a worm in the apple

Apple has been under much scrutiny, specifically within this past year, with the discovery of its use of sweatshops in China. The workers found in these shops are paid minimal wages & are placed in hazardous working conditions; these harsh working environments would never be condoned within the U.S.

The article In China, Human Costs are built into an iPad describes the inhumane treatment these Chinese workers face in order to produce various Apple products, as well as other brand items. The utilization of sweatshops unfortunately shows how the company values production and income over human rights.

I must admit, I am a big fan of all Apple products - their simple and clean design of products is so attractive - but I feel greatly unsettled that a human life could have possibly been at risk during the production of my iPhone or Macbook.

Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, is currently visiting China to address the issues listed above -  but a company based on ethical principals should have never had this problem from the beginning.

According to Tim Cook, these are Apple's core values (found here):

• We believe that we're on the face of the Earth to make great products.
• We believe in the simple, not the complex.
• We believe that we need to own & control the primary technologies behind the products we make.
• We participate only in markets where we can make a significant contribution.
• We believe in saying no to thousands of projects so that we can really focus on the few that are truly important and meaningful to us.
• We believe in deep collaboration & cross-pollination of our groups, which allow us to innovate in a way that others cannot.
• We don't settle for anything less than excellence in every group in the company, & we have self-honesty to admit to when we're wrong & the courage to change.

The values are in line with the recent occurrences in China; it seems as though Apple has minimal focus on the human-interest perspective within its mission statement.

bullies are rated R

Many children are bullied throughout the course of their education, so what better way to inform the world of this horrible tragedy than by creating a documentary?

Bully aims to raise awareness of the both physical & mental violence millions of children face daily. This documentary targets teenage youth, yet the rating was declared "R" due to the violence it displays.

Katie Butler, a high school student from Michigan, has challenged the Motion Picture Association of America to change the rating of the film so that its target audience can have easier access to the documentary. She has started a campaign on change.org in which holds a petition to change the rating of the movie. Read about her movement on the Washington Post.

Is it fair to censure a potentially enlightening and informative documentary when other films that deem violence as acceptable are found at the PG-13 rating? How many people are aware of the bullying that occurs amongst children when parents & teachers are not looking?

Here is the trailer for "Bully"

who's kony?

A 30-minute video created by an organization called Invisible Children has gone viral within the past few days, establishing infamous recognition of Joseph Kony nationwide.

Invisible Children leader Jason Russell describes the LRA leader Joseph Kony as a despicable and evil man who must be stopped THIS year. He tells viewers that by increasing awareness of Kony, there is a chance to capture the "villain."

Image of Joseph Kony from the YouTube video

After watching the complete video, I felt inspired and ready to make a change in the world - but I still felt a bit confused about the facts and history behind the message. After searching the web & reading various articles, many conflicting emotions arose.

Does this video oversimplify a complicated situation?
How trustworthy is Invisible Children?
What is this organization doing to help the problem?
Why hasn't the problem been addressed until now?

Today a fellow classmate tweeted this video, released by the Center for Strategic & International Studies, & I feel it best describes the "Kony situation." The video essentially states that global awareness of Kony is stupendous, because the man is indeed a criminal; however, Kony is not the sole criminal behind the mass destruction that has been occurring in regions of Africa. The capture of Kony should be also be a global issue - countries should work together to find a solution (instead of placing the US as the only country able to aid).

Kony 2012 taught me one thing, for certain - social media is a powerful tool that could be potentially destructive or enlightening to any public. The beautifully edited and very convincing video grabs viewers' attention immediately, which both intrigues and scares me a bit.

Other sites worth viewing:
Invisible Children gives the facts
Why you should feel awkward about the 'Kony 2012' video
Visible Children

40 days sans facebook

After much discussion about the role technology plays into our daily lives in Media Ethics class, I decided to relieve a bit of my connectedness...how so? Well, I am not using Facebook for the complete 40 days of Lent.

I have only been without Facebook for a week, and have already noticed many interesting things happening in my mind. To start off, I have a lot more free time - what does one do when they cannot "spy" on their friends and acquaintances?

Secondly, my iPhone is used significantly less now than it was prior Lent. My lack of Facebook use has turned into a general lack of social media usage. I haven't felt like checking Twitter, Tumblr, Pinterest, etc as much as I did before.

Thirdly, I have found myself wanting to share tidbits of my daily life on Facebook...then I realize I cannot do so, & feel discontent about it. I have so many other outlets I can use to share my life - Blogger, email, a cell phone - and yet, I have discovered that I've been limiting myself to Facebook. What is so appealing to share something publicly? Is it to show others how "great" my life is? Is it to feel connected to people I sometimes rarely talk to?

The general answer to these questions is yes - yes I want people to know the good in my life, and yes, it is gratifying to feel connected to others. But after this conclusion, I find it sad that I resort to an online site to assist me in these actions. I have felt a sort of relief that I do not have to "keep appearances" on my Facebook, and it has been a sort of cleansing. I live more in the present, and not so much in a cyber world.

Week one sans Facebook has been entrusting and surprisingly enjoyable. I highly recommend it if you are feeling bogged down with technology!

tumblr takes a stance

On February 23, 2012, the popular social site Tumblr announced in their A New Policy Against Self-Harm Blogs post that they would but an end to self-harm blogs - blogs that glorified cutting, eating disorders, and self-mutilation.

In general, I favor the stance Tumblr has taken. The site values free speech by allowing anyone to create a profile and write about whatever that person would like; however, some view this new ban on certain blogs as censorship. Why is it okay to hinder these voices?

I stumbled upon an article from Tech Crunch - Tumblr On Its Self-Harm Blog Ban: Support is OK, Glorification is Not - which really draws some interesting points and things to consider when discussing the recent Tumblr ban. The author, Sarah Perez, asks the following:

But if it's going to take a stance against self-harm, then what about taking a stance against harm in general? Rape? Violence against women? Hate crimes? Drugs? Alcohol? Pornography?

I applaud Tumblr for addressing an issue for a while, and hope they stand strong with their stance. They will be working in conjunction with various health organizations to plant PSAs when certain words are searched, as stated in their most recent follow-up post. There are many controversial blog topics, and it would be nearly impossible to address all - but the current issues addressed may hopefully save some lives.