Having been a young child in the 60's, I distinctly remember television commercials during after school programs, like this one for Xerox.
If anyone doesn't find this Xerox commercial offensive enough to the female gender, Check out this tire commercial from about the same time.
It's amazing how the television perception of the female gender was so biased 50 years ago.
The really sad part is that's the way women were perceived back then, even outside the world of TV. Even sadder is the fact that except for a few women at that time likeGloria Steinem most women were willing to accept their role in life in America as second class citizens.
Fortunately, as a society we no longer belittle people simply on the base of gender.View this commercial as an example of how indiscriminate we have become.
This (stupid dad) Verizon commercial was removed after much pressure from a men's rights group named His Side
It's nice to see how far our society has progressed in the past 50 years. American men and women have finally become able to put gender aside and treat each other as equals. Makes me wonder where we will be in 2055? .....Cane Man
Recently I viewed the movie Capitalism: A Love Story, which was directed by film maker Michael Moore and released in 2009. Throughout the movie Moore examines the possibility/probability that capitalism is nothing more than corporate CEO's and the U.S. government (sometimes intertwined) brainwashing Americans into believing in a simple competitive market called capitalism.
It is my opinion that Michael Moore does an excellent job at attempting to tug on a variety emotions to persuade viewers to view capitalism as he does. He introduces information that could insight fear, anger, laughter and even guilt just to name a few. He also introduced some prior unknown information. According to film critic Roger Ebert, the film footage of FDR's private White House State of the Union Address concerning a second bill of rights had not been seen by the public prior to this movie.
I should probably point out that my opinion may not count for much, or should it? My childhood years growing up in the 60's and 70's was a mirror image of the beginning of the movie. My mother was a stay at home mom and my father was the sole breadwinner. In fact my father was only required to work 35 hours a week as a construction election. With only one income and very frugal parents, my brother and I had a wonderful life. We lived in a beautiful house in an upscale suburb, went to great schools and even had a new car about every three years.
My opinion may not also count for much because I grew up just outside of the city of Detroit which is a city of topic in the movie. I personally not only saw, but experienced what corporate greed as well as our government's so called free trade capitalist law changes did to Detroit. What was once our nations epicenter of thriving industry and offered good jobs to those willing to work, became a ghost town of abandoned factories with no jobs to offer anyone.
I think I needed some of the lighter, more humorous segments in the movie to help me calm down a bit. I thoroughly enjoyed the portion in the movie where Moore wraps major banks with "crime scene" yellow tape and attempts to make a series of citizens arrests.
I wish that I was not so in tune with Michael's point of view on this issue. I would liked to have viewed it with no prior opinion of the subject, that way I could objectively asses/react to his point of view. I'm looking forward hearing the opinions of others who have not lived through what Michael Moore has presented in this movie.
The historical phrase "Taxation without representation is a tyranny." is generally attributed to James Otis around 1761. At that time the American colonists felt that the British Parliament was unfairly imposing taxes on things such as stamps,sugar and tea imports, which the colonists had no say about. Eventually the colonists began to revolt against the Parliament by actions such as the "Boston Tea Party." All of this dissension among the colonists eventually led to the Revolutionary War. The American colonists were willing to fight and even die for the ability to have in say in the taxation placed on themselves.
Thefirst official Federal income income tax became implemented in 1914. At that time couples filing jointly earning less than $20,000 paid a rate of 1%. Couples earning in excess of $500,000 paid their taxes at a rate of 7%. By 2013 those rates had progressed to 10% for couples earning under $17,850 and 39.6% for those her earned over $450,000 annually.
It's no secret that many Americans of today are dissatisfied with our current government, government spending and higher income taxes. In fact, a recent Gallup pole found that 90% of Americans do not like the job our congress is doing in Washington. With so many unsatisfied customers, how is possible that in 2012 91% of the congressional incumbents that ran for office were re-elected. The answer to that question is not as complicated as you might think.
