Reflection

I've blogged for several years now (namely on my Tumblr, where I post short stories, artwork, and social commentaries). Blogging for my writing class has been a new experience, because I've had to blog about certain topics and issues-- not just what came to mind. Nevertheless, it's been a great experience. Because everyone else in my class blogged on the same things, it was nice to see and understand others' opinions regarding certain aspects of the world we live in. Furthermore, it was great being able to comment on others' posts and engage in conversations regarding their posts both on and outside of their blogs.

Blogging is very different from class discussions or formal writing in that it's far more relaxed. While bloggers must still maintain proper writing and grammar skills, blogging provides a venue for writers to express their ideas without worrying about necessarily persuading someone. While formal writing is often a persuasive endeavor, blogging is more about expressing ideas and opinions. Furthermore, blogging really doesn't involve the many drafts and revisions required of formal papers. Self-expression has little need to be so refined in blog posts.

I will certainly continue blogging in the future, especially on my Tumblr. It allows me to express myself in my own way and style, and it encourages me to explore myself and the world around me.

My own farewell artwork

Logical Fallacy - Cybersecurity Bills Article (CNN)

This article is about bills aimed to prevent cybersecutiy attacks that could compromise national security. While many valid claims are made, the following passage is a logical fallacy.

"We are incredibly vulnerable," he said. "If we don't make our policy makers think about this seriously, we'll be dealing with something like 9/11."

This is the slippery slope fallacy, which the Writing 140 course book defines as implying "that a small step in a certain direction, in personal choice or social policy, will inevitably lead one down a slippery slope toward ruin and disaster." 

That is exactly what this statement from the article is doing. It is suggesting that without the proposed legislation, our country will surely face a calamitous disaster on the scale of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Instead of admitting that there may be other solutions, the statement suggests that the only way to prevent such a disaster is to enact the proposed legislation. It is an unexplained, exaggerated prediction-- not responsible argumentation.

Examples of Activism via Digital Media

One specific example of activism via digital media is the use of Twitter for demonstrations in Iran. While some believe Twitter played an essential role in helping protestors gather and gain momentum, others say there was no such Twitter Revolution at all (see Malcolm Gladwell's piece in the New Yorker). They argue that it only appears Twitter played an essential role, because the West's primary way of finding out about the events was through the social networking site. Furthermore, they say most of the Tweets we see from the demonstrations are in English, which probably would not have created as much momentum as if the posts were in Farsi. This highlights a big issue with digital media in general-- it's very difficult to gauge the effect it has, especially in social activism. In the case of the Iran demonstrations, it is nearly impossible to discern what real effect Twitter had on the protests-- did we (the West) only find out about what was being tweeted? And, in that case, what was left out? How else did the demonstrations spread? Because it is impossible to find out whether or not a specific tweet or Facebook post actually had an effect on someone, it is difficult to gauge the effect of digital media on activism.

This is similar to the Kony 2012 campaign (see famous video). The video spread entirely through digital media, mainly Facebook and Twitter. Due to the way it spread, it is difficult to discern what effect it actually had on people, and whether people were really interested in what was going on. Facebook and Twitter make it so easy for people to simply "like" or "share" or "tweet" posts that it becomes almost meaningless. Furthermore, from my own observations, it appears Kony 2012 became more of a trend than a movement. It seemed to be cool to share the video, and if one didn't like or share it, others viewed it as insensitive or uncool. What is clear, though, is how quickly this trend died down. Not only did it become the target of numerous attacks on Invisible Children's goals and practices, people also just seemed to lose interest. The following graph from Trendistic, a site that follows Twitter trends, clearly illustrates how interest in Kony quickly disappeared.

Percentage of Twitter Tweets about Kony

What seems to be the issue is that solely advocating something through the internet, such as the Kony 2012 campaign, fails to keep the interest of people. Since so many people have access to digital media, and it is so easy to advertise one's wishes and desires, it becomes easy to overlook things that actually may have great significance, like Kony 2012. Furthermore, even if one does consider the Kony campaign of utmost importance, Facebook and Twitter make the campaign easy to forget by providing users with constant new, interesting information in the form of status updates, articles people post, etc.

This seems to be one of the biggest, if not the biggest, issues with digital media for social activism. It's just too hard to maintain people's interest for longer than the millisecond it takes them to "like" or "share" and image or video. In an effort to combat the SOPA/PIPA legislation, many websites, including Google, Wikipedia, and Tumblr, carried out "blackouts" which symbolized what said legislation could potentially do to the internet. Wikipedia's blackout actually made their pages unavailable for 24 hours. 

How will kids finish their homework??

