenario. This certainly begs the question regarding our dependence on technology. If it isn’t here to stay, then what is our backup plan? Scary isn’t it? Brings up pictures of wasteland and human beings fighting one another for survival. All of those futuristic portrayals of a macabre future of desolation and human suffering. Loss of all of our so called intellectual advancement and technological sophistication... That is what I have been thinking about this week...

I continue to be on the fence when it comes to my opinion on the usage of the internet. I have no problem being on the fence because cyber world is such an ever-changing, complex aspect of society. There are the many downsides with the bombardment of the internet – the e-mail break-ups, the further class divisions computing and internet access creates (inaccessible to many), MSN and e-mail language leading to poor writing skills in the classroom, the downward spiral of music and movie sales, the massive amounts of e-waste, the addiction to gaming, etc. However, I also believe that the internet is a phenomenal tool and I think we have only recently tapped into the exciting possibilities (specifically referring to the internet) that it holds in terms of networking, planning, socializing, education and creating change. 

My excitement has been really fueled by the Obama administration and their highly effective use of the internet both during the campaign and currently on both www.barackobama.com and www.whitehouse.gov. Obama’s team are really the first in the White House to fully use internet to their advantage (on the other end of the spectrum is John McCain who allegedly does not use e-mail or know turn on a computer). The websites feature daily blog updates of what the administration is up to, Barack’s regular YouTube addresses and multiple links to follow to other major on-line communities Obama is a part of (everything from Facebook to Linked In to Twitter to Digg). There are opportunities to post comments, share information and create dialogue. By understanding how many people are consistently on-line via cell phones, Blackberry’s and computers, the administration is fully linked in and reaping the benefits of instantaneous access to millions of homes and the ability to receive instant public opinion. I believe that we are witnessing a radical shift in how American politics are conducted through this creation of massive on-line communities.

And so, it appears as though today I am more on the “friend” side of the fence than the “foe” side. We will see what tomorrow brings…

 Incorporating Technology into the classroom is a touchy subject and one that interests me tremendously. For as long as I can remember teachers have been using ‘technology’ in the classroom. Remember the chalkboard, overhead projectors and the TV/VCR used to show you those ‘educational’ videos? And maybe, you even remember when computer screens were only black with green font letters.  

So why has the incorporation of technology in the classroom become a topic of such sudden urgency? I would say that as our forms of communication change so rapidly so must our thoughts on technology in the classroom. As our thinking and doing change, so must our instructional practices. But how? When?  Why? There are so many things to consider when looking at instructional practices. 

Furthering the issue of these ‘changing times’, are the questions that come with actually teaching using technology. The cost involved to equip schools and train teachers. Some schools have begun implementing laptop initiatives with giant computer companies such as Dell and Mac, but schools in areas with less fiscal resources continue to have less equipment and have a harder time ‘keeping up’. I have worked in schools with boadr side rules stipulating one computer for every eight students, or in one place is was one for each student starting in grade three. In this ‘one laptop for every child’ program students are expected to work on these “as much as possible”, while still engaging with peers, practicing writing, reading, math and physical activity etc... 

I had the opportunity to teach two such ‘one laptop per child’ grade six classes. Together we explored a media literacy learning and evaluation situation. The computers were great for me to use with the class, probably because of my level of comfortability with them. But, I saw the agony that faced other teachers who wanted to use them, only they just didn’t know how to use them. It must be darn hard to plan a lesson around a tool that you have little idea how to use, and even worse when one of them breaks down or has an issue that you don’t know how to fix. As a teacher knowing what you teach is of the upmost importance. So I question, why in a school of 500 children, where 400 of them have laptops were these teacher not trained how to use them? The answer I am told, is money. The boards are in debt from buying the computers and projectors, leaving little resource to fund professional development. Which in turn, leaves the laptops sitting on a cart in the back corner of the classroom, collecting dust, often untouched for days. 

In classroom where I taught, I know that there is no way we could have explored our media literacy topics with out the help of the computers and while they ate up class minutes like crazy just taking them out and then putting them away again, they were used everyday. At least one broke down each day in the true ‘computer like’ fashion. But I found the positives far outweighed the negatives. Just the sheer joy and involvement in learning activities from a class otherwise labelled as ‘disruptive’ was amazing. I never saw these kids take on learning with such force. While other classes were often bribed to do their work before computer time, our class used computers as a learning tool. To collect information and share with each other. It was a true community of technology and learning.  

I worry about the use of technology in the classroom at the same time as I celebrate success with it. I see an urgent need for technology resources in many  different ways, but I fear if taken to extreme it will hamper our classroom environment and dehumanize the classroom experience. I am unsure of policy and financial issues that arise and how these have the potential to create even larger divisions of race, gender, and class among students and the infamous ‘performance’ test scores. 

On the other hand, I feel there are so many ways that technology can be incorporated in to the classroom in ways that we teachers have never even thought of yet. As a language arts teacher I wonder in what ways these 'changing  times' impact student learning. I have been pondering the following quote from (http:www.ncte.org/edpolicy...). I can’t help but think of what this means in terms of technology in the classroom. 

According to Ben McCorkle, "we are living in what media theorist Jay Bolter has famously termed the late age of print, what literacy scholar Walter Ong calls the era of secondary orality. … Words are no longer static things, quiet black marks pressed onto a white page; instead, they float alongside sounds and images; they make meaning in their movements. They are visual, aural, and sometimes haptic. As such, their function as objects of literacy i[s] changing in fundamental ways" 

I don’t have a lot of answers to these issues, but consider thinking about them the first step to a successfully informed technology rich classroom environment. 

Still Pondering... 

EmBOB

Hi Everyone,

I guess I was writing my entries in other places, and not entering them into where they are supposed to be, so, here are my entries from previous weeks.

For this week, I would like to share my thoughts about technology, following our last week discussion. I left Israel when I was 15 years old, and kept in touch with many good friend of mine. As we all know, in the past, we used to write letters (I can't believe it!!), and by the time I got a response from a friend, who was so careful in addressing the various issues in my letter, things obviously have changed, and were no longer relevant to my current events. I remember how anxious I was to wait to the goddess mail person, who either made my day when handing to me the letter I expected for such a long time from my first boyfriend, or how he could deceive me when looking at me saying, “no letters from Israel today, young lady”. These thoughts have made me appreciate and yes!, glorify the instant messages that we are surrounded by these days. Yesterday, an old friend of mine from Israel called me, and we started talking for a long time. He is a very good friend of mine, and we haven't spoken for a long time. We had a lot of things to catch up on. Did I mention that our conversation was long? Do you know how did I notice that this conversation was so long? Well, During our conversation, I was able to do the laundry, to prepare tomorrow's lunch for both my sons, to put the laundry in the drier, to put some dishes in the dishwasher, and to even wash by hand two big pots. As much as I enjoyed talking to my friend, as the conversation progressed, I realized that I am quit exhausted!! I am not used to long conversations any more. I realized that I don't like long phone conversations, and that the beauty of instant messages are assuring to keep your best friends up to date, and not feeling exhausted when having to talk about yourself for an hour. I then asked my friend, “tell me, how come you are not on facebook? Msn?”, then I said, “ can I text you sometime?” I am aware of the fact that it looks kind a stupid to compare a short text message, to a long and meaningful conversation, but I soon realized that if we had been in touch, I would know more about him, and he would know more about me, without having to talk about things that have happened three mounts ago, and that are not so relevant. He quickly replied to me”oh no! Who has time for those things? I am not a technology lover, and I am a busy man”.. I was wondering to myself, where is society going to? Am I going to be in touch (or even favor) better with the friends who are embracing these beautiful, instant moments when friends remember to include you in their instant, special moment. I am very happy to be sitting somewhere and receiving a message such as: “i am on the top of the mountain, thinking of you...”, or “just got engaged... my family is here, I will call you tomorrow”. There is a magical feeling that is transmitted when I get an instant message from my distant friends, and when I decide to share my moments with them. I don't suggest that these messages are instead of the long conversation, but they are there, exciting, simple, not dramatic, but showing care for the people around us. I am so happy to be in touch with so many friends, knowing what goes on with their lives, and when we need this deep, intimate conversation, we will get together and talk about the details, and analyze it. I just love it!

Yesterday I watched the "critically acclaimed" film Slumdog Millionaire.  Man, I was so excited to see this movie because everyone has been raving about it.  I was disappointed, however.  I mean, it was an entertaining movie, but it was not all that good.  Yet again, that happens when films get so hyped: they usually end up disappointing me.   In general, though, I found the character development mediocre, and the plot too "hurried" (for lack of a better world).  For the most part, I did enjoy the music score, though.