Consider the fact that approximately only 1/3 of U.S. citizens know the names of their representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives and only 27% know the names of both of their U.S. Senators. Now add in the fact that the voter turnout was only 58.2% for those elections. If you put all these numbers together, you will come to realize that 58.2% voted and only 30% of these voters even knew the name of their incumbent representatives. Does that mean that half of small number of voters that did vote, did't even know who they were voting for?
According to the United States Census Bureau, by 2014 the number of voters participating in Congressional elections had fallen to only 41.9%. Even in the last Presidential election only 57.5% of Americans voted for the highest elected position in the U.S. Right here in Arizona last year only 44% of the registered voters actually voted in the gubernatorial election.
The point that I am trying to make is this: Our forefathers strongly disagreed with their government's conduct at that time. They not only complained about "Taxation Without Representation." but they stood up and did something about it. Today most Americans feel that their views and opinions are not being properly defended in Washington. The difference between us and the colonists is that we're not willing to do much, if anything about it. More than 1/2 of the American don't exercise a right that many people in other countries are willing to die for much as our forefathers did. If you don't vote or don't know who are what you're voting for, forget about proper representation from elected politicians, because you're not even trying to represent yourself. I urge to represent yourself every chance you get....Cane Man.
After having read the article in the Arizona Republic concerning ASU adding more 7 1/2 week semesters to their course catalog, I found myself generally in favor of the idea. I'm always in favor of more options of education at any level. Not everyone learns at the same pace. I would like to see many more options in education beginning as early as elementary school. The opportunity to learn and succeed should not be held back from anyone simply because "That's the way we've always done it!"
Last summer I had a five week semester in English 101. Although I found it to be a pretty fast pace, I think in some ways it was easier because there really was no break in the action. For me it seemed much easier to stay focused.
One advantage I could see in the shorter semesters is that students would have the opportunity to study diligently for 7 1/2 weeks, then work more hours, if not full time in between semesters. Some students might find this easier than juggling both work and school at the same time.
Early on in the article, Anne Ryman comments that the students could end up paying lower tuition fees. I'm not exactly sure how that could be since it was not explained in the article. In any event, lower tuition fees would I'm sure help out the students as well as their families.
I tried (online) to find out what the average grades were at ASU for 7 1/2 week semester vs the 15 week semester. Unfortunately, I was unable to locate that information. My concern being that perhaps students taking the shorter semesters may not be learning as much as the would have learned in a standard semester. School should be about learning, not winning a race.
Besides the possibility of the students learning less in condensed semesters, I only have one other concern. That concern revolves around the faculty having little input in this decision. I would hope that none of the faculty would be forced to teach short semesters or loose their job. Selfishly, I really don't want to be educated by anyone that has a bad attitude and doesn't even want to be there.
On the other hand, as stated in the article, some faculty members fully embrace this idea. I'd like to see the faculty members have a choice. As long as both the students and the faculty have more options in education, I'm all for it. ......Cane Man.
Whenever I here the term "Politically Correct", I find myself feeling three different emotions. The first emotion I feel is anger, the second is fear, then finally I calm down and enjoy the humor of it all.
I get angry when I hear that phrase because the whole idea has the opposite effect of what I believe is the intended purpose. Rather than different races, cultures and religions becoming more united by not insulting one another, it separates us by fear. We have become afraid to converse or correspond with people different than ourselves because in some way that we not be aware of, we might hurt their feelings. Maybe we fear that we could become involved in a civil suite or possibly even end up incarcerated for some new form a hate crime. So instead of openly conversing and asking questions about someones origin, political, religious beliefs, etc., we choose to not interact with someone that we're afraid we might insult. Recently, high school football player Pedro Banda was kicked off the team right here in El Mirage, Arizona for pointing to the sky after making a touchdown. Dysart school board members claim that he was kicked off the team for "excessive celebration" of his achievement, not because a religious gesture. The story made National news including the Nancy Grace Show. In a taped interview on that show, Banda says he was in fact pointing to heaven and saying a prayer if thanks.
So I guess at this point in time, you have to watch everything you do or say because it could have grave consequences. Because of his actions Banda will not be allowed to play his senior year, possibly eliminating any chance of a football scholarship.
Now it's time to calm down and and humor in all of this. Think about the term "Politically Correct". Was this term created by Politicians? I hope not, because Politicians in general, seem to be the group that is most confused on this issue. Example: Many Politicians have endorsed a variety of anti-bullying laws, but they love to bully their opponents. While in public they say that they disapprove of bullying, they are perhaps the biggest bullies in our nation. They have no problem informing the public about their opponents corruption, lack of knowledge, poor choices and infidelities. Sometimes they stoop so low as to attack friends and family of their rivals.
I don't believe that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was ever intended for Americans to feel free to personally attack one other verbally, but I also do not believe our forefathers ever intended for us to be afraid to say anything to anyone. America has become what is is today because historically we have been a giant Melting Pot consisting of many different cultures exchanging views and ideas, not by being afraid to talk to someone with a background different than our own. .....Cane Man
Forty years ago on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, a major event in American history took place. It was so long ago that most people either don't remember it, or have never heard of it because they had not been born yet.
Two FBI agents, Jack R. Coler and Ronald A.Williams entered an American Indian reservation at Pine Ridge, South Dakota, for the purpose of arresting an American Indian by the name of Jimmy Eagle on robbery charges. At some point, for whatever reason gunfire was exchanged. Unfortunately the two FBI agents died that day from gunshot wounds.
There has been much controversy and varied opinions as to what actually happened that day at Pine Ridge in June of 1975 between the FBI and the members of the American Indian Movement (AIM). Eventually Leonard Peltier, the leader of AIM and two other American Indians, Bob Robideau and Dino Butler were arrested for murder. Although the prosecution had matching evidence against all three, Leonard Peltier was the only one to be found guilty of murder and was sentenced to two consecutove life terms. Robideau and Butler were acquitted upon the jury hearing evidence that was presented by the defense. The defense persuaded the Jury that a history of fear and violence at Pine Ridge may have led to what the defendants believed at the time to be self defense.
The presiding Judge in Peltier's case was Judge Paul Benson. After granting Peltier a change of venue, Judge Benson had the case sent to his home town of Fargo, North Dakota. An all- white jury of ten men and two women was selected. Judge Benson quickly gave the prosecutors some important victories. The judge ruled that any evidence of any possible improprieties at Pine Ridge by the FBI prior to June 26, 1975, would not be admissible in court. He did however rule that pictures of the slain FBI agents could be shown to the jury.
The Honorable Judge Benson
Many groups including Amnesty International as well as American Indian celebrities such as Robert Redford and the late Marlon Brando, have fought to have Leonard Peltier pardoned for the last forty years to no avail. The supporters of Peltier believe he did not receive a fair trial because of his leadership role in AIM. They also believe that because it was FBI agents that died that day, the U.S. Government had to find someone guilty, and that only left Peltier.We have all heard the phrase "You can't fight city hall." try fighting in Federal Court with a Judge who has already determined your fate.
On December 16, 2000 three hundred FBI agents marched on the White House to urge then President Clinton to reject clemency for Peltier. A reporter for a California newspaper stated that he or she found the news coverage on the march to be "slanted" in favor of the FBI.
On December 22, 2000 six days after the FBI march, the Chicago Tribune Published an article titled "No Clemency For Murderer Peltier". The Author (unknown) used very descriptive language such as "ambush", "gaping wounds" (referring to the IRS agents injuries). The Author also comments on how as the FBI agents died, as they were lying in the dust. Midway through the article the author also states that "What has not changed is that Peltier is as guilty as it gets".
On December 27, 2000 before leaving office, President Clinton stated that he would review the 1975 Peltier case as well as other clemency cases.
Leonard Peltier is still in prison in Lewisburg, Pensylvania. Is it possible that one or a series of "slanted" articles, elected officials, broadcasts, public outcries etc.,can determine the future course of how we live or don't live our lives?
......Cane Man