While this certainly sparked the attention of millions of internet users, once the blackout day was over, most people soon forgot about the legislation. During the time of the blackout, many of my Facebook friends were discussing the SOPA/PIPA legislation. Unfortunately, I haven't seen a single post about it in the past couple months, while the legislation still hasn't come close to dying.

Ultimately, while digital media makes it very easy to gain the attention of many people, it really struggles to maintain their commitment to whatever cause is being advocated. 

Internet Activism

Recently, I watched a video advocating the Kony 2012 Campaign. The video was incredibly filmed and edited and certainly made an effort to appeal to the viewer's emotions. As suggested by those posting the video, I shared it to "spread awareness" and make the evils of Kony known amongst all my friends. Unfortunately, that's where it ended. At the time, all of my Facebook friends were talking about Kony 2012 and how important it was to spread the word. But, the wave of emotion and support suddenly disappeared, replaced by criticism regarding the organization behind the campaign, Invisible Children. The Kony 2012 campaign seems almost infamous now, with people critiquing its goals left and right and suggesting that there are better ways to go about the conflict than what Invisible Children is advocating.

It seems that internet activism often ends with "awareness." Awareness is always touted as imperative for creating change, however, awareness alone accomplishes very little. Sure, more people now know about Kony's horrific acts throughout Africa; however, how many people are actually doing something (or even what Invisible Children suggested) to fix the issue? Several of my friends, including myself, shared the video, but we have done nothing beyond simply being "aware" of the issue. The internet makes it so easy for us to simply click "share" or "like" on a video that we don't find a reason to go beyond those practices. Furthermore, internet activism often fosters support so quickly (videos going "viral") that organizations also very quickly come under the scrutiny of skeptics, as was the case with Kony 2012. 

Views on Wikipedia

After exploring Wikipedia's process of disseminated knowledge, I think I'm about as likely as before to rely on the website. I've realized that it is extremely reliable, as long as one makes sure the citations are legitimate (and there sure are a lot of citations... Wikipedia editors seem crazy about them, which is a good thing). Furthermore, there are many people editing Wikipedia pages with the goal of making the information more clear, easy to understand, and unbiased.

Unlike before, I now know of the treasure trove of information (and interesting debate) residing on the talk page, and I will definitely visit this page for articles I look at in the future, because it really illustrates how the article evolved and provides potentially useful information that may no longer be in the article itself. Reading the talk page also makes the material at hand far more interesting. Nevertheless, the page holds the danger of simply being a forum for people to express their opinions, which may or may not be accurate, and it can skew or bias the reader's view on the topic being studied.

Unfortunately, investigating Wikipedia's talk pages have somewhat turned me away from attempting to edit pages myself. Several of the current editors (especially those who have been editing for many years) seem arrogant and unwelcoming to new editors. This may be necessary to maintain Wikipedia's distinct style and presentation of information, but it discourages people like myself, who may have valuable insight to offer, from joining the conversation for fear of being shot down. If I do ever join the discussion, it will be regarding a topic I feel extremely knowledgable about and one which I can support with the masses of sources Wikipedia users so unwaveringly desire. 

Authoritative vs. Communal Acquisition of Knowledge

My history class last semester, The Ancient World (expert authority), prohibited the use of Wikipedia (communal acquisition of knowledge) for our research papers. Our professor and TAs suggested that Wikipedia was unreliable and riddled with errors regarding topics such as Athenian Democracy, the life of Julius Caesar, and so forth. However, most students including myself, found Wikipedia far more useful for these topics than other sources, not because Wikipedia was necessarily right, but because its phrasing and presentation were much easier to understand and follow than, say, a 1958 journal study on Greek myths and their contribution to democratic ideals. Yes, we ultimately used primary sources and journal articles as evidence in our papers, but to attain a basic understanding of the topic at hand, the majority of us first searched "Athenian Democracy" or "Julius Caesar" on Wikipedia for a broad, well structured group of information. After reading the Wikipedia article to understand the basics (which the website is almost always accurate about-- it is the minor details which are more likely to contain errors), we found ourselves better prepared to tackle the more complex primary sources and journal articles. Therefore, although ultimately we did not source Wikipedia for claims in our paper (or even the sources found at the bottom of Wikipedia articles), we used the website as a valuable stepping stone in our research.

I find communal acquisition of knowledge more useful, especially in the field of graphic design, which is a hobby of mine. Many graphic designers believe that the only way to get good at making images or designing websites is to take classes (expert authority) and read textbooks. While I have taken classes and used textbooks, which proved very effective at teaching concepts, I find the near infinite free knowledge regarding graphic design concepts (found in the form of Youtube videos made by professionals and amateurs alike, none of their credentials checked before publishing) far more interesting and useful. People online tend to use language that is easier to understand than that of the professionals. Furthermore, online videos (which are free) are far easier to access than expensive textbooks or classes. Due to the sheer number of amateur graphic designers, almost every concept you could ever think of is covered in a Youtube video, while this may not be the case in a time-limited class or page-limited book. 

Logical Fallacy - TSA Toddler Screening Article (CNN)

Original Article


The article is about how "A 2010 video of an airport screener patting down a 3-year-old boy in a wheelchair has become the latest Rorschach test of the public's attitude towards the TSA, pitting agency defenders against those who say the video shows the child being treated like a terrorist."


I found two logical fallacies in this article.


1. ""There is another human being putting their hands on my child. That is not acceptable," [the father] said. "If he was putting his hands on my child at McDonald's or anyplace else, we would immediately have him arrested and call the police.""


This is a non sequitur, which is "distinguished by reasoning or evidence that is exceptionally irrelevant to the claim being made" (Writ 140 Course Book). The father suggests that society would not accept if an older man touched a young child in a McDonalds, which is, of course, true. However, this incident did not take place at McDonalds; on the contrary, this occurred as a security measure at an airport, where it is common practice to pat down travelers. Honestly, an old man touching anyone at McDonalds would not be appropriate, so this father's McDonalds connection really suggests that pat-downs are wrong on anyone, which is not what he appears to be arguing. 


2. ""Totally unacceptable," wrote one YouTube commentator. "I look at the abject terror in this tiny child's eyes, and I know who caused it. I know who the terrorist is -- it's the creep in the blue shirt.""


This is a Youtube comment in response to the video of the pat-down, one of the two CNN highlights in the article. It is a hasty generalization which the Writing 140 Course Book defines as "a broad claim on the basis of narrow evidence, and sometimes on the basis of only one or two examples." The commenter suggests that just because of this one incident, the TSA agent is a "creep" and a "terrorist." This does not take into consideration that the agent is simply carrying out his job and that perhaps he didn't even make the decision to do the pat-down, but was instead told to. The comment takes one short incident and very harshly labels an individual and his entire character.

The Effects of a BP Apology

Making a truly sincere apology that demonstrates BP is committed to preventing disaster's like the Deepwater Horizon spill in the future would help BP improve its reputation. Unfortunately, BP has yet to make a real apology. Very soon after the incident, the CEO said he was very sorry, but then followed his words with statements about how other companies were to blame, and it really wasn't BP's fault. This type of "apology" obviously did not help the Americans who lost money in lost business, and it didn't suggest how BP would help those people or fix the actual spill and the environment. Of course, the CEO's apologetic statements came too soon for the magnitude of this disaster, but they didn't make an apology at all, as they put the blame on other companies.

Almost a year later, the new CEO apologized for the disaster at a petroleum industry meeting/convention. This apology was more thorough, but it was not directed at the American public. Therefore, this apology failed to reach the appropriate public.

Although BP has set up a $20B fund for reparations for the incident, which is one of the best responses of its type from any company in the past, the oil corporation has yet to actually admit responsibility for the disaster. It cannot give full admission due to the legal issues and lawsuits that would ensue. It is understandable that in an effort to not lose their business, BP cannot fully admit fault. However, it can do everything possible to prevent a disaster like this oil spill in the future. Unfortunately, in the wake of the disaster, BP decided to shut down a company unit focused on safety complaints from within the company.  BP claimed this was because the unit was redundant, but this was a massive PR mistake, as it appeared the company was little concerned with safety and just concerned about profits.

In order to truly apologize, BP cannot make mistakes like this, and it must make clear that it is doing all it can to prevent oil spills in the future (using campaigns, donating to organizations which research cleaner energy options, etc). An apology like this would improve BP's image to people around the world and reinstall BP's self-given reputation of a green company. 

Deepwater Horizon (BP) Oil Spill

The 2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (also known as the BP Oil Spill) in the Gulf of Mexico is the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry. Approximately 4.9 million barrels of crude oil (compared to the Exxon Valdez's 250-750,000 barrel estimate) gushed into the gulf after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. The explosion itself killed 11 men and injured 17 others. After almost three months of oil spilling into the waters, the leak was stopped by capping the leaking wellhead. 

Deepwater Horizon Rig after Explosion

The spill caused great damage to marine and wildlife habitats in the Gulf region. Furthermore, it negatively impacted the area's fishing and tourism industries. For example 4,200 square miles of the Gulf were closed to shrimping after tar balls were discovered in shrimping nets. Furthermore, oil directly affected over 320 miles of the Louisiana coast. Many beaches, wetlands, and estuaries were damaged as a result of the spill. 

Crude Oil Surfaces in the Gulf of Mexico

Many efforts were made to contain the oil spilling into the Gulf. Dispersants were used to prevent the spreading of the crude oil, and although many of these have significant side-effects, they were considered most effective for the clean-up effort. Furthermore, containment booms were used in an effort to protect shorelines and islands; however, their effectiveness was questioned due to their inability to cover all affected areas. 

In an effort to minimized lawsuits against the company, BP officials agreed to create a $20 billion spill response fund. BP set up the fund to compensate people and companies affected by the spill. 

BP's CEO, Robert Dudley, offered an apology in March of 2011at a high-profile energy conference.

See article

The question of apology for this incident is very controversial. Firstly, who to blame? The blame falls on various parties in this issue. BP is at fault for continuing to run a rig even though it was exhibiting problems just days before the disaster. They are also at fault for not properly maintaining various aspects of the rig and not following proper protocol. Some people (including BP) believe that companies like Haliburton (which did the cement work on the rig) are at fault for not doing proper testing during development of the rig. They also believe the developer of a malfunctioning sensor on the rig is at fault for developing a faulty part which in part led to the disaster. Furthermore, the US government may be at fault for not doing closer inspections of these off-shore rigs. So, is BP the only one responsible for apologizing, and if not, why haven't other companies made public apologies?

In addition, there is great controversy regarding whether or not BP's compensation is enough for their actions. Their spill response fund is a great effort to provide compensation, however, many argue that it is very difficult to apply for and receive compensation. Furthermore, many of those who receive compensation forfeit their right to sue BP in the future. These and other aspects of the fund portray BP as solely interested in protecting itself and saving money--not interested in the betterment of people, wildlife, and companies affected by the spill. 

Overall, the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill is a catastrophe which raises deep questions and concern regarding the response of large corporations to their mistakes. 

BP CEO during spill appears insensitive

BP spill trial about to begin

White House response to the spill

USC Engineering and Critical Thinking

From my experience so far, USC Engineering does a nice job incorporating critical thinking into its curriculum.

The only engineering classes I've taken are AME 101 and the Engineering Academy class. In AME 101, as I'm sure you all remember, we had to do two design projects. No matter how cumbersome some of the  instructions for the project appeared (excessive testing, documentation, etc), they were there in a way to promote critical thinking (as well as teach us proper design procedure, etc). For example, for the spaghetti bridge project, before doing anything else, we had to test our spaghetti and perhaps test different brands of spaghetti and find out which was strongest for its weight. We also had to research different bridge designs to understand which would be best for the project.This closely mimics the part of critical thinking that involves finding out about your topic so you are educated about the subject matter. Furthermore, we had to test different designs and make improvements to them; this is like the part of critical thinking that involves analysis and synthesis of ideas. Finally, after actually testing our bridge in competition, we had to develop a report which communicated our ideas, processes, and findings (results) to others. This is the communication aspect of critical thinking.

In Engineering Academy, we always talked about the ethics of engineering, different problems facing the world, and how to solve these problems. We rarely did any numerical work in that class; rather, we focused on collaborating to find solutions to various issues we were presented with. This is a direct practice of critical thinking skills, and I feel like I learned a lot about engineering in that class. This didn't include calculating the tension in a rod; instead, I learned about what engineers actually do and how they apply their knowledge to real world problems. 

The Skills Involved in Critical Thinking

There are many interpretations and definitions of critical thinking out there. They all seem to emphasize analysis and synthesis, conceptualizing and evaluation, belief understanding and generating, etc.

With this in mind, I think one of the most imperative skills involved in critical thinking is being well-informed. Before one can analyze or synthesize or conceptualize, he/she must learn about the topic at hand. For example, if a man wants to create a solution for the melting arctic ice caps through critical thinking, he must first be aware of and understand all the pertinent information, such as why the ice caps are melting, what is being done to prevent their melting already, the rate at which they are melting, the properties of water and ice, how the melting affects the planet, who it will hurt to try and prevent the melting, and so forth. Only after he understands all this information can he begin to analyze it, synthesize it, and begin forming theories on how to prevent catastrophe while satisfying the people this prevention might hurt, such as companies whose excessive emissions lead to the melting in the first place. Without being well informed, one cannot think critically about an issue, because his/her ideas will be based solely upon their own experiences and biases.

This leads directly to the next skill I find very important, and that is the ability to be objective. Naturally, nobody is 100% objective. People innately have biases and prejudices towards certain people, places, companies, practices, etc. However, the more informed people are and the more they attempt to learn about others and their opinions, the more likely they are to be objective. This objectivity is imperative to critical thinking. If one thinks based upon his biases, his analysis of events and solutions to problems will be biased--this may lead to, for example, a solution to a problem that serves a man's self interests and not the interests of the country or world as a whole. However, if he is as objective as he can be, there is a greater chance his critical thinking will lead to ideas and solutions that help more people.

Another extremely important skill involved is creativity. To analyze and synthesize, conceptualize and evaluate, one must be creative. He/She must be able to think outside the box and come up with ideas others haven't thought of before. Creativity is necessary to solve the problems and issues that arise in our world; old solutions rarely work for new problems.

Finally, I believe communication skills are very important for critical thinking. For example, one might be an incredibly objective, talented, creative thinker who develops fascinating and feasible solutions to the world's toughest problems, but if he/she cannot communicate these ideas and solutions, all of the time spent thinking, analyzing, and evaluating is wasted. Communication skills are therefore imperative to sharing the fruit of the critical thinking process. 

New Insights

Since I began writing, I've gained some insight about the California Dream. Most importantly, I realize more than ever that the California Dream is not reality-- people who come to California struggle a lot, and while there is lots of opportunity and beauty here, it is just like any other state in that success requires diligence, hard work, and some luck. However, I also realize that California provides great hope for people; it is a beacon for many that symbolizes progress, innovation, and success; this hope alone pushes many to pursue their dreams.

I also realize that one must not only listen to a song, but also carefully read the lyrics and watch any pertinent videos (if available) to understand its true meaning. Just listening to "California Gurls" would lead one to believe it is an extremely optimistic representation of California. But, watching the video reveals that the song really says more than it explicitly states; in this case, the video really speaks.

California Gurls - Katy Perry

I felt that Katy Perry's "California Gurls" provided a great representation of the California dream as well as the dangers of chasing it. Furthermore, I've heard this song so many times that I almost have the lyrics memorized, and as such, it was easier to relate the song to the assignment.

Before this assignment was assigned, I had rarely ever watched the video. But, upon watching it, I realized that it reinforces the ideas of the California dream and its dangers. For example, most of the video expresses California as the game of Candyland and shows the rolling of dice, thereby suggesting that California, like Candyland, is a game of chance. And, although the video is all Candyland and fun, there are gummy bears that flip Katy Perry off near the start of the video. Also, throughout the video, there are short scenes that deviate from the very happy theme of the song and portray difficulties (eg. crossing the bridge, candy canes turning into snakes, gummy bears injured and dying at the end...). Nevertheless, the song and the video still focus on the actual California dream, i.e. beautiful people, great weather, awesome scenery, fun and upbeat music, etc. The song also portrays a sense of recreating oneself (eg. "go for a journey" to California "where the grass is really greener" to become like the desired and stereotypical "California girls.")

The California Dream

The California dream represents the potential for an entirely new life, one filled with beautiful weather, impressive people, and tremendous opportunities. When my parents came to California from Bangladesh in their early twenties, they found in California the same things I see in her today-- lots of green (trees and money), lots of fascinating people, and most importantly, the ability to become one of these people. On the surface, California's environment promotes a move forward. She's the final frontier in American expansion, which may explain her image of innovation and novelty amongst people around the United States and the world. The Silicon Valley in Northern California, the birthplace of computers and other great technical inventions, is itself a symbol of moving forward. And, the people who work there, i.e. Californians, represent a people moving the entire world forward. Apart from the Silicon Valley, Hollywood, the movie capital of the world, represents a different kind of moving forward--one of moving images and stories, catapulting new ideas and theories into the general public. Of course, with places like Silicon Valley and Hollywood, people see the state as a place to redefine themselves and strive to be like the ones they hear about or see on TV-- the scientist who has just discovered a new computing algorithm or the movie star who just won two Oscars. This desire to be famous and in the spotlight (perhaps the desire to be desired), lures people to the golden state.

This differs from the American dream in various ways. The American dream is one of opportunity, yes, but more importantly of freedom and rights that are often not available in other countries. Thinking back on my parents, they've told me various times that living in America affords them so many freedoms that, while they may exist back in Bangladesh, are not actually enforced (such as freedom of speech-- in America one can burn an American flag, whereas someone burning a Bangladeshi flag in Bangladesh would have the military on their tail in no time). Furthermore, the American dream composes of having a nuclear family and living in a nice suburb, etc, and I don't believe these are tenets of the Californian dream. The Californian dream is one of independence and redefining oneself.