Collision in the Making Between Self-Driving Cars and How the World Works

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/technology/googles-autonomous-vehicles-draw-skepticism-at-legal-symposium.html?_r=1&ref=technology

"As Google has demonstrated, computerized systems that replace human drivers are now largely workable and could greatly limit human error, which causes most of the 33,000 deaths and 1.2 million injuries that now occur each year on the nation’s roads."


It seems that the invention of technology has placed a giant step forward again. Apparently, these autonomous cars have been around for quite a while. I'm not sure about anybody else but I have neither seen nor heard about them before since reading this article. 


Many questions are raised about these robotic cars, ranging from legal liability to car insurance to street regulations. According to Google, it seems that these cars are safe for everyone to use and may even decrease the death and injury statistics from car accidents.


"Several people with knowledge of the company’s plans said that Google’s lobbying for state laws to permit autonomous driving indicated that it hoped to introduce such vehicles soon — driverless delivery vans or taxis, as early as 2013 or 2014."


Although Google is only working on this introduction in California, I'm sure that if it is successful, it won't be too long before it will reach over to the East Coast. Get ready to hail some driverless cabs in Manhattan in the near future!

Becoming an Iconic Image

In the world today, iconic images are reproduced in various ways serving different meanings in different contexts. However, it is argued by German critic Walter Benjamin that the reproduction of art will destroy the originality and authenticity of that particular piece.  "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" is a notable essay written by Benjamin, which touches upon the technology of mass reproduction and its variety of effects on works of art, including paintings, photography and film. Throughout the essay, Benjamin's criticism about the modern mass remains moderately positive.

            In the essay, Benjamin discusses about a change in perception and how the invention of technology, most notably photography and film, of the twentieth century contributes to this shift. He claims that ever since these technology were introduced, humans have a different viewpoint of the way they see work of art. For example, a photograph of the sky only gives us the experience of the photographer whereas a painting can be interpreted in many different ways depending on how the viewer wants to see it. He also mentions that mechanical reproduction, such as industrial goods, enables art to be reached by a wider audience and thus the value of the original becomes lesser. With this, he relates the value and originality as the aura of art, which is in turn diminishing because of the mechanical inventions.

            While Benjamin describes a loss of aura within modern day artwork, this particular idea may not be a bad thing towards the mass consumption. Take, for example, the iconic image of Ernesto Che Guevera that is made popular throughout the twentieth century. Che was an Argentine Marxist revolutionary who became a Cuban hero and eventually died in the Bolivian jungle. Ever since his death in 1967, the photograph of Che reproduced itself on posters, clothing and banners. At first, it was a symbol of an united revolutionary ideal. However, as time passed and by the 1990s, the image transformed into a basic commercial image. The brand is meant for kids and adults alike to associate themselves in their clothing to look cool. Not only is the image found in clothing, but it appeared in music, posters, food, billboards, almost anything that can be marketed. Many people that wear Che on their T-shirts did not know who he was or what he even did. Although the symbol was retained in many movements and conflicts, none of them truly related to the Guevara's idea of Marxist revolution. But the question at hand is, how does the image of such an important political figure turn from an inspirational image of revolution to a hipster brand of modern style? This is exactly what Benjamin proclaimed in his essay- that mass reproduction is able to adjust or even destroy the original meaning of art.

            As art is remade and passed on, hundreds and hundreds of copies spread out to different parts of the world. Through these travels, it is lost in translation because people across the globe will not interpret Che the same way that people native to Che, such as Argentinians or Cubans would. Despite such negative effects on the art piece, Benjamin denotes a more optimistic view of mass consumption. He mentions that the loss of aura has the potential of opening up an image. The fact that the image of Che can be used with various contexts keeps the general mass content, and whether or not the meaning is lost, it is the idea that a new concept connecting to the art can be used in a mixture of ways. Yet, the way that the image should be used can be beneficial or unfavorable depending on the group using it. However, this is the beauty of being able to mass produce art. People are able to use this image to their own liking and connect themselves with it the way they see fit.

            In conclusion, Benjamin describes a positive and negative output of the mass reproduction of art. While he states that mass reproduction can destroy the authenticity and originality of an art, it can also alter it in a way that people can use. The fact that an image can be spread and used in many different contexts, it is a truly radical and remarkable achievement.

