Bradbury: The Social Network

Social Networking

The political agenda of the movie “The Social Network” revolves around the elitist struggle that our sudo-protagonist, Mark Zuckerberg, faces.  The movie starts out in Boston’s most renown and one of the most prestigious schools in America: Harvard University.  Harvard is surrounded by the most upscale people and is shown to be very conservative and driven by politics.  The Winklevoss twins represent the pretentious upscale probitarian-like people who have received their merits through the accomplishments of their family and the politics of the school itself.

           

The influences that we see from the social network or Facebook in general come in positive and negative forms.  The negative side is lead generally by the time spent by avid Facebook users to stay on top of things going on in the world.  As well, the social hype that surrounds the social network of Facebook outweighs the actual pleasure that one can derive from the use of the site itself.  A major problem that we see today is procrastination. Facebook can be very distracting when trying to do homework or study for tests.  A picture speaks a thousand words and many wish those thousand words can be taken back when the pictures are posted.  On the upside, Facebook can give one access to the world around and provide relief for a person to see their friends and family in pictures and let people see who is who and what is what in the social networking.

The idea of government controls is also very controversial.  The yes argument would say that it is needed for protection from cyber-bullying and the likes of predators.  The government should be able to go after flagged pictures and flagged comments.  The opposite idea would be that the government has no interference and is not allowed to butt in on the social network.  The patriot act style of government is not ideal for snooping in social networking but they should be able to know of any mysterious activity.

Some other networks are:

Picasso – Purpose is to show pictures with friends and be able to edit them

            Youtube – Be able to share videos with the public*

            Twitter – Be able to update followers public* anytime

*It is important to note the difference to things open to the public and things that are invite only.

Bradbury: West Wing

West Wing is a show that follows the staff of president Martin Sheen. I think that the image of what goes on in the white house. I really cannot comment on what happens on a daily basis between those walls, but the show gave me a good impression. The characters were all aroused early from their beds to be in the office. Aside from the comical parts of the show such as when Rob Lowe's character told the 4th grade teacher/his bosses wife that he slept with a prostitute and being so uninformed about the white house the show was fairly realistic. I enjoyed the negotiation scene between Sheen's cabinet and the christian group. It made me feel as though our rights as citizens are just thrown away so easily in back room deals just to save face. Some successful presidents to me include Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, FDR. All these presidents stove for a better America and accomplished a major goal. It will be hard to find another president like them in my lifetime. The presidents today owe so much to the companies that support their campaign. Even if they were elected and then decided to turn the other way, they would have no way of getting their message out. Television channels could not broadcast them due to threats of losing ads by their major corporate sponsors. Radio is not as widely listened to except in cars and I find it difficult picturing a family loading into the car to listen to the president address the public. The internet could provide useful however. This is all after the fact however. A president needs much money to get elected and gets that money from corporate sponsors whom they then want to pay back with tax breaks and lax laws. Until a president can ut his people before big business then there will not be a very successful president. I believe that Martin Sheen's role as president is a realistic one as well. He seemed intelligent and did not let the Christians bully him. An unrealistic aspect of it however is the fact that they do not consider the thoughts of the legislature in their decision making process. I assume that the audience is supposed to assume that whatever President Sheen decides is the final decision. In the words of his son, he is "Winning"!

Bradbury: Love Story

Micael Moore, for lack of a better word, is a glutton. He feeds off of negativity and is the frontrunner (or should i say frontwalker) of any issue that is opposite of the government. If the government decided to give away free puppies to every seven year old girl in the country, Moore would find some issue with that. Like the politicians that Moore so vehemently opposes, he preys on the weak-minded and ignorant. His audience is blue collar men and women who feel they have been slighted by the government and he exploits them on camera. Remember the scene in Capitalism in which he shot a father reading a letter to his dead wife as the young children balled their eyes out? That had nothing to do with capitalism. It is merely a ruse to evoke an emotion from the audience. I hate to be the Negative Nancy here, but most of America eats up what Moore regurgitates because they are not informed on the whole situation. For instance, Moore lambastes Republican presidents for being in bed with big business when Clinton did the exact same thing. He hints at Obama turning America on its head and being the next coming of Jesus Christ when in reality he has done very little of what he originally proposed. In actuality, President Obama and Michael Moore are the same in that they are both full of hot air. I am bereaved to say that most Americans believe what Moore is saying in his films; and if you wade through enough of his crap you will find a valid point or two, such as that corporations including Lehman Brothers and the like did cripple Americas economy. Where I find the issue is that Moore presents his arguments the way he eats his meals, he shoves them down the audiences throat. Michael Moore does not give his opposition one once of credit. Throughout my twelve years of catholic school education, I have learned how to write a decent academic paper. A key component of any argument in the conceding point. While the point need only be one small paragraph of the whole paper, at least it is there. By leaving out a conceding point, Moore is completely losing the interest off the people whom he demands change from. If Moore wishes to actually enact change in America (and it might already be too late for him), then he needs to stick to the facts and avoid the propaganda like he does a salad. In my opinion, Michael Moore is akin to a Mogwii, when Roger and Me first came out he seemed creative and interesting, but America has fed him after midnight and he has turned into a gremlin.