For example, when people asked me if I was voting and who I would be voting for, and I replied by saying I would not be voting, it caused an uproar, with an immediate attack on my character and lack of awareness and logic.

What I want to know is, if I have the right to vote, why can’t people respect that I also have the right to choose NOT to?

Voting is about a choice. And this time, none of the candidates pleased me. I don’t mean to sound like a broken record, but I am quickly losing faith in humanity. Certain events or situations make me realize this.

Put simply, I don’t want to vote for someone who is bound to fuck up. Because then, I have to live day by day knowing I helped that happen. I know I have to live day by day now knowing I could have made a slight difference, but I’d rather not take that chance. Just look at how many people have abandoned their political beliefs in the United States after having voted for George W. Bush. They must be trying to find a way to effectively kick their own asses.

Speaking of Bush… has anyone seen the trailer for the new movie about his life? If there are any ways to support my argument that I am losing faith in humanity, that right there is a reason for my bitterness. You could not pay me to see that movie.

So in conclusion, just because I didn’t vote, does not mean I am going to shut my mouth and stop complaining about this country’s shortcomings as people have stated I have no right to do anymore. I am going to complain more.

People really need to accept their own beliefs, as THEIR OWN BELEIFS. They are not superior to anyone else’s. It’s the same story when I get off the bus at Gore Park every day after school and people left, right and centre try to talk to me about my religious beliefs. Let people live the way they want to and save your breath.

I had absolutely no idea what racism was before today. I am so glad Mohawk College is investing in my future and trying to get me to be an active citizen.

As a journalism student, being out in the public and doing reports about real stories simply isn’t enough. As a person, the fact that I have spent years volunteering at various organizations and have held many full time jobs isn’t enough. Instead of having me do something that is helping society, I am overly enthused and rivetted that I am spending 2 hours a week sitting in a classroom learning that saying phrases such as “visible minorities” is BAD.

I am also just so…SO… happy that in retrospect, when I pictured what today’s class looked like, I saw the hard earned money I made have gasoline poured on it in a camp fire as the flames got higher and higher.

Thank you Mohawk. Now I know what diversity is.

The WSPA is seeking 10 million signatures to let the governments of the world know they are serious about achieving a Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare at the United Nations. Government representatives from Kenya, India, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, and Republic of the Philippines, United Kingdrom, Australia, New Zealand, Tanzania, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovenia have indicated support for the UDAW. Now, the WSPA is seeking the help of Canadians and Government representatives from the Canadian Government to support the initiative.

There is an online petition to sign, however the Canadian Government will only accept the petition in paper format.

And the question I am asking myself about this issue?

Why aren’t all of us printing off our own copy and collecting signatures?
I have always had a soft spot for animals. As a child, my brothers and I would gather around the TV on saturday mornings and ball our eyes out over the Toronto Humane Society commercials. No matter how difficult it is to see pain in their eyes, I cannot help but watch.

I have never been able to process in my mind how someone can want to hurt an animal. They are as defenseless as a baby.

Ever since Confederation, the Criminal Code has prohibited animal abuse. The following is how the Criminal Code describes offenses against animals:

Everyone who wilfully and without lawful excuse, kills or injures dogs, birds or animals that are not cattle and are kept for a lawful purpose, or places poison in such a position that it may easily be consumed by these animals, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Every one commits an offence who

• wilfully causes or, being the owner, wilfully permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal or a bird;

• by wilful neglect causes damage or injury to animals or birds while they are being driven or conveyed;

• being the owner or the person having the custody or control of a domestic animal or a bird or an animal or a bird wild by nature that is in captivity, abandons it in distress or wilfully neglects or fails to provide suitable and adequate food, water, shelter and care for it;

• in any manner encourages, aids or assists at the fighting or baiting of animals or birds;

• wilfully, without reasonable excuse, administers a poisonous or an injurious drug or substance to a domestic animal or bird or an animal or a bird wild by nature that is kept in captivity or, being the owner of such an animal or a bird, wilfully permits a poisonous or an injurious drug or substance to be administered to it; or

• takes part in any meeting, competition, exhibition, pastime, practice, display or event at or in the course of which captive birds are liberated by hand, trap, contrivance or any other means for the purpose of being shot when they are liberated.

That’s all fine and dandy, but what is the punishment for harming an animal?

