Religion 3.0

When it comes to my experience with religion in my own life I have had both positive and negative outcomes. I myself am not a very religious person I don’t practice or live my life by a particular religion on a daily basis. I do however find myself fairly educated about the history of a hand full of religions therefore I feel when I do talk and discuss religion I can identify certain aspects of some and hold a valid discussion. If someone was to ask me what my religion is I would respond with “I am a Christian but I don’t attend any church, I believe in a higher power but I don’t practice religion on a regular basis.” With this answer I have found that people accept this answer without trying to tap into much of what I believe they simply say okay and usually move on with the conversation. I typically try to avoid tenants that have religion at the base of it because with religion there can be strong convictions, and passions present that could have the potential to escalate into a much bigger argument and debate and I try to avoid those if I can help myself. I really like the idea of religion in people’s life I feel religion can bring a sense of purpose and belonging in people’s life. The idea of having a higher entity at the helm of one’s life is motivating for some to think that there is a master plan in place and everything will eventually come if one continues to follow the faith in which they practice. Like I said I really like the idea of religion in one’s life if that’s what they seek. Religion is great for guidance it can provide the words and provoke the thoughts to change one’s life for the better. For some people religion is all that they know, it’s what they were raised on, it influences them and it’s how they have lived their lives. I don’t feel that I have the means to argue or debate with someone about religious aspects or backgrounds and histories of religion. The way that I see it as I’m likely not going to change the others opinion and there not likely going to change mine. So what was really accomplished? Nothing in my opinion you have your beliefs and I have mine therefore I don’t see any validity in arguing religious tenants.

A problem that I have found in the media regarding religion is the notion behind the LDS church coming out and making a statement regarding the use of medical cannabis for the healing process of individuals with special symptoms. I work in the medical field and I plan to have a career in healthcare throughout the remainder of my life so I am a strong advocate for the idea behind using new methods of treatment for the healing process if those methods have been proved to yield results, which medicinal cannabis has done for many years in other states. The problem that I have with the church making this statement opposing the bill that is trying to allow for this use of medicine to be used is the notion behind separation of church and state. This is a complete violation of that notion, the LDS church has no authority in making this opposition go public. So I’m curious as to why they feel they need to make this claim? So the LDS church obviously opposes the use of cannabis for recreational purposes that’s fine, yes I agree its classified as a schedule 1 narcotic and its illegal in the state that’s not what I’m saying here. The point I want to make is that who are they as a non-profit organization to step out and say that they don’t support the use of any forms of cannabis for medical purposes even though there are patients here in Utah that have been witnessed to the positive effects of certain forms of cannabis extract that do indeed have legit medical purposes. With Utah being the LDS stronghold there is obviously members who sit in the senate or in the house of representatives that are likely going to be influenced by these statements of opposition from the church. LDS members tend to have a strong conviction for their religion and on a regular basis practice the words and teachings of their prophets fairly strictly from what I have seen. So when the church makes this statement the members who serve in government and have the power to essentially control this outcome are going to likely push in favor of what the church has expressed as where they stand regarding the matter. To me this is extremely unfair and an act of manipulation they are ignoring facts regarding medical use and implementing their doctrine to influence an outcome of a very apparent issue. What I would like to see is for all churches and religions in general to keep their opinions within their walls of their church not out in public because at times their can be unfair influences at hand that could allow for something great to not have a chance to succeed in a state for the people who really need it.

OTM #2 Zika Virus

While listening to this podcast on the Zika virus I had to begin by researching this virus because I wasn’t very familiar nor had I really even heard much about it until now. I come to find that it was a mosquito bourne illness which causes microcephaly in new born babies. Which helped me understand the podcast titled “Ignore That Thing About Zika and Pesticides” much better when they started talking about the implications of the virus and what its origin is. In 2014 there were 150 reported cases of microcephaly across all of Brazil, and in 2015 there were 3,893 cases reported. (Chelala, 2016)  However, Dr. Margaret Chan, director of the World Health Organization suggested much caution and responded with “Although a causal link between Zika infection in pregnancy and microcephaly has not, and I must emphasize, has not been established, the circumstantial evidence is suggestive and extremely worrisome,” (Chelala, 2016) The problem has been identified but not necessarily been credited to the Zika virus. There seems to be a lot of skepticism surrounding this virus and if it really is the cause of the birth defects found in children in this particular part of the world. Environmental activists have been calling the attention to not the Zika virus being the culprit but rather the role of pesticides as the possible cause of microcephaly in children. Many experts as well as environmental activists alerted on how some agricultural chemicals such as paraquat which is classified as highly poisonous is being extensively used in countries like northeast Brazil where almost a third of cases of microcephaly have occurred thus far. (Chelala, 2016)

This idea of not knowing where this problem is coming from is psychologically damaging to the people of this area as well as other countries who have seen a rise in this outbreak. It is terrifying to not know the source of something as terrible as this birth defect is. Is it the mosquitos or is it the pesticides used to keep the mosquitos away and produce their exports? This has a psychological effect on all involved in this because the proper safety measures haven’t been identified to take precaution against this. On the social level of this epidemic experts and civilians don’t necessarily know who to turn to in this matter for information. Some experts are saying it’s the pesticides while others are saying it’s from the mosquitos so socially who do we trust and turn to for information regarding this issue when the experts can’t agree on what the problem is. This situation poses the need to urgently investigate more thoroughly on both the Zika virus as well as the pesticides in causing microcephaly in children so that professionals and experts can collaborate with each other to come up with an appropriate solution to the matter. The not knowing and that lack of communication is effecting the culture negatively as well. Brazil is deemed as a fairly popular vacation destination and the culture could suffer due to these allegations of the Zika virus as well as the allegations of the pesticides. Both are harming the cultural and the people that live there. The lack of knowing I feel is the big issue I think more time needs to be spent on what the origin is in this birth defect and identify ways to proceed forward without there being a problem of not knowing the origin needs to be determined so that matters can be pressed on to finding a solution for all that are involved.

Privacy 2.0

Is privacy still relevant in todays society? Is there such a thing as privacy anymore in our society with all the technology that is present? Upon thinking about this subject matter I googled the definition of "Privacy" which stated "the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people". To me this concept is fading away very fast if it hasn't already. I don't feel like I have any real privacy when it comes to the idea of big brothers always watching especially with the technology that is active in our everyday lives. We are being watched and tracked everyday whether we are aware of it or not. First example that I have that I came aware of about three months ago is the location services on your iPhone. There is a service hidden deep within the iPhone that comes active with every new phone that is purchased. I came aware that my phone was tracking my location when I accidently swiped down I saw that my phone said "right now it would take you about 11 minutes to drive home". I saw this and thought to myself I don't remember putting in any address in my phone telling it what my home address was. This generally concerned me I googled iPhone tracking services and found something that I wasn't very happy about. Under the location tab there is a switch called frequent locations and when I opened it up to see what content had been stored I was quite sickened with the information that was saved. The phone tracked every location that I had visited and for how long I stayed there up to the minute that I left that location. This is alarming to me that my phone tracked and stored this information with out me knowing. This gets me thinking how else am I being tracked on a daily bases without my knowing?
With the notion of privacy in the media the NSA has many times been at the forefront of the many issues regarding privacy and surveillance and what they are able to access and track. The NSA was found to have been working with major telecommunications provider AT&T in which they were intercepting average Americans phone calls and internet communications. Every time you search something on the web that information is being stored and tracked for others to have access to. Aside from being stored it is also using that information to classify you into a particular category or group in which information can then be sent back to you based off your stored searches. What are concerns when surfing the web or operating on and within your social media sites? How can we protect ourselves? One thing I found is that the users need to familiarize themselves with the privacy policy and adjust there settings to there desired results. Many people simply just aren't aware that their information is being stored and tracked they are naïve to the thought of someone else being able to use that information against them. Education oneself is the first step in protect yourself know what information is viewed as well as viewed by. It also begins with trust, who are you willing to trust on your social networks with the information that you have posted. I know that I honestly don't really know half of the people who follow me on Facebook so why would I post something to people whom I don't know or trust. This is the thinking that tends to get overlooked when someone shares information about themselves we tend to not realize the potential audience that we are reaching on a daily bases with our posts and searches on social media. Users need to take caution and be aware of what they are doing and who could potentially see what there doing. Doing this will increase your safety and private information while online.

OTM #1

This week I listened to On the Media’s podcast called Laws of the Lying Game. This podcast highlights a Houston grand jury who was charged with investigating misconduct involved with planned parenthood. The grand jury has rather instead of perusing planned parenthood, indicted the two anti-abortion activists from the Center for Medical Progress; David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt. The two used fake identification and secretly filmed officials discussing the harvesting and procurement of fetal tissue. Using the argument of undercover journalism which protects their rights of speech they exposed their works for the public to see. The issue is over media law and ethics and on whether or not the two operated within a legal means of obtaining the information. Using their interviews in Texas with the planned parenthood members they were able to produce the signature of Mellissa Farrell on receipts that they say proves that Planned Parenthood profits from human organ trafficking and then released a new video compilation showing Farrell admit that such revenues create margin to “help pad the bottom line of there company.” (Johnson, 2016)  

With the evidence piled up against Planned Parenthood Harris County grand jury ignored the evidence and indicted Daleiden and his associate Sandra Merritt on a second-degree felony charge of tampering with a governmental record, and a misdemeanor charge for violating the states “prohibition of the purchase and sale of human organs.” (Johnson, 2016) With many initial pleas that the grand jury charges be throw out the Harris County District said in a video that the two will have their day in court. The two have both agreed to turn themselves in and fight the accusations in court.

The social context in which they operated was that of deception and lying to get the information in which they wanted. With the lying and deception, the people whom were participating in the interviews were obviously unaware of the situation and didn’t have their guard up to give proper cultural answers. They exposed how planned parenthood officials think and act to generate what they wanted. They manipulated their thinking to get the information that they desired. Using psychological and social methods they built a plan in which to operate. Now the idea and concepts of ethics in media law are at play and they ones who were acted against are not happy and accusing them of acting unethically to receive information. Their argument is that they operated in ways that undercover journalists have for many years and see no implications of why they are being indicted by a grand jury on these charges for they feel as they were serving the public on a right to know basis.