The Best of The Best 113B

FCC Freedom of Speech Response

Tue, 08 May 2012 21:31:00 -0400

FCC Freedom of Speech Response:

Mauro J.

Essay #3

Wed, 02 May 2012 20:14:46 -0400

Karen Landaverde

English 113B

Professor Lace

22 April 2012

Natural Born Right

The dream of when you become a public figure, having all the materialistic things and all of the money in the world is a thing of the past. Ever since the first tabloid was established, paparazzi became part of the “package” that comes along with fame. Paparazzi were just photographers trying to make fast money by taking a photograph of public figures such as celebrities, athletes, politicians, and royalty. But, as the years have gone by, paparazzi have gotten out of hand when trying to take a photo of someone. Every day there is a constant fight between public figures and paparazzi. These public figures are in a constant battle for their privacy and some even for their well-being. Being a public figure must be exhausting. It isn’t correct to have to feel like fighting for something you were given to at birth, your right to privacy. Paparazzi should respect their right to privacy and realize how valuable privacy is not just for “regular” people but also for public figures.

In today’s society, paparazzi are far from what they were meant to be. Their reputation of just being tabloid photographers has been changed. Many figures such as celebrities have begun to call them “stalkarazzi.” This name was given to paparazzi because of their behaviors. The time when paparazzi would just wait to see public figures, in order to take a picture of them, is long gone. Paparazzi nowadays have immensely changed the way they do things. Most of them follow celebrities wherever they go. Some of them, when they have seen a celebrity in a certain place, wait outside of the place in order to capture a photograph of them. Various paparazzi have even forced themselves inside the place and have gotten out of hand.

Nonetheless, forcing themselves into the same place as a public figure in order to take a photograph is just a minor situation. Paparazzi have gotten so much out of control, they have hacked into public figures’ computers, cell phones, voicemail, and so much more. Celebrities such as Mila Kunis and Justin Timberlake are among the list of celebrities whose cell phones have been hacked. In the article, “Justin Timberlake, Miley Cyrus and Mila Kunis Have Phones Hacked for Racy Photos,” written by Mike Szymanski, reported about actor, Justin Timberlake’s nude photos hacked in actress, Mila Kunis’ cell phone. Paparazzi have done various terrible things which by their actions, will continue. However, due to the actions of many paparazzi, public figures have gotten irritated with paparazzi’s behavior and have decided that they have had enough. Many celebrities have felt the urge to physically fight for what in the first place was always there’s; their privacy.

Every month, when you turn on your television, your computer or pick up a magazine, you hear about a celebrity or athlete going to court because they fought a paparazzo or broke their camera or their cell phone. One of the world’s most well known tabloids, TMZ, has shown many videos throughout the years of various celebrities such as Russell Brand, Britney Spears, and Avril Lavigne “dealing” with paparazzi their own way. In 2006, Avril Lavigne became known for spitting on a paparazzo after being photographed kissing a man inside her SUV. A year later in 2007, pop singer, Britney Spears was filmed breaking the windows of a paparazzo’s car after continually asking for them to leave her alone. The celebrities’ reactions towards paparazzi are not from misbehavior but rather a demand of privacy and space.

Paparazzi weren’t much of a concern to society at first, but after when one of the most loved and respected woman, Princess Diana, died in an accident after being chased by two paparazzi, society has become more concerned. About twelve years ago, after Princess Diana’s death, society got fed up with the paparazzi’s brutal behavior towards public figures. Lisa Vance, writer of the article, “Amending Its Anti-Paparazzi Statute: California’s Latest Baby Step in Its Attempt to Curb Aggressive Paparazzi,” talks about the effect of Princess Diana’s death had on people. Vance states, “… On American soil, the incident resulted in a temporary collapse in the market for paparazzi photography and the introduction of new privacy laws in California” (par. 2). These laws were created to protect public figures from the danger caused by paparazzi. Celebrities, athletes, politicians, and royalty should not have to be protected from people whose jobs are meant to just make publicity for them instead of endangering them or feeling attacked by them wherever they go.

Although society would have loved for the endangerment caused by paparazzi to stop there, but throughout the years public figures continue to face deadly or stressful situations caused by them. A handful of celebrities have had accidents while trying to escape from paparazzi; among those celebrities are Lindsey Lohan, Nicole Richie, and Drew Barrymore. These celebrities have all been in a car or motorcycle accident because they were trying to escape a herd of paparazzi. Drew Barrymore was in a car accident with a paparazzi who hit the rear-end of her car for tailgating her. Helen, a blogger on the website Celebitchy, quoted the Los Angeles Times, “He attempted to runaway without a trace but the actress refused that, so she followed him and wrote down his license plates.” Having car accidents is normal to society but not when paparazzi are the reason for it. Are those few bucks, really worth an accident or even death? The answer is no. These hazardous moments caused by paparazzi are selfish on their side because they don’t respect the privacy of others. If the roles were switched, many of the paparazzi would do the same or feel the same. The stress and illnesses caused by the actions of the paparazzi would end.

Many people might not realize that public figures are found in dangerous situations from escaping paparazzi because paparazzi are invading their privacy. Every day they find themselves being surrounded by people wildly taking pictures of their every move. Imagine stepping outside of your house knowing that at any minute someone is going to jump out of the nowhere and begin to take photographs of you or being aware that whatever you do might be published and seen by a large amount of people around the world. Constantly, paparazzi are taking pictures of public figures kissing their partner, embarrassing moments, etc and selling them to tabloids, magazines, television shows, and including websites. Paparazzi are the base of gossip; they are the reason why people are always being informed of public figures’ personal lives. Being followed and finding yourself in various stressful situations because of paparazzi has become part of the “package” that comes with fame.

However, those in the paparazzi market perceive it differently. Many times society finds itself in between the battle of public figures v paparazzi. Those who enjoy hearing gossips about celebrities or work in that field might claim that it is just a job. Taking photographs of public figures is what helps keeps society of the fans of these celebrities connected with them. Public figures should be glad to have paparazzi around; they are one of the many contributors to their fame. Although this may be true, there are boundaries. Paparazzi should give public figures the privacy and space they need. There was a time when paparazzi knew those boundaries, so why ignore them now. Part of the job of being a paparazzo is to take pictures of public figures but the way paparazzi are now doing their job is unnecessary.

Paparazzi have gotten out of hand with their job. They have forgotten the boundaries that should have always been respected. As the years have gone by, they have put various public figures in danger and yet they haven’t done anything to change it. Therefore, both society and public figures have taken matters in their own hands and have begun a war. Celebrities, politicians, royalty, and athletes should not have to feel the urge to fight for their right to privacy; it is a civil liberty given to them at birth. Paparazzi should be demanded to give these public figures the privacy and space that we all have and need.

Work Cited

Helen. “Drew Barrymore Involved in a Hit-and-Run Accident”. Celebitchy. 15 May 2008. Web. 22 Apr. 2012

Szymanski, Mike. “Justin Timberlake, Miley Cyrus and Mila Kunis Have Phones Hacked for Racy Photos”. Studio City Patch. Patch Network. Sept. 2011. Web. 22 Apr. 2012

TMZ Staff. Thirty Mile Zone. EHM Productions, Apr. 2012. Web. 11 Apr. 2012.

