An article based on our recent press release was posted yesterday on The Batavian by Billie Owens. She also published an article for us back in December, when we first started to get the word out about our selection as one of 10 finalists for the 2010 Out of the Box Prize.
We thank The Batavian for their support. Click here to read the article.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
'Bud in a Bottle' to be released next month
Time Magazine published an article yesterday about a new line of marijuana soda to be released in Colorado in February.
Click to read.
Click to read.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Monday, January 17, 2011
The Golden Globes and 'influential' behavior
This video is a mild example -- and I do mean mild -- of some of the off-color humor that characterized actor/comedian Ricky Gervais' monologue and comments as host of the 2010 Golden Globes. Some were highly inappropriate, most irreverent, all reaction-provoking. Other stars' comments were very similar in that regard.
A lot of talk has been going around about the use of language in political circles -- especially by Sarah Palin in the wake of the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (see Thursday's post). Can we argue that, just as political figures should be held to higher standards of accountability in what they say, so should those in entertainment?
I think most people would say that we are talking about two very different situations here. To insist that there be no irreverent humor in entertainment -- especially on the part of those whose job it is to make people laugh -- would probably be unrealistic and oversensitive. Sure, one can go too far with it, but generally speaking, we can probably afford to "lighten up" a bit more with entertainment than with politics -- as long as it is understood that there is a time and a place for irreverent jokes.
My concern, however, is not with the overall irreverence of Gervais' (and others') comments. Rather, I am concerned with the questionable behavior of many of the stars throughout the night. A number of statements and words that came out of people's mouths -- including Gervais' -- were censored. Non-subtle sexual references were made on at least a couple of other (that is to say, non-censored) occasions.
Christian Bale, in concluding his acceptance speech for the Best Supporting Actor award, went over his allotted time to make some apparently inappropriate comment to Robert De Niro. Whatever the comment was, it took about 5 seconds to say and was thoroughly censored.
Paul Giamatti, in accepting the award for his performance in "Barney's Version," talked about how grateful he was to have worked on a movie where he could get paid to drink and smoke; he did specify what he was drinking and smoking, but this part was censored.
It is true, of course, that celebrities are not necessarily role models. Still, if someone is a high profile figure whose example, good or bad, is made available to people of all ages worldwide, he/she should realize that his/her deliberate bad behavior (especially in a high profile atmosphere like the Golden Globes) has the potential to set a bad example on a broad scale.
I think the media would probably do well to focus more on that aspect of last night's Golden Globes ceremony. In my opinion, their exclusive focus on the humorous jibes of its host only distracts readers from the more important issue.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Sarah Palin: "blood libel" -- full video
This is not an endorsement of Sarah Palin's speech, nor is it the opposite. It is simply an effort to make the speech available and to invite reasonable discussion on the matter.
A friend of mine responded to this video yesterday by asserting that our public figures should be held to a higher standard of accountability for what they say and how they say it. The idea behind this is that their poor choice of words trickles down and influences our youth, including bullies.
For those of you who don't know, the term blood libel comes from a medieval superstition holding that Jews kidnapped Christian children and used their blood for religious rituals. Some thought Palin's choice of words was in poor taste, given that Gabriell Giffords is Jewish.
Comments welcome.
A friend of mine responded to this video yesterday by asserting that our public figures should be held to a higher standard of accountability for what they say and how they say it. The idea behind this is that their poor choice of words trickles down and influences our youth, including bullies.
For those of you who don't know, the term blood libel comes from a medieval superstition holding that Jews kidnapped Christian children and used their blood for religious rituals. Some thought Palin's choice of words was in poor taste, given that Gabriell Giffords is Jewish.
Comments welcome.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
NYU professor says public schools should open up political discourse to students
On Monday afternoon, Jonathan Zimmerman, a professor of history and education at New York University, responded to comments and ideas surrounding the recent shootings in Arizona with his reflections on the state of political discourse in America's public schools.
His article is entitled "Arizona shooting: Don't blame Sarah Palin -- get public schools to discuss politics," and was published in Christian Science Monitor on Jan. 10, 2010 (online at 3:01 p.m. ET).
Many have been arguing that outbursts of violence like the one we witnessed a few days ago are traceable to heated political rhetoric; Zimmerman, however, believes that the real problem runs deeper than that. His basic argument is that our public schools are sheltering students too much from controversial issues.
"We’ve stripped the schools of almost anything that’s divisive, contentious, or controversial," Zimmerman says. "Is it any wonder that many of our citizens can’t engage in reasonable political dialogue?"
He doesn't seem to be placing the blame on teachers so much as on the system by which they are employed. Educators are not only not trained to engage the students in civilized, reasonable discussion on "hot-button contemporary issue(s)," they are actually told not to do so. Teachers can even -- and have even -- been fired for bringing these issues up in the classroom. In effect, they are restricted to instructing students in the memorization of mere facts.
As a result of this state of affairs, according to Zimmerman, American public schools "have left millions of Americans unequipped to engage in rational politics."
What do people think of this? I certainly think Zimmerman has a good point. With the recent bullying epidemic and with outbreaks of school violence in the last decade, there is a strong need in general to teach kids how to resolve and/or deal with their differences peacefully and rationally. As far as what Zimmerman is talking about goes, I think we just need to approach this sort of thing with due caution. Whether or not discussions about controversial issues can be successfully carried out in a classroom is going to depend on various factors such as the age and impressionability of the students, etc.
Click here to read Zimmerman's article. Comments welcome.
His article is entitled "Arizona shooting: Don't blame Sarah Palin -- get public schools to discuss politics," and was published in Christian Science Monitor on Jan. 10, 2010 (online at 3:01 p.m. ET).
Many have been arguing that outbursts of violence like the one we witnessed a few days ago are traceable to heated political rhetoric; Zimmerman, however, believes that the real problem runs deeper than that. His basic argument is that our public schools are sheltering students too much from controversial issues.
"We’ve stripped the schools of almost anything that’s divisive, contentious, or controversial," Zimmerman says. "Is it any wonder that many of our citizens can’t engage in reasonable political dialogue?"
He doesn't seem to be placing the blame on teachers so much as on the system by which they are employed. Educators are not only not trained to engage the students in civilized, reasonable discussion on "hot-button contemporary issue(s)," they are actually told not to do so. Teachers can even -- and have even -- been fired for bringing these issues up in the classroom. In effect, they are restricted to instructing students in the memorization of mere facts.
As a result of this state of affairs, according to Zimmerman, American public schools "have left millions of Americans unequipped to engage in rational politics."
What do people think of this? I certainly think Zimmerman has a good point. With the recent bullying epidemic and with outbreaks of school violence in the last decade, there is a strong need in general to teach kids how to resolve and/or deal with their differences peacefully and rationally. As far as what Zimmerman is talking about goes, I think we just need to approach this sort of thing with due caution. Whether or not discussions about controversial issues can be successfully carried out in a classroom is going to depend on various factors such as the age and impressionability of the students, etc.
Click here to read Zimmerman's article. Comments welcome.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Daily News article #2: 'Local tobacco control advocates travel to Albany'
Four area youths -- two from Genesee County, two from Wyoming County -- are in Albany today, armed with education and ready to equip our state leaders in the fight against tobacco advertising.
Click to read.
Click to read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)