ELA 5/31

First topic that came up was whether it is justifiable to use music in documentaries or movies, which may manipulate, if not compel, viewers to think in the way the director does. In our group discussion, some of us said how some TV shows or documentaries do too much of these musical backgrounds, and one example that came up was the laughing sound effects in comedies. Personally, I find them quite annoying as it sounds artificial and fake, and it plays before I can decide whether the program is comical or not. I feel that they compel the audience in thinking it is funny, even if it is the most boring and humourless program. On the other hand, if documentaries and movies did not have any sounds, they will have difficulty conveying the moral lessons they contain to the audience. Sound effects help arouse certain emotions in the viewers, which may help deliver the vital message. For example, the dramatic music in the “Say No to Blood Diamonds” helps instigate a grave feeling to the audience. So to some extent, I believe that sound effects are necessary to support the main point of what is being presented. I simply cannot image TV programs, documentaries, and other medias without any sounds, so I believe it is the viewers’ responsibility to not be manipulated by the background music into thinking in an immoral way.

Campaigns. Our group thought about why “Say No to Blood Diamonds” and “Grocery Store Wars” were less popular compared to “The Mouth Revolutions” and “Meatrix”. First of all, “Say No to Blood Diamonds” told viewers at the end to write to the Congress; there was no sense of collaboration in fighting for the cause. Rather it just left it individual’s responsibility to fight for this exploitation. On the other hand, “Meatrix” set up their own webpage and explained in detail how you can help fight the cause. The “Grocery Store Wars” was cute and intriguing, but I thought it lacked seriousness. The overall sound effects and setting suggested this clip to be more of a Star Wars parody than a campaign against GMO products.  As for the “Mouth Revolutions”, I considered that to be similar to “Grocery Store Wars”. Anyhow, I think it was effective because it encouraged people to come together; it asked people to take an upside down photo from chin down and post it. I hypothesized after watching these campaigns that suggesting people to cooperate in fighting for a cause makes campaigns more effective than demanding individual actions.

Moe mentioning her father in her blog reminded me of something. My father is a businessman, and I know that he has a plantation in China rather than Canada just for the reason that it is more cost-effective. The corporation video, the LLA lecture this week, and our classes has  suggested to me that perhaps my father is one of those capitalistic businessman who only has eyes for profit (although I certainly don’t to believe this). As much as I am against this, my father provides me the money for food, clothes, and education. In fact, I wouldn’t in ICU and writing this blog if it wasn’t for my father’s financial aid. I detest how rich businessmen do dirty things to expand their profit much as possible, but in reality I am living off this profit, and I really don’t know what to think of this…  

ELA 5/29

I had always considered the words “company” and “corporation” to be synonyms and did not know that corporations were companies with investors. I thought that the merit of having rich capitalists invest in a company is that the company can try out new ideas to create a more innovative company, similar to a patron. Hearing that shareholders can fire corporation leaders whose plans may decrease the profit of the corporation, our group wondered how corporations are supposed to produce new ideas if they are restrained like this. Wouldn’t corporations stay dull? Or do the investors know what items or ideas will be a big hit to the public? Either way, this is an exploitation because investors are taking away the freedom of companies. The colossal difference between a patron and investors is that the investors’ goal is only one: profit. It seems that they don’t care what products the company makes or how the products help citizens unless it is associated with the glamorous word “profit”. Having money gives them the right to dominate even the ideas of the company itself, and this tells me that basically money is everything. It also upset me how even the Supreme Court chooses rich capitalistic people over the actual creators of companies. The Supreme Court where “justice” takes place is also under the capitalistic spell. As Rab said, the Supreme Court judges are all lawyers who worked their way up the system, and in order to be a lawyer, they need to be relatively rich. The members of the judges of the Supreme Court are naturally inclined to put profit before everything, and I think this is not just in the U.S. but also in Japan as well. Is it hopeless to wish that the laws be changed?

how democracy isn't democracy

This was yet another LLA class where shocking facts were revealed. When learning about different types of government, democracy is always presented as an antonym of dictatorship or despotism. We are often given the idea that dictatorship is evil and democracy is good. For me, whenever something is associated with the word “democracy”, I feel protected and secure. For example, if I heard that a tyrant-run country is evolving into a democratic country, I think “great! Things are definitely improving in this country.” So yesterday, I was shown the “true side” of democracy, that in reality, democratic government may not be significantly different from a dictatorship. I am starting to feel that a tyrannical rule in any country is inevitable because no matter how hard the majority tries, there will always be some who put profit before the welfare of others. I feel that some people cannot be satisfied with being treated equally; there are always ones who feel the need to be exceptional. I sense this while living in Japan. All the Japanese senators contend that they do what is best for the people, but they do not. For example, the Tokyo Prefecture leader, Ishihara suddenly decided that it was important to show that Takeshima Island belonged to Japan although they were clearly more significant matters to be settled at the time.

Rab explained to us how the IMF and World Banks were made by the U.S. and U.K. and how these institutions strangle poorer countries by increasing their debts. It was easy to understand how the exploitation worked as he demonstrated the whole process by actually taking some of my belongings and other people’s and giving it to the others if we did not have enough comment sheets (which represented money). The IMF and the World Banks reminded me of the U.N. Of course, I’m not saying that the U.N. exploits poorer nations but I believe U.N. was made by the U.S. so I am curious whether they exploit some nations or not. I learned in history class that the U.N. supported the Palestine because they were Jewish people whose businesses profited the U.S., which is why the U.N. granted Palestine the more fertile land. This ended up pushing the Israelis to live in the less fertile land, causing the conflict between Palestine and Israel. “Leading” nations such as the U.S. have no right to control other countries’ matters for the purpose of increasing their economic wealth, and what I consider most sly is how these “leading” countries vacuum the wealth from other countries while manipulating them that it is for their own good. Why can’t these nations show more care for others instead of always going after profit profit profit?