Just last April, a University of Windsor student from China beat his husky puppy so harshly that it had to be taken away by police and euthanised at the local animal shelter. Onlookers watched as the man dragged the puppy on a leash, choking it. He then smashed it into a fire hydrant and began to kick the dog. Residents followed the man in protest as he assaulted the dog and begged him to stop. By the time police arrived on the scene, the man had broken all four of the puppy’s legs. The left legs were completely shattered on the dog. The man argued that he is an international student and didn’t know he could be charged with animal cruelty. He said he had merely been training the dog and had been punching the dog to teach it.

On the X-Rays, the bones looked like someone chopped them right in half.

The maximum penalty for causing unnecessary suffering to an animal is a $2,000 fine and/or six months in jail.

I want to know in what way that this is a reasonable punishment.
How can someone harm a living thing in such a disgusting way, and the maximum penalty is only six months in jail and a small fine? Are these harsh enough consequences for beating the shit out of a living thing to the point that their bones are completely shattered, and surgery is not even an option to save it’s life?

In my opinion, people who have mistreated animals in any way need to be recognized as a criminal in society. Who is to say that after they are charged, that they will learn from the repercussions and not act in such a way ever again? These people should be banned from owning an animal ever again.

The government needs to enforce a system where animal owners need to obtain a license in order to possess an animal. In addition, animal cruelty cases need to be publicized more. The power of people is alarming, and there simply aren’t enough people being made aware of cases such as the one with the husky puppy.

I also wonder if people are aware that cruelty to animals is the early signs of a serial killer. If someone is heartless enough to beat a dog against a fire hydrant, is there anything stopping them from committing other criminal acts? Especially since the man responsible blamed the crime on the fact that he was from another country and therefore unaware of the laws? Or can justify what he did by saying he was “training” the dog?

The UDAW is something that needed to happen a long time ago. The government of Canada should be considering getting on the band wagon without the signatures to support the idea, although the petition is a good way to make people aware of animal cruelty happening all around us.

Rathergate.com is an important outlet for journalists, and for people in general. It offers what blogs generally do – a voice. No bias. No one telling you to cut something out of what you want to say. It is a take on the media that often gets overlooked. It is teaching us to read between the lines.

Rathergate spawned from an incident involving CBS’ Dan Rather, when he made public false documents. The scandal of this shocked people, and shocks me. How can someone as credible as Dan Rather not take necessary steps to ensure the information he provides is completely accurate, without question?

I guess the only good that came out of it is that we can learn from Dan Rather’s mistakes. He can teach us to be better journalists through his faults.

One thing becomes apparent to me as I read Rathergate.com: I never want to live in the States, and I would never choose to work as a journalist in the States. The American election has caught the attention of many Canadians. Is it pathetic that we know more about the American election than we do the Canadian election? Who else is tired of flipping through the channels and seeing the way CNN reports on the election, and crisis situations in general? It seems we can’t escape it. It is everywhere.

I think Rathergate.com has a general message: Don’t trust everything you see. Question everything and develop your OWN opinion on what is going on in the world around you. As Canadians, we have many rights which people in other countries do not. We need to practice those rights and let our voices be heard.

With these changes comes the need to consume information differently. People are figuring out that with a few clicks of a mouse, they can have any kind of news they want, whenever they want: 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No longer do they need to go to the effort of subscribing to a magazine or paper, or picking one up from the store. They don’t need to wait until the news comes on on the radio. All people need to do is go to a news website and look at the headlines.

Some say that we are info-snackers; we consume information in the shortest, tiniest bits as possible. We don’t look too far into a story. We just get the basic facts and then move on to something else (Exact definition).

So how can print journalism survive in a world like this?

Even the Simpsons have picked up on the decreasing trend in newspaper use:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=527_1205782611

So, we know that the Internet is beginning to take over where print is leaving off. Some newspapers even offer an electronic version of their paper on their website, for a small fee. And although print is nice for those who appreciate tradition, newer generations are much more technology-savvy and carry their laptops with them wherever they go. It is all about convenience.

As a college student I feel as though I have learned a variety of helpful information in my first year. However, I can’t help but compare my workload to that of someone at university, specifically those I know who are at their wit’s end. Memorizing hundreds of pages of information seems impossible and impractical to me. I mean, how long are you going to remember this information for? Is it going to be retained? Or are you cramming it all into your poor brain the night before an exam and spewing it out when its just about to be full to the brim?

Many of us are simply information-hungry. Its all there… its all easily accessible, and never in history as it been easier to get the information. But how much are we able to retain?

As long as people have a hunger for the information, and can process it, I think there is no stopping the amount of information we can learn. If we have an invested interest in it and our mind perceives it in a reasonable way, go nuts. But personally, there are some days I just want to go to sleep and turn my brain off – give it a rest. I suppose it also depends on the person. Some people go about their day and could not care less about the world around them. Others take things more seriously. It really depends on your individual outlook.

Either way, I think people should take advantage of the resources we have available to us, and to appreciate them. When earlier generations were in school, information directly relating to what they were looking for was much more of a challenge to find. Yet, here we are with the wonders of Google, Yahoo, blogs, and any kind of information we need at our fingertips.

Recently, I’ve found the best way to give my brain a much-needed rest is Yoga. Read more about yoga here: http://www.americanyogaassociation.org/general.html

As a journalist, the amount of information and the availability of that information is vast. It is becoming easier and easier for anyone to be able to track down information, on virtually any subject matter. And the effort is minimal: Is it difficult to type a few words in a search engine, click your mouse a few times, and find exactly what you’re looking for?

But as journalists, it is up to us to always be analyzing, always thinking beyond the surface and not to “judge the book by it’s cover”. The public depends on the journalist to take this information and make it understandable and let them know how the information directly effects them and their community.

When Paul Knox refers to not getting too dramatic, he is referring to the fact that journalists have a responsibility to recognize what matters to the people. Writing and reporting needs to be filled with the hard facts and conclusions about those facts, with no frills. It is not necessary to go over small details that don’t pertain to anyone. The news values should always be considered when developing a story.

I feel it is important for me to practice my natural curiosity. It is important to always recognize what is going on around me, but it is equally important to take time to question what I am seeing.

http://mtsu32.mtsu.edu:11178/171/newsvals.htm 

By simply logging onto the Brain, Mohawk’s library website, there are an enormous amount of newspaper and magazine articles, journals, and electronic books available. These resources are available in a vast area of subject matter. You can either search directly by your program, or you can look at all articles in your search criteria.

Peggy talked about how easy search engines like Google and Dogpile seem to be, but at the same time, no search engine can really pick up exactly what you’re looking for.

It is important we know how to research, and this was a good start.

http://www.mohawkcollege.ca/BRAIN/BRAIN.html

Lately I’ve been thinking about how I used to get to know people, before the Internet or the new Facebook phenomenon.  This would be in my early high school days. You’d meet a person, get to know them, hang out with them, talk to them, find out their genuine interests and see if you clicked with them face to face. Then I got MSN, and everything changed. I began to talk to people at my school I hadn’t even talked to in person, and still have not talked to in person. That seems wrong to me.

And now, with Facebook, you get to see people, and their mother, and their siblings, cousins and family dog before you get to know them. You know their musical interests without actually having  a meaningful conversation about music with them. You know where they work and go to school. You know if you have mutual friends in common. In some cases, you know their political and religious beliefs. You know who they’re in a relationship with or who they’re married to. You may find out if they have kids. But the most you could have ever said to this person is “Hello”. You may judge this person before you’ve even taken the chance to get to know them. Why? Because we’re convenience-hungry beings. The information is just sitting there, waiting for us to read it. We like things done quick and fast, without hassle or wasted time. We’re constantly in a hurry and on the move. This seems to be a very North American thing. No where else in the world is fast food so popular and prevalent in the lives of us artery-clotted individuals.

But I won’t sit here and knock Facebook – there are so many things I like about it. Although at times I’ll be sitting here on my computer and suddenly feel like a lump of lard for being on Facebook or MSN for hours, it connects people. I have been talking to people I would have never been able to keep in contact with otherwise. As technology changes, it’s becoming much easier for people to talk to one another without a whole lot of effort.

Problems also arise with this. People talk to each other on MSN and it isn’t at all personal. Things can be misconstrued so easily. I have a problem with sarcasm, and people have stopped talking to me because they don’t understand the context in which I am saying something over MSN.

On a more serious note, the Internet has absolutely ruined some people’s lives.  Online predators are everywhere, and the accessibility of the Internet to practically anyone makes it simple to destroy someone’s life. As a side note, has anyone seen “To catch a predator” on Dateline NBC? (Please refer to Youtube video). It’s great.  The general basis of the show is that a police officer poses as a teenage boy or girl, and attracts an online predator. The predator then comes to the fake residence of this young person, and out comes Chris Hansen or whatever the hell his name is, with a can of whoop ass to be opened and injected right into that pedophile’s dirty veins. BAM – CAUGHT, BITCH. It makes me laugh when this loser tries to explain themselves. And the look on the dirty asshole’s face when he sees Hansen walk out (and Hansen always has a great punch line as he walks out, that always mocks them). Now THAT is good TV. And when they try to run away from the cops sometimes…Oh man.

So is the Internet a good thing, or bad thing, or both? Has it gone too far? Do the pros outweigh the cons?