The film did make an interesting statement about today's India, and it deserves to be considered.  All throughout the media, we hear about "the rise" of India.  It is considered to be one of the BRIC countries (together with Brazil, Russia and China) - those countries that are developing into superpower status.  Of course, all of this was before the current global economic recession, since countries in Asia are the ones that are mostly suffering from this crisis. 

So what do we see in this "new" India?  Remember that the "old" India was a more mystical country: the country of Gandhi, where poverty is a reality, but nevertheless a peripheral reality.  The "old" India was resilient, and its people relied on culture, particularly religion, to make sense of their lives - and to community in order to be happy. 

The "new" India - the India which is portrayed in this film - is the apparent loser in today's globalization phenomenon.  Poverty, rather than being peripheral or "relative," is now central and widespread: and it has affected culture in powerful ways.  Streets, towns, and cities are overcrowded and filled with dirt and scum.  People are driven by one thing and one thing alone: money (for survival); so much so that the most popular show in India is "Who wants to be a millionaire."  Community and introspection have been replaced by instant gratification and consumerism.  And as India becomes more and more powerful as a country, its people become ever more lost in greed and desperation.  Undoubtedly, this exacerbates other previous tensions: take for instance the conflict between Hindus and Muslims - we are shown a scene where one group attacks the other, and we are not given ANY explanation whatsoever.  As viewers we have to assume that this is, along with child molestation, theft and violence, is simply a given in a country where corruption is so rampant.

Now, an important point must be made about this movie: the director is NOT Indian (although the author of the original novel apparently is).  Even if he were Indian, I think it is futile to question the validity of his portrayal.  In other words, the question should not be whether or not the director depicts the “real” India or not.  Like other media expressions, his is just one particular point of view.  So Indians should not be “outraged” about his portrayal because the movie was made primarily for the sake of entertaining.  Having said that, art is nevertheless a wonderful medium for starting up important conversations on topics such as politics, political economy, and society in general.  Although this is far from being a perfect movie, it will have served its purpose the people who see it come out and discuss some of the many issues put forward by the director.

technology in our midsts...

if you take a step back from your daily routines, it's really incredible to see how much of an impact the latest technologies are having on our lives. as educators, students, parents, and people, so much of what we do now revolves around the technologies that accompany us.

email, cell phones, dvds, ipods. you name it, and it has changed how we live and operate on a day to day basis. bringing communication and instant connections into the places we live - have you ever thought about how you can bang away on the keyboard, and send a message or idea half-way around the world, in mere seconds? or be out shopping and pick up a call from your friend, trying to arrange a meeting point for that afternoon? and what about that tiny mp3 player - used to be portable music was carried around in a walkman, and the medium itself was eons away from the digitized tunes we listen to now.

how are all these changes impacting on how we live our lives? has life quality or experience changed? gotten better, or worse? are interpersonal relations different now with the immediacy of communication and exchange? everyone talks about how life operates so quickly now. is this a good thing? are we just missing the moments as they are whisked by in our hyper-speed lives and experiences? what ever happened to all those things which used to take time, and effort, to get done which now happen so much more faster because of all of the latest and greatest gadgets?

these are all important questions which deserve consideration. the next time you pick a song on your ipod, or dial up a friend while sitting on the bus, think about how life has changed, and whether it is for the better?

What will our future classrooms look like? Will technology play a part in our future classrooms? With the pace of change in education in today’s society it is hard to image how classrooms will look and what instructional strategies teachers will use. Will technology continue to exist? What skills/habits will students need for the future? These are some of the questions I began to reflect on during and after our class discussion. During our discussion this week in class the question of whether or not technology was here to stay came up. I agree that technology may not remain in the classroom in the future, but what I do know is that it is here today and students are engaged by the use of technology, therefore as teachers we cannot avoid technology. We can be critical of it, but I think that we must learn how to use it in our classrooms and be willing to change our teaching habits and strategies to incorporate a variety of technology available to us. The students are using it and it is their reality. During our discussion, I felt that we were focusing on the negative aspects of technology and not on how we can learn to use it effectively to enhance students learning experience. Future classrooms are going to have new ideas (maybe technology, maybe not) and therefore we must put aside our thoughts of how we think students should learn (pen, paper, quiet classrooms) and we must learn to embrace the many benefits of technology. We must prepare students for their future, not our future. Although we don’t know what the future jobs are going to be, we must prepare them the best we can. We must focus on teaching habits, rather than only focusing on skills. We must teach them to learn, to question, to express ideas and to think independently. More importantly than technology, we must teach them to be independent learners, life long learners. For now, until something new comes, it is through technology that we will help students build these habits. In future classrooms, I think that students will be a lot more independent and will be able to multi task a lot more efficiently than we can presently. Even today, students are now able to multi-task frequently and are actually very good at it. I see how my students are able to do several things at the same time. It is not uncommon to see them chatting on their computers, talking on the phone and listening to music all at the same time. When working on their computers students often have several windows open at the same time, working between three or four different documents. Youth and adolescents are growing up in a fast pace world and in order for them to keep up they are becoming better and better at multi-tasking. I As an educator, I have to keep reminding myself that when a student is looking at their computer while I am teaching they may actually be able to do so while still listening attentively. Classrooms are no longer quiet places where students are working on one thing at a time. I believe that the degree of multi-tasking will be even more of the norm in future classrooms. As a result, educators will have to continuously adapt their teaching strategies to adapt to the fast pace, multi-tasking ability of the student population. Although it is interesting to think of the future, I think the most important thing is to look at what we have to use right now. We have incredible technology at our disposal and we must teach students proper habits for using it to enhance their learning. We must embrace the many benefits of technology that allow us to open up the doors of the classroom to other areas of the world. Technology gives students an opportunity to voice their opinions to a wider audience. Technology may not be here to stay, but if we can teach the students the habits, they will be able to transfer them to the new ideas of the future.

Why do we watch what we watch?  

Hi Everyone,

Just wanted to share some thoughts with you about last night, in the media class with Shirley.  I though it was a very good class, and the presentation about technology was truly interesting and though provoking.  On my way home, I was thinking about reality shows, as Shirley inspired me to do so.  One of the main questions I was wondering about is: why do we watch what we watch? What attracts us to watch certain shows over others? As we know, a decade ago the most popular T.V. Shows were talk shows, and sit coms, where people used to sit down to watch T.V. In order to escape reality. “Survivor”, and “The Big Brother”, are only few of the many reality shows existing these days. I do believe that “realism” in reality shows is a misused term, since reality shows offer the “sexy”, attractive (or boring, you choose) parts that are edited out. Even if the attempt is to make it look like a movie, or show, its always unpredictable, and it is appealing to the audience, because many people could relate to the characters. There is a sense that the participants in these reality shows are people like you and me, as opposed to celebrities, and famous actors. There is a sense that the participants are real people.

Too often I asked myself, why am I watching the nauseating “Fear Factor” show, while sitting all crumbled, tense, and disgusted by what I see, sitting in front of the T.V. Screen, and not changing the channel?

For many years, we were watching and favoring the scripted television program over the unpredictable. In the 1970s' and 1960s' many shows were scripted and viewers couldn't probably afford an unpredictable ending which might not satisfy the viewers. Reality shows are featuring untrained actors, working on their own, without a script. In reality shows the participants are asked to be as natural as possible, to be honest, to confess their private thoughts or stories, and to reveal their inner secrets as much as possible. These confessions are adding another dimension to the story, as opposed to watching a documentary, where the subject reveals his life in a planned and contrived manner. My question is, are reality shows real? How much is scripted, and how much is omitted? Are we going to be turned off by reality shows in few years, understanding that they must be a form of script that shapes the “unpredictable” element to the show? My answer is yes. I believe we are going to fall out of love for these shows. They are going to become the soap operas of the 80's. We will need something more exciting, and maybe we will get tired of watching people trying so hard to confess, and reveal their inner thoughts in order to create an unscripted reality. My final questions, (and I hope to get some answers) are: if we, as a society have a need to untie the scripted forms of shows, and move towards a less formal, and unexpected reality, what does it reflects about us? Why do we want the exciting, unexpected, unpredictable, and unknown? Is extreme curiosity still a major component? Are we going to be tired of it? These are my thoughts when thinking about these reality shows...

Have a wonderful weekend,

karen

Mon, 02/02/2009 - 12:13 — Janet Reid

The world's most famous revolutionary icon, Che Guevara,is coming to a theatre near you!

 Here's a trailer:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkDlSh8A4ys

 This week's blog is dedicated to the movie 'Che' which is coming out later this week.

 This movie will be some sort of history lesson about the Cuban Revolution and Che Guevara.  What's the purpose? To commemorate the 50th anniversary of the revolution?  It was on January 1, 2009.   Perhaps the audience will get a sense that  the Cuban Revolution could not have happened without the participation of ordinary people that were politicized and organized.  Or will people be put off by revolution because it could get violent and violence is bad.  Especially when it is done in the name of communism instead of democracy like in the United States. May be the movie is going to show how Che Guevara went too far because he envisioned revolutionary struggle as going beyond Cuba. I wonder why Che Guevara went to fight in Angola and Bolivia.   If I want to get to know the man behind the image why not read his books about revolutionary tactics. I may not agree with some of the ideas in  'Guerilla Warfare'  or 'Reminiscences of the Cuban Revolutionary War' but at least I can get a sense of what the man stood for.

 Knowing that I will be disappointed, I’m really curious to see how history will be depicted.  I know enough about the Cuban Revolution to understand that it was a struggle against US imperialism. Will enough context be presented in order to understand WHY people want to revolt? Is this going to further mystify Che Guevara? My expectations are fairly low even though I do look forward to some pretty slick scenes of guerilla combat. 

<!--[if gte mso 9]>

Normal
0






MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

<![endif]-->

Okay, so here’s the thing: I can’t watch guerilla documentaries anymore. I can’t stand the way directors (read: Michael Moore) plan their questions carefully beforehand, and then ambush unsuspecting important political people. As expected, the politicians stumble and put their feet in their mouth and the directors take that footage and edit it in such a way to make these people look like complete morons. The footage is clipped together to make it seem not only that the politicians have no valid arguments but that the directors are expert debaters because they seemingly can leave their opponent’s speechless.

            I’m not even entertained anymore. I have to admit that I cracked a smile when Moore tried to have congress sign up their children to fight in the Iraq war. But hell, I’m sure not many of the current soldier’s parents would sign up their own children. And even if they did sign them up, ultimately it’s their children who would suffer, not them. I watched Bill Maher’s Religulous the other day, and I could barely get through it. When Maher approached various religious overlords (read: clergy), he had pages and pages of notes which he could use to make his claims, and refute those of his opponents—most of the time they had no notes at all. Maher also has time to edit the film and twist the clips in such a way to further his point and make those who disagree with him look ridiculous.

Moore did this as well when he showed Bush in the classroom doing nothing after “supposedly” finding out that the world trade centers had been struck by planes. I hate Bush as much as the next guy, but why stretch the truth to make him look like an idiot. Bush does a great job by himself. He doesn’t need any help. But Moore’s speculation about what the secret serviceman told him in the classroom and his apparent inaction is virtually no different than picking a handicapped kid on the playground (virtually?). But on a more serious note, I would argue that it is similar in a way to Mark Fuhrman planting the glove to frame O.J. Simpson. People have stipulated that the planting of the glove essentially lost the prosecution the case and set O.J. free, and if they never planted the glove O.J. would have probably went to jail.

Well, by ambushing the politicians and religious figureheads, and then twisting the footage (read: editing) Moore and Maher don’t further their point. It only makes otherwise intelligent human beings look like cowards and cheaters. Give the opposition the chance to formulate arguments of their own. If Moore and Maher are really that clever then they should be able to debate with these people in an open arena. They denounce these politicians, but then mimic their debating styles—attack your opponent’s credibility and don’t give them time to think.

The scariest part is that people see these documentaries and immediately side with Moore and Maher or immediately oppose them. I would challenge that no documentary either has made has changed anyone’s mind after watching it. Those who hated Bush and religion beforehand, will side with them, and praise them for “speaking the truth”. The republicans and zealots (read: fundamentalists) (ok, I’m stopping with the “read” jokes) hated both before hand, and their “in your face/push the envelope/blitzkrieg” style of getting their points across will never be convincing to dissenters because they are more insulting to their intelligence than inviting of change.

I was caught by something happening in Korea now and that’s what I am going to talking about. I don’t feel very good about it. It’s just mess and chaos! It could have been avoided but some people pushed it and I am really curious about why THEY did so.

It is about an exam in schools in Korea. When I went to schools, I didn’t like taking exams. Not only was it tired and exhausting to get ready for exams but also it was scarier to find out where I was ranked compared to other classmates either from the class or from the schools. Where I was ranked from the exam was who I was. The teachers and other classmates were treated me based on the results of the exams as well. So did I. Even if we were all friends in class but we were also enemies in the school system. I would have been treated better when my friends, who were ahead of me, had gotten disappeared. The schools were invisible battlefields of ‘survival of the fittest’.

The exam was held nationwide collectively last November to measure academic achievements of students of Grade 6, 7,and 10. Every student in each level was scheduled to solve the same questions given from the exam at the same time. The current government believed that the exam would benefit to the students who lag behind with extracurricular programs and support well-performing students expected to do even better. The exam would be a stimulus and motivation for studying. Through the plan, the government has pursued to normalize public education that lost trust and satisfaction from the public. In addition, the Ministry of Education has pledged never to use results of the exam to compare levels of each school.    

However, the exam had faced a huge criticism and resistance from Korean Teachers & Educational Worker’s Union (KTEWU), other civic groups, parents, and even students. They cried out with one voice that only the plan would flourish the market for the private education and raise competition in schools. The students do not desire many things but just need enough time to sleep and eat properly. And, they also say that now they have enough exams. Parents were also afraid of spending more money for private schools and tutoring when their children were diagnosed to be behind others from the exam. Furthermore, the teacher union has criticized the plan of the current government, arguing that the exam will cause rankization and standardization in schools.

In spite of the voices and opinions from the public sector, the current government continued to push ahead with the plan. Even the government has dismissed or fired seven ‘conscious’ teachers who were against the exam, letting some students go to other activities outside of the schools who did not want to take the exam.  The punishment seemed to be harsher than that of the teachers who abused their students sexually at the schools. Finally, the teachers had to leave their students and schools, who hoped the ‘genuine’ education for the students in school.

On Feb 16, 2009, each major newspaper started to reveal results of the exam. Of course, their interests were to find which school and area nationwide performed the best or the worst in the exam. The tables and charts in the newspaper were so sophisticated and dedicated to know where the school was ranked ‘compared’ to other schools and which area were more predominant than others. They did not forget ranking ‘the first’ and ‘the last’ in a row. As expected ‘somewhat’, the high rankings were mainly occupied by the areas and schools supported by ‘economic and cultural capital’ while the schools located in rural areas had many students who might need a little more assistance, based on the current school program.

Nobody would not have been able to expect the consequences of the result of the exam, except the current government. Right next day, as if it were waiting for the ‘result’, the government released several new plans related to the result of the nationwide exam. The main goal of the plans is to reflect students’ academic achievements measured in the exam to the promotions of principals and vice-principals. Principles and vice-principals in each school would get advantages or disadvantages on whether or not their students reach 3 percents of academic achievements in the exam. It would be nature see that each principal and vice-principal demand more tasks to their teachers and more studying hours to their students in order to produce better results than before, which may affect the personal shifts of the principles and the vice-principles. Principals, teachers, students, and parents in a school are put in a competition with others in a nationwide level. As a result, it is not too much to say that the Korean education starts with the era of unlimited competition. However, we all know that it is only the top of an iceberg.

I read sociopolitical and educational practices of authoritative and totalitarian domination of the state power which controlled epistemological dimensions and curricula in schools. Furthermore, when the state did not have enough dialogues and negotiation with the public from a variety of related domains to set up and operate on new policies, it utilized oppressive power to justify the policies. For instance, this educational policy with the exam described above would take away the right and pleasure of students and teachers to share various educational contents by imposing the ‘standardized’ exam nationwide which was epistemological dominance by a state. The exam was produced by the certain groups’ logics and standards in the government but it would play a powerful role to evaluate academic achievements and performances of students and teachers, to inform the locations of the students nationwide, and construct their identities as superior or inferior in the competitive system. What students and teachers need to do would focus on meeting their logics and standards in the exam to win in the competition and to get more funding from the government, more specifically. The competition would go more and more brutal. Even, the action of dismissing or firing seven teachers who had joined the teachers’ union was likely to be political. It shows the political ideology and tendency of the current government. It seemed to follow anything that they have been planning and pursuing, which was dogmatic and barbaric.  

<!--EndFragment-->

On Friday I had the opportunity to participate in the “Eager for Success? Let’s Meet on the Island” event which took place at the Palais des Congress.  It reflected the collaboration of the five school boards by illustrating, that success is linked to relationships and partnerships between the various participants in the educational system (student and teacher, school-team and parents) as well as recognizing the relationship between the school/centre and community stakeholders.  There were 2700 participants who spent the morning in a session of their choice (there were 36 or so workshops to choose from) and then in the afternoon, Mme. Michelle Courchesne, Minister of Education, Leisure and Sports, addressed the participants as well as the Chairs of each of the five boards.

The session I attended dealt with the idea of establishing schools as CLC’s - Community Learning Centers.  There was a brief introduction that outlined the history, objectives and common features of a CLC, then two presentations were given: one by a coordinator for a high school CLC that has been in operation for approximately 3 years and a second one by the Principal and the CLC coordinator for an elementary school that is in the very early stages of developing their school as a CLC. 

Basically a CLC is a partnership that provides a range of services and activities beyond the school day to help meet the needs of the community, the families and the students in that area.  The partnership can take on many forms and involve many different stakeholders in the community – depending on the specific needs of that community.  It involves opening up the school to the community during the school day, after hours, on weekends - really seven days a week, all year long.   

The High School that was presented is located in southwest Montreal – an area which is rated 10 on the poverty index, is characterized by high unemployment, health and social issues.  The school itself has a large proportion of students with identified learning difficulties.  The mandate for the CLC was developed in tandem with the needs that the community identified.  After town hall meetings and planning sessions they identified three themes:  Appropriate supervised leisure activities, healthy lifestyle choices and providing employability skills.  Their goal was to increase student retention and graduation and promote life long learning in the community.  Some of the programs they have developed focus on cooking, basic hairdressing skills, trade fairs, parent language classes,  family social activities, and family support for literacy.

Another high school that became part of the discussion has a very high multicultural population and they are in their third year of being a CLC.  Among their community partners are the West Island Black Community Association, the South East Asian Community Association, Community Sports organizations, and the Born to Read Association.  While the kids are in their weekend activities the Moms and Dads are getting literacy support, the younger siblings are getting access to books and stories.  There are established afterschool homework programs, weekend tutorials, and academic assistance for preparation into CEGEP.   The school also has a VCN which enables organizations or groups to communicate and video conference with experts (i.e. Telehealth services) and establishes links with other groups and communities all over the world.

While it involves a tremendous amount of work on the part of the administration and the community partners the concept of CLC ‘s is exceptional.  By opening their doors to the community it allows services, resources and programs to become more accessible to a greater number of people in the area and empowers them to be more successful.  The school becomes a hub of activities, support and resources creating relationships, finding common objectives and linking the needs of the school and community with potential solutions.

I have been reading many commentaries regarding technology and the internet and our evolution to using these tools both as consumers and educators. I thought I would share my experience using facebook. After using the communication tool for a number of months, I was surprised why I enjoy this social network.

•  “Did you hear that Mrs. Smith broke her leg?”
•  “I saw Maddie yesterday at the bank. She is getting pretty big. She must be due anytime soon.”
• “John’s father is very sick; I believe he has been in the hospital last week.”

• My cousin went skiing in Banff last weekend.
• Sarah cut her hair.
• Janet posted pictures of her two little girls skiing.
• Jon and Jill are going to the movies.
• Marcy has a new boyfriend.
• Tina is nursing a bad cold.

Hi everyone,

 Hope you are having a relaxing reading break. I am so happy that Karen has started the dialogue for Slumdog winning the Oscar Sunday night. I know that there is alot of backlash due to the way Mumbai is portrayed in India and the issue with the children playing in the movie being from a poor town and getting paid mere peanuts comparitively...(I am hoping that with the success of the movie the get more recognition and are given what they deserve) The way Slumdog was celebrated on Sunday night was a true joy and showed so much growth in what human beings see as worthwhile to watch. Besides all of the pre oscar hub-bub/buzz the movie created the way that the music was performed at the show and the way Indian culture was represented brought butterflies to my stomach. The Indian musician A.R.Rahman who composed and performed the music was outstanding and has helped Indian music become apart of pop culture. Truly inspiring! This to me sheds positive light on Indian stereotypes.

I know, as with anything else, there were many aspects of India that perpetuated certain stereotypes but overall, the message that Slumdog left me was that there is not one way of reaching knowledge and that you can never assume a persons situation just because of how he/she was raised (or not raised left to raise themself). Whether the movie showed an African American, Asian, Jew, Protestant, Muslim etc in the same meager situation and rising above I would have still taken away that message. I am proud that this movie was made in my lifetime and I will hopefully be able to use it during my PhD research to explore how we come to know (Street Smarts vs Book Smarts). Bravo to Slumdog for sweeping the Oscars this was the first time in a long time that I felt engaged by the otherwise tedious, obnoxious, same old boring ceremony.

I am not interested in the Academy awards, or the hype surrounding them.  However, as a “media watcher” (both in life and for the purpose of this class) I paid close attention.  I found myself intrigued by a story that interested me immensely: kids from the “slums” of India being transplanted to the red carpets of Hollywood.  Forget the Academy Awards for a minute.  This is a rare event, almost a social experiment of sorts.  In a matter of just days, these kids experienced what most Canadian or Americans will never: extreme poverty and a day in the life of the rich and famous. 

This struck me as a true human interest story with endless possibilities to learn about these kids, their lives, and culture.  And perhaps an opportunity for us to learn a little more about ourselves via learning about them and their experiences here.    And yet (as to be expected) the reporters at the time and entertainment shows following were more interested in what they were wearing (Freda Pinto topped the “worst dressed” list in some circles) than the thoughts they were having.   Sure, some were asked if they got Angelina and Brad’s autographs (an obvious novelty for a child from the “slums”) or if they enjoyed their first ever airplane ride, but these hardly gave a glimpse into what they were actually experiencing.  What would you ask these children if you had the chance?  “Who do you thing are happier: Americans or Indians?”  “What do you think of all the STUFF Americans have?”  “These awards cost ___ (insert ridiculous sum of money here).  What could that money be used for in your community back home?”

Twenty years from now, when someone inevitably decides to do a follow-up with “those kids from the slums who walked the red carpet in 2009”, I wonder where they will be in their life and how this experience will have affected them.   I wonder if the real questions will be asked. 

We’ve probably all seen the commercials on TV: a woman standing in front of shelves stocked with row upon row of whichever brand name product she is promoting: Quaker Oat Bars,  ET TU Salad Kits or V8 Fusion drinks, just to name a few.  The nature of these commercials is obviously attempting to lead the consumer to believe that this spokesperson is some kind of consumer advocate who tests products and reports the results to the public.  Most of us, however, can see right through this facade based on the name alone; they are obviously promoting brand name products only (and their inherent greatness).    

According to its website “Brand Power is an advertising vehicle sponsored and paid for by leading manufacturers.”  In other words it’s just another means for large corporations to advertize.  Instead of Scott Towels buying air time and saying “go buy our product” they instead pay the Buchanan Group (who is the brainchild behind BrandPower™) to do it for them.  It, in turn, essentially masquerades as unbiased and pro-consumer when in actuality it entirely bias and pro-corporation . 

Just below the Brandpower logo it reads: Facts and Value.  In reality, of course, the facts are only the ones that the Buchanan Group and its corporate customers want you to know and the value is probably not nearly as great as the house brands which spend relatively less on advertizing.   

I was surfing the net the other day, and I came across this website: http://www.lgtexter.com/lgtexter/default.aspx, and I wasn’t how I felt about it. 

This is a speed texting contest where you can win 50 thousand dollars!  The idea seemed interesting, perhaps even creative…  The 2007 texting champion was Morgan Pozgar, a 13-year-old girl from Pennsylvania who averages more than 8000 texts per month! 

I’m new to text messaging.  For years now, friends and family have been harassing me into getting a cell phone.  Prior to two days ago, I was only reachable via my home line, or by email; in times of need, I had to dish out two quarters to make a phone call.  Speaking from 2.5 days of cell phone experience, I must say that text messaging just might be the most inconvenient form of communication.  While at work, a friend and I were trying to make Friday night plans via text, and it took forever!  I simply can’t understand why people would rather text back and forth 4 or 5 times instead of just dialing a number and having a conversation.

Now that I own a phone, I feel more accepted, as though I finally fit. Friends always knew they could call my home, or email me to keep in touch, but it seems like unless you have a phone, people aren’t as willing to socialize.  Among many things, I presume this phone will do wonders for my social life, and I’m slowly giving out my number to close and not so close friends.  Here is what one of them had to say:

“OMG, I had to switch out my contacts, put my glasses on and be []thisclose to my monitor to make sure I read that correctly!!!
Congratulations! This is truly cause for a celebration :P”

Sexism in Harry Potter Books – Is it necessary to read all literature critically? (For some reason this was never entered on the blog when I first posted it)   

I am so happy you brought up Twilight believe it or not I am on the 4th and final book in the series, Breaking Dawn and let me just tell you alot has changed since you read the first book. I dont want to give it away in case others are reading but Bella's character has completely turned me off over the course of the series. She is so doey eyed and irrational when it comes to Edward and all of his vampire family members who happen to exude such wealth and star power throughout the book. When Bella talks about their incredible good looks and flawless mannerisms you get the feeling that these vampires are meant to replicate gods. I agree with you that Bella has a really mature, strong independent persona at the beginning of the novel and because she was the outcast for so long at he