Vance, Lisa. “Amending Its Anti-Paparazzi Statute: California’s Latest Baby Step in Its Attempt to Curb the Aggressive Paparazzi.” Vol. 29. Issue 1 (2006): pg 99- 119. Print

Photo

Wed, 02 May 2012 20:09:52 -0400

Photo

Wed, 02 May 2012 20:07:42 -0400

Photo

Wed, 02 May 2012 20:02:24 -0400

YM

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 03:20:00 -0400

ym

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 03:14:14 -0400

YM

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 03:12:43 -0400

YM

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 03:11:12 -0400

YM

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 03:08:55 -0400

YM

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 03:07:50 -0400

YM

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 03:06:24 -0400

Budget Cuts

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 03:04:57 -0400

Martinez Yazmin

Professor Lace

English 113 B

17 April 2012

LAUSD Budget Cuts

Budget cuts are affecting everyone but especially students in the Los Angeles area. At the moment student after school programs such as “Beyond the Bell” are being cut because of the district not having enough money to pay for salaries of their employees. Because of budget cuts there is no money for schools to buy new supplies or textbooks an example of this is shown in the film “Freedom Writers”. Students in Los Angeles don’t need the help during school hours but also afterschool, they need programs and teachers that are willing to put that extra time for them to achieve their best but with budget cuts increasing there is no way students can succeed.

During the recent years the budget cuts for LAUSD has increase significantly, because of these budgets the district has began to make some drastic changes. In schools all over the district teachers have been laid off, school days are being cut shorter, and after school programs have began to shut down. The Board of Education and the Superintendent of LAUSD, might think that this is the best way of resolving the situation of the budget, but by doing this they are taking away resources from students. Luis Ubinas and Chris Gabrieli from the New York Times published an article titled “Shortchanged by the Bell” in this article Ubinas and Gabrieli state that school days are going to become shorter starting next year in California and that students will spend less time in the classroom(24). They make a good point when making clear that students are being “Shortchanged” in the title. The children aren’t the ones at fault for the economy and the budget cuts, why is this country taking it out on them? Instead of changing how many hours students go to school or taking away the needed resources why not take those budgets from other places.

Ubinas and Gabrieli also state “For all the talk about balancing the budget for the sake of our children, keeping classrooms closed is a perverse way of giving them a brighter future”(25).The children of today are the future of tomorrow so don’t we want them to have an education they can be proud of. Students need a full day of class instruction, and any resources that they need should be provided after school. Most schools in Los Angeles have students with parents that have low or no income; these students shouldn’t be having the afterschool programs that keep them out of trouble and off the streets taken away from them. We see it on the news all the time that students in Los Angeles are not going to school or aren’t graduating, so imagine if we loose all the after school programs that are keeping the youth off the streets and out of gangs.

Another Example, where the budget cut is shown being used harshly and affecting the students is through the movie “Freedom Writers” which is based on a true story directed by Richard LaGravenese, captures the hardship the teens of Woodrow Wilson Classical High School go through everyday, and what the teacher Mrs. Gruwell does to try to get her students to have and get an education they deserve. In the movie Mrs. Gruwell, played by Hillary Swank, is a first time teacher and is excited to teach, but then realizes that her students don’t really want to learn. Soon she notices that they have no motivation to learn because the school doesn’t give her students the good books or the material that they are supposed to be learning at the academic level. School Administrators think that they aren’t capable of understanding the material. Mrs. Gruwell and her students soon prove to the Administrators at Woodrow Wilson Classical High School wrong, but also prove to themselves that anything they put their mind too they can achieved. This movie is very inspirational not only to students that are in the same situation but to teachers. Freedom Writers shows us that even if we are having budget problems, we shouldn’t be taking away from the students. We should be giving every student the same resources, opportunities, and programs it shouldn’t matter what district or city they live in.

Los Angeles like many other cities are having problems with their economy but the other cities are not taking out those problems on the students. In other articles such as “After-School Programs Offers Enrichment to At-Risk Pupils” author Nora Fleming, state that not only do programs such as LA’s BEST and Beyond the Bell keep children and youth off the streets, but also helps them get a better understanding of their homework and class work by providing not only group tutoring, but one-on-one sessions of help and at the same time making it fun for the student (par 10). Fleming makes a good point when stating that it helps students with homework and class work. In addition, most students in the LAUSD system have parents that have none or very little education when it comes to homework. They have no help provided at home. Programs such as Beyond the Bell help students understand the assignments at hand and makes sure that they are doing the work correctly.

Moreover, Fleming also referrers to the assistant director superintendent and director of Beyond the Bell, Alvaro Cortes, when stressing the need for afterschool programs because he explains that the afterschool programs don’t just show the student the same material they learned all day, they show them different ways of understanding the material they are learning (par 11). Afterschool programs are needed in every school because students need the extra help. Students need to have someone there that they can go to after the teacher has left campus and that is what the programs are there for. We cannot take these programs away from students because then the student won’t have anyone to help them with homework and then the student will give up.

Many say that Budget cuts are needed in this economy and that parents should be the ones worrying about their children after a regular day of school. In “No Minimum Age in Protests Against Funding Cuts” by Joetta L. Sack, she states that parents use afterschool programs to keep their children in school and away from home so that they wont have to worry about them (par 8). In some cases this might be true but not in all. Students need the after school programs provided in school K-12 because they need the extra help. Most students that are enrolled in afterschool programs are enrolled in them because they have been recommended by their teachers because they need the extra help. Teachers that suggest this to some parents for their children might not have this option next year.

Even though California and LAUSD are having problems with the budget they shouldn’t degrade teachers or the schools reputation that provide the future of tomorrow an education. California and the school district should find other ways of taking money out of the system but they should try to not hurt the students because all that the students want is a good education. Instead of cutting afterschool programs or supplies from school they should find other ways to lower the budget.

Work Cited:

Fleming, Nora. “After-School programs offer enrichment to at-risk pupils” Education Week. 30.23(2011): 10-11. Academic Search Elite. Web. 28 March. 2012.

Sack, Joetta L. “No Minimum Age In Protest Against Funding Cuts.” Education Week 22.36 (2003):8. Academic Seach Elite. Web. 18 Apr. 2012.

Ubinas, Luis. and Gabrieli Chris. “Shortchanged by the bell.” New York Times. Aug.23, 2011. 25-24. Oviatt Library. Web. 11 April 2012.

Youtube. “Freedom Writers Trailer.” April 13, 2007. Richard LaGravenese. Web. April 11, 2012.

How Advertisements Contribute to Childhood Obesity

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:55:30 -0400

Ahmed Aldhahri
Professor Lace
English 113 B
18 April 2012
How Advertisements Contribute to Childhood Obesity
    Advertisements are an element of communication and have existed in many forms since ancient times. Advertising in the modern form in the United States of America are improved due to new artistic methods. The purpose of advertisements in general is to familiarize the public with goods and services and attract people to them. The success of advertisements depends on the income that these advertised products or services make. Therefore, ads are carefully studied to have the most effect on the consumersin the shortest time. With the widespread use of advertisements nowadays, we hardly spend an hour without seeing one. This points to how much time kids watch TV these days. Children are highly exposed to advertisements as Susan Linn mentions in her article “in 2003, six hours of programming on Nickelodeon one Sunday afternoon contained 40 food commercials, or about one every nine minutes”(371). This huge exposure to ads have some contributions to childhood obesity which will be covered in this paper.
    Television is the most important and influential media device that people use today. It can be dangerous when it is watched by children. Children learn a lot from television because they spend hours watching it. At the same time, advertisers try to attract and control not only the children, but teenagers and young adults. The choices that people make at an early age are the reflections of their experiences and knowledge that they gain from television. Advertisers always present their products in a fancy way that make them look very appealing. Then, when they advertise food they use an attractive images and beautiful sounds that make the food look very delicious to the viewers. Sometimes they present it with false magical promises, such as providing the kid with an extreme power or enhance certain talents. Some other producers use the characters of very popular cartoon to attract children as Mrs. Linn’s example “Nickelodeon’s hit program SpongeBob SquarePants was Kraft’s top selling Macaroni and Cheese in 2002 and the number one “face” shaped Good Humore Ice Cream Bar”(371). That shows how kids can be affected by not only seeing the advertisements itself but sometimes by watching their favorite cartoons. A lot of children love some of the cartoon’s characters. They try to portray and do every thing that their favorite cartoon does. Therefore, when they see a commercial of any kind of food or candy that has their favorite character on it, they will love the product as much as they love the cartoon. All of this enhances the consumption of unhealthy food with lots of calories and less protein.
    There are so many commercial that present sweets and candies to the children. When kids eat those candies, they lose their appetite for integrated and balance food. Also, those sweets and candies can affect kids when they do not clean their mouths and brush their teeth after eating them. On another hand, when children set in front of the TV for a long time, they do not get enough exercises. As a result of that, obesity with all its consequences will appear among children.
    Advertisers are aggressively targeting their commercials to young children for three reasons. The first one is the amount of money they spend. Because young kids are immature and unaware of what they should eat and what they should not eat, they can easily be convinced to buy sweets and candies. According to Sharon Beder ,the author of “Marketing to Children” states in his article “Advertisers attending a conference on Marketing to Kids and Youth were told that children and teenagers between the ages of 10 and 17 spent $3.3 billion every year”(Beder). Most of that money goes to sweets. The second reason is the influence kids have on their parents. As Mr. Sharon says “In Australia, children under 18 have an average $31.60 to spend each week and they influence more than 70 percent of their parents’ clothes and fast food purchases”(Beder). When children ask their parents for fast food or sweets, parents usually buy some for themselves, too. And that increases obesity not only among kids but in older generations too. The third reason is the money children will spend when they grow up. That is from the advertisers point of view, but if we look at it from the other side, obesity will increase not only in children but in all of society. Those young kids will gain weight and grow up with a bad eating habits. Then, their children will learn bad eating habit from advertisements and their parents.
    Despite all the arguments about how advertisements affect children, there are some studies that show that kids are not exposed to ads as much as they used to be years ago. According to Ira Teinowitz the writer of the article “Don’t blame ads:Kids view fewer food commercials” explains that “Nielsen Media Research data over the last 10 years. A key finding of the study is that kids today are seeing fewer food and fast-food ads then they did a decade ago. In 1994, kids under 12 saw an average of 5,909 broadcast and cable TV ads for food or fast food, while in 2003, they viewed 5,038…actual spending on TV food ads has decreased, from $5.92 billion in 1994 to $4.98 billion in 2003”(Teinowitz). This study shows that the main cause of obesity among young children these days is not food advertisements. It shows that there are other reasons. Kids these days are spending a lot of time in front of the screens, but not watching TV as much as they are playing video games, watching movies, and browsing the internet. On the other hand, that still can be a reason for increasing the obesity among young children since they are not physically active, the risk of weight increasing is high. However, advertisements have affected kids in the first place and they are still affecting children in a smeller scale.
    In conclusion, one of the reasons that increase childhood obesity is advertisements. Advertisers know that TV is the most influential tool that they can use to attract people. They study the time which kids watch TV and choose the most effective way to persuade viewers to buy their products. Hopefully in the future people become more aware of the problem and try to avoid it.

Work Cited

Beder, Sharon.”Marketing to Children”. Marketing to Children. 1998. Web. 18 Apr. 2012. Linn, Susan. “Food Marketing to Children in the Context of a Marketing Maelstrom.”     Journal of Public Health Policy, 25.3 (2004): 367-378. Web. 18 Apr. 2012.
Teinowitz, Ira. “Don’t Blame Ads: Kids View Fewer Food Commercials.” Advertising     Age 75.24 (2004): 10. Academic Search Elite. Web. 18 Apr. 2012.

Mauro J. -English 113B

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 22:33:12 -0400

Mauro J. -English 113B

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 22:14:25 -0400

Mauro J. -English 113B

Mauro J.

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 22:11:00 -0400

Mauro J.

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 22:06:36 -0400

Mauro J.

Photo

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:18:55 -0400

Photo

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:16:34 -0400