One reason why “Next Friday” gives a wrong message to viewers about African Americans, and Latinos that the two ethnicities are gang related, drug users, and dishonor woman.

The movie is a sequel to “Friday” and starts of in the city of Compton, Los Angeles. Craig (the main character) is at his house and does not have anything to eat. He is very bored and so he decides he wants to get high of marijuana. Craig pulls out a handful and is very happy now. He roles a joint and smokes it down. He then is high, hungry, and has no job.
This is a reason why this movie portrays groups of people in a bad way. Craig the black teenager is dressed like a gang member. He has no food in the house, and he has no job. Once he smokes and becomes high, he becomes a stereotype. This scene is gives the message that all young black teenagers are hungry, jobless, and high off of drugs.

Later in the movie Craig moves to his aunt and uncles house. They are neighbors with a house of Latino males. When they come home they ride up in a low rider, chrome bumpers, and hydraulics that make the car bounce up and down. When the men get out of the car, a stare down between Craig and the men happens.
This is also why this movie portrays groups of people in a bad way. The men are also dressed like gang members, but with a little flare. They wear low jeans, wife beaters, beanies covering their eyes. The men all have strong Hispanic voices who speak English. All of the men are intimidating. This scene gives the role of all Hispanics in a lower poverty level being gangsters, and very stereo typical label of what everyone views a Hispanic as.

Some people would say that these portrayals are somewhat true, and that the only reason why the men in the movie are acting, dressing, like this is because it is close to the truth. That if one goes into L.A. that the majority of black people and Hispanic people will be exactly what you see in the movie. However it is not true that every single is what you see in the movie. Life is not a movie, it is real. The mass majority of both populations are nothing like what is seen in “Next Friday.”

Overall I think that this movie does give racial groups a bad label. But it is a movie, and a comedy at that. It is very important to learn how to tell the difference. Still people need to be considerate when choosing roles, and how a character is going to be perceived. No matter how much humor is intended, there will always be a person who is offended.

The copyright is a very serious right that lasts for a lifetime plus 70 years! That is a long time to have something that can not be copied. But is it to long? To short? I think that it is the perfect amount of time. If somebody feels the need to have their work protected from other people using it, then to me the piece of work must be very legit and long amount of time must have been needed.

It is only fair to have this right available to the people of the United States. I think that if we did not have it then anybody could take an idea and use it, then say it was their original idea. If the country was like this, we would be in a place of madness. It would be very hard to get any credit for anything because nobody would think you were the first to come up with a certain idea.

So I have already stated that I feel that it is perfectly fine to have the copyright for everyone. Now I will state my opinion about how long the copyright lasts for.

It would be stupid to have a copyright that would only last for a couple of years. Because why get sometime copyrighted for a couple of years, then it is open to the public, then everyone uses it.

This is why it was a great choice to make the copyright length a lifetime plus 70 years. This allows nobody to try to take something from the original creator. Nobody will be alive for that amount of time. I understand the lifetime, but the extra seventy years throws me off. But copyright has been going of for a long time and it looks like it works pretty well. I also really like ones that time is up it become a part of the public domain.

Copyright is a media law, and needs to be taken very serious. It is a great thing, and keeps this country thinking for itself.  

The story was about how the state of Washington joined Oregon as the second state to allow physicians to prescribe lethal doses of medication to terminally ill people. The measure passed 59 percent to 41 percent. It did not come easy and withstood many legal challenges because the issue is very touchy, and many rules were set in place so the measure would not be taken advantage of.

The rules are that the state residents requesting the assistance must be mentally competent, have six months or less to live according to two physicians, wait 15 days after their request and then repeat that request orally and in writing. They must be able to administer medication themselves and patients must be told of alternatives.

According to Dr. Timothy E. Quill, the options have gained acceptance over the past decade. This was much different about 11 years ago when the Supreme Court rules that there was no constitutional right to physician assisted suicide and kept a prohibition against it.  The doctor says that physician assisted death was not the singular solution, but says terminally ill patients should have access to palliative care.

In my opinion about the story I did not think it was sensationalized, because the topic was a very serious one that would be hard to make it more than it is. I think that physician assisted death will become more popular in the future as technology advances and that it is not a horrible thing.

The story did a good job on letting the reader know about assisted death, and gave the terms to how it worked and about the process to have it done. The topic is not very complicated and was self explanatory. I liked this article because I think the topic is very interesting. None natural death, the writer kept the line in the middle and did not make his personal choices present in the story.

The reporter did a great job in using a doctor to use quotes from. A very legit doctor to who has personally assisted patient’s death. His quotes were good. I think that he made a great choice in using this doctor because he feels that patients should have more options and not look at assisted death until everything else has been tried.

The story overall was very good, I learned new things about physician assisted death, and have some knew views on it I did not have before. I think its cool also that Oregon was the first state to allow it. Classic thing for this state to do: stick out and not be normal.   

White gold is white gold. This is the future of milk, and has replaced the old saying “got milk” This online branded community for milk is one of many that can be found all over the online world. My job this week was to do some research about a branded community. It sure was fun.

After I spent an hour exploring all around the white gold site I had some mixed thoughts. First the idea is very comical. The main guy who interacts with you the whole time made me laugh. And I think I realized why they found this guy to do the site. I had some of his songs and lines in my head for a while after I was done exploring the site. They did a very good job on keeping this original. I can’t believe the whole site is for milk.

Second I really liked the layout and how easy it was so get to every single different page of the website. There was a very sleek and futuristic feel, I liked that.

Overall I think that the site is very engaging and can keep the voyager (the online user) busy for hours. There is so much to do, and after you try to do it all I swear it makes you thirsty for milk. I have always been a big milk guy so maybe I was easily amused. I feel that it will make anyone feel that milk is the cool thing to drink. After all it is white gold.  

According to research done by Craig Keizer, video games promote violence to kids. Playing violent video games is also worst than watching 24-hours of television. He says that video games are not only played by kids, but also adults. He says that the rating of the games needs to be stricter for the ages under 18. The only way to stop kids from buying the violent games is to enforce the law of rating.  

According to research done by Ran Wei videogame violence on Chinese adolescents makes them more associated with violence, a lower emphatic attitude, and more of an aggressive behavior. His research said that the effects were greater on attitude than behavior.  

According to research done by Sonya Brady there are links between media violence exposure and favorable attitudes toward interpersonal violence. Studies showed that greater number of hours spent with violent media (violent videogames) was associated with more favorable attitudes towards military, crime, and interpersonal violence.

I believe that videogames emit violence to the user. Research shows that when a gamer plays a violent game, that it becomes a mental part of their life as well. The problem is not the adults who play these games; it is the kids and young teens that have many hours of the day to become deeply obsessed with the videogame. When a young child buys a game that they are not supposed to play because of the video game rating that is when the problem presents itself. If a kid is always playing a violent game, then they will think it is alright to have a violent mindset. This leads to aggressive attitude which leads to violent behavior.

Readers might argue that it’s a videogame, it’s a virtual reality, and how can it affect a kid. However videogames become addicting. And the violent ones are always the most popular. When someone spends hours killing people or blowing things up, it starts to add up. Especially on a young undeveloped brain like many of the video gamers are.

The other argument of this is that you need to be a certain age to buy a violent game. This is true but many parents just buy the kids the games, and actually never see what the game consists of.

After the research of violence in videogames I came to the conclusion that there needs to be stricter rules for kids under the age of 18 to by violent videogames. Why are the violent games to popular? Who knows, but I feel that the youth of this nation today are losing the appreciation of having fun with out technology. Violence needs to stop being available to the youth because all it will do is corrupt their young innocent minds. The research shows it, violence is nothing any young person should experience. And defiantly not play with it.   

Keizer, Gregg (1994). Dangerous Games. Retrieved 10 30, 2008, from http://metalib.uoregon.edu:8331/V/G8TKFQ5MG2MT16UUYTUKNQVXUSHS8Y674KXHTHAD3TB8L9SKXX-39897?func=quick-3&short-format=002&set_number=007522&set_entry=000001&format=999

Wei, Ran (2007). Effects of Playing Violent Videogames on Chinese Adolescents’ . Retrieved 10 30, 2008, from http://metalib.uoregon.edu:8331/V/G8TKFQ5MG2MT16UUYTUKNQVXUSHS8Y674KXHTHAD3TB8L9SKXX-42383?func=quick-3&short-format=002&set_number=007522&set_entry=000003&format=999

Brady , Sonya (2007). Young adults’ media use and attitudes toward interpersonal and institutional forms of aggression.. Retrieved 10 30, 2008, from http://metalib.uoregon.edu:8331/V/G8TKFQ5MG2MT16UUYTUKNQVXUSHS8Y674KXHTHAD3TB8L9SKXX-43504?func=quick-3&short-format=002&set_number=007522&set_entry=000011&format=999

The stories that I read were all different. They consisted of 8 myths about voting, sports activism, fighting poverty with a green economy, and sex and relationship tips.

These are all dissimilar topics but all were interesting and appealing. The first story was about voting myths and answering questions about the voting process. All the questions seemed to be asked by new and first time voters.

The second story asked the question is sports activism is dying in the US. The topic was about if the athletes today are aware of social justice, and how sports have always run this country.

The third story was about the idea of green jobs being able to help communities get out of poverty.

The fourth and fifth articles were dealing with relationship and sex questions and tips.

Some of the stories that were covered were different that the other ones. The difference was that some of the reporters who wrote the articles were at the scene and had questions with real people and quotes from people who had something to do with the story. The other articles seemed to be written in an office.

All together all of the stories were done very well, and seemed to have a lot of work put into them. They all were very professional and had many sources to let the reader know where the information has came from.

The articles were mostly the typical style, most had some type of interview or other people in the story. One article had a Q and A, another had quotes from people who had something to do with the story. The only problem I found was the articles were in English, and I could not find any in Spanish or another language.

I believe that the Oregonian did a good job on covering the presidential election over the last three days. Although both parties were represented fairly and the facts were mostly straight, some areas could be improved on. My first observation was that simple format that they set up the election page on. It had many articles that supported and attacked the party. It had many polls that said who was winning, new issues that have come up, and last second updated news. The site was very easy to navigate and not to overwhelming. I think that is a very key component to a well done news website. A site that lets the reader choose where they want to go and what they want to read.

The number one reason why I thought the site was very good was because over the last three days the articles had the golden rule in journalism, the “press as custodian of fact”. This is a very important term from the book “The Press Effect” written by Waldman and Jamieson. The articles from the Oregonian all had the same qualities which consist of use of common sense, following the facts, and showing the big picture. The articles about Barack Obama and John McCain were always the same but yet so different. The similarities were they both always had a plan that one candidate had, they both always had many facts that backed up what the journalist was writing about, and both help tell the reader what the plan will do for our future. The differences were that each was about a different candidate.

The three days of coverage of news that I read was all quality work, and a reminder that the Oregonian is one of the best newspapers on the west coast. It consists of journalists that love what they do, and want the readers to be completely aware of what is going on in the political world.

The only problem I had sometimes was the occasional “horserace politics” where the writer would have a couple paragraphs on just who was winning and not why they were winning. Besides that I was very happy with the source that I went with.

I liked this project because I received some great facts and information about each candidate. I hope that you keep reading my blogs and sharing the wealth of information on the world of blogging.

Coming in on the debate McCain was down in the polls and he needed to have a solid performance to level out the polls. If he does not do this then it will soon become a steep uphill battle for John McCain to be the next president. I liked the second debate more because it was in the town hall format. It made it more personal because of only about 50 people were in the room while it was going on. I would have loved to be there and had the chance to ask a question and have the two promising candidates answer it.

I didn’t think that one candidate did a stellar job on sticking with the question that was asked, as both answered the questions from citizens in the audience. Instead both would touch on the subject and then they would start flaunting their policies. As the debate went on both parties argued their sides and made their points, but McCain never landed any knockout punches that he needed to gain more votes in the polls. This is why I think Obama won the debate was because he was already ahead, and has been doing a very good job at gaining more and more momentum.

I thought that both parties did the same thing in the debate, not really answering the questions that were formatted for a town hall debate, but instead went back and forth criticizing one another and trying to land low blows to make one another mad.

Another reason why I think Obama won the second debate was because after it was over, we had our own discussion and used iclickers to vote on which party did better. Just like in the national polls many students voted for Obama and thought he did a better job, and had better style.

After this debate I am completely sure on who I will vote for. It is so exciting to be apart of the most important presidential election in US history. I hope that all young voters will vote and let their voices be heard.