Works Cited

Chevolution. Dir. Luis Lopz, Trisha Ziff. Perf. Gerry Adams, Antonio Banderas, Gael Garcia Bernal. 2008. Documentary Film.

"The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction." http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm. Marxists.org, n.d. Web. 22 Jan. 2012.

Catching Up on Network

A bizarre movie filled with dark humor attached with an immense script, Network is a story about a fictional TV network that will work at anything to better their television ratings. Network is a 1976 film directed by Sidney Lumet and written by Paddy Chayefsky. The movie revolves around the horrendous yet entertaining experiences of fictional Union Broadcasting System (UBS) and the rise and tragic downfall of Howard Beale, a well-loved madman of the television industry. The major cast of the film could not have been picked better: William Holden portrays Max Schumacher, an assiduous and logical newsman; Faye Dunaway who is Diana Christensen, an hardhearted and assertive programmer; Robert Duvall as Frank Hackett, a corrupt and insatiable executive; and not to forget the favorite, Peter Finch plays Howard Beale, the mad man proclaimed to be a prophet and a messenger of the people.

            Despite all the seriousness and dramatic moments of the film, Network is still considered as a satirical genre. However, the humor is far too dark to be considered as easygoing, comical or pleasing. Network is able to deliver humor in a very clever level. Only in a couple of scenes do I find myself chuckling or nodding my head at the well-hidden witty references and remarks. The film is best enjoyed for an audience of young adults or even older, those who has a general understanding of the media and international country struggles.

            The plot of the story, as mentioned before, tells of UBS and their efforts to raise their ratings. Howard Beale's behavior in his live talk show is deem unstable yet the company keeps him in just because the ratings of the program have gone up, which has not happened in many years for the company. However, over the course of the film, the audience is able to see that every program of the television industry is merely a tool- when the champion of the top television spot becomes boring and old news, relatable to anything in pop culture, they get thrown out and are replaced with something else that is "in" or popular. Lumet and Chayefsky does a really well-rounded job depicting this ideology of pop culture.

            Schumacher's character in the film represents the only last "living" person in the UBS news industry and is shown as the story's moral conscience and righteousness. As Beale's best friend, Schumacher tries to stop the exploitation of Beale's insanity and asks him to be put into medical treatment. However, he is fired by Hackett for trying to save Beale. Schumacher can be seen as the true hero in the story because he puts his principles above corruption and greed. He chooses not to incorporate himself into the industry that tries to take every advantage possible in order to better the TV ratings. As mentioned before, Schumacher is the only character that can "feel", as he is metaphorically the only human still left living from the TV industry. However Schumacher, much like the audience, can only watch as his TV news station, which used to be well respected, to be turned into a fraudulent and greedy circus.

            Though, there is one downfall of Schumacher and that is his short-lived obsession for Diana Christensen. Because of Christensen, he decides to leave his 25 year wife and marriage, even under the consciousness that he will regret doing so. Chayefsky does an excellent job in creating such a complex and sentimental character. Just like an epic hero, Schumacher is good-hearted and near perfect yet also has one fatal flaw. On the other hand, William Holden does a well perfected performance in expressing exactly what it is that Chayefsky wanted the audiences to feel in Max Schumacher's character.

            Faye Dunaway's role as Diana Christensen was rewarded Best Actress Oscar, and by far is the most remarkable and amusing character in the movie. Christensen can be described as a ruthless and ambitious  programmer, who is willing to use illegitimate and dishonest means to further her program's viewings. At one point she tries to feature a terrorist organization on national television. Her only purpose of being is given by her one sentence: "All I want out of life is a 30 share and a 20 rating." Christensen's character represents more of an intangible idea than an actual living being. She is the idea of the negative aspect of television, she only cares about ratings and viewership, she does not love nor feel human emotion, she lives day to day on an account of different "scripts" of life. An example of her lack of emotions is when she even talks about her job during a sexual encounter. This shows that she is constantly consumed by her job; she can feel neither pleasure nor happiness. Additionally, Schumacher gives a well rