Cause and effect....reality tv

Although watching Survivor is a guilty pleasure, I am not a fan of most reality shows. On occasion, I do also catch The Amazing Race, but Survivor is one I try to catch every week. Actually, it was better in the earlier episodes, as there seemed to be a lot more innocence and reality rather than the current "social experiment" being played by one of this season's participants. But, I digress. The early popularity of one or two shows has seemed to generate what I would term a "monster". It seems like almost daily, there is a new "reality show" to watch, and frankly, from the commercials I see, I have no interest in watching them. Real Housewives of Atlanta? Please...There are several others whose names I don't even recall, but it seems to me that the explosion of reality TV has caused many in society to go off the deep end. This is purely opinion, but....people seem to be acting out and behaving more outrageously than ever in hopes of getting their "15 minutes of fame" or getting their chance to be on a reality show. And it is truly amazing to me to see (particularly on Survivor, since that what I watch most often) the bizarre things that people will do for a shot at a million dollars. Which brings up another point... Even if someone wins the "million dollars", how much do they really get? Uncle Sam has to get his take, so I'm guessing winners only get 50-60% of that so-called million dollars. Granted, they'll probably get lots of other perks, if you can call them that, by participating in the morning news and talk show circuits with several all-expenses-paid trips, but is that really worth what it takes to win? In my opinion, no. But, sometimes when I'm watching, I'll think to myself, 'wow, that's an amazing place to go', or 'I wish I could...' and I think that's part of the reason that people watch these types of shows so much. They can make us think about ourselves and what we would be willing to do for money.... But, money isn't everything. The love and support of family far outweighs all the money in the world. But, that's just my opinion.

Modern-day farms

As the world is ever-changing and populations growing, there has become a need for those of us more creative and problem-solving minded to come up with ideas to better utilize natural resources for the benefit of all mankind. A wind farm seems to be a good idea. The natural resource of wind cannot be exhausted; it is up to mother nature whether the wind blows or does not. For the individuals who have devised a way to harness that wind and convert it into energy that can be utilized to power many other things, I applaud them. Today's society has become so dependent on electricity and so many other things, I do think it is important that resources are used that will not eventually be devoured by our greed. Others may not agree, as the wind turbines dotted through the landscape, although well-intentioned, can be viewed as an "eyesore" to many citizens. I believe that farms such as this will continue to thrive and grow as much as consumerism seems to continually thrive and grow, but there will be many who say "I don't want this in my backyard" or "I don't want this where I can see it". But, this is the case with many things such as halfway houses or prisons. The majority of society agrees that these are needed things, but no one wants them "in their backyard" or in areas where they will have to see them. Is this somewhat selfish? Yes. Do I feel the same way, that these are needed but that I don't want to live next door to them? Yes. I'm not sure there is an absolute solution to this issue, but somehow, a compromise will need to be reached that is acceptable to the majority. Although I have not done any research into the cost to implement farms such as this, I would imagine that they are rather pricey. However, with the energy that is generated by wind, I would imagine they pay for themselves within a short amount of time as that energy is sold to power stations for supply to the public, who in turn pays a fee for the use of said power. I would hope that this type of energy would be more cost-effective for the consumer, although I do not know that for certain.

Commentary on Political Blogs

This week's assignment is to select and discuss political blogs - one from the "left" and one from the "right. For me, this is difficult, as it is in my nature to avoid all things politics whenever possible. I personally do not care for all of the hype and drama that seems to be inherent in politics. With that being said, I will TRY to be objective in my comments, but keep in mind, this is merely the opinion of a person who knows little about the political machine.

For this assignment, I've looked at The Huffington Post for the left, and Hot Air for the right. With opposing political ideals and opinions, both of these blogs appear to use similar techniques in their arguments, intended to sway the reader's opinion into their arena. One of the techniques is the use of name-calling. On the right, claims are made that The Huffington Post is siding with terrorists - and - shh.....don't tell the DNC because their claim is that if you are amused by Obama's being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, you are on the side of terrorists. Uuugghh!! Really? If one questions whether an award winner is deserving of the award he has been given, how exactly is that "siding with terrorists"?! On the left, one commentary thinks its a great thing that Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, but puts forth a call for him to earn the award given. BUT....isn't one supposed to have earned it in order to receive the award in the first place??? The left comments about the on-going war and suggests that troops should be returned home, and that the issues being addressed by armed forces in that region of the world should actually be addressed by the people of those nations. On this, I lean toward agreement. Although I believe that if these nations ask for the assistance of the US Armed Forces, it should be given - with limits, it is actually ultimately up to the people who want freedom or change to fight for it, not have it forced upon them by the US or any other nation.

Both sides of arguments seem to have a tendency to use multiple political rhetoric techniques - name-calling, argumentum ad hominem, transfer of guilt, faulty cause and effect, and the two-extremes fallacy. It is difficult to weed through all of the sarcasm and rhetoric on either side to determine if there's any true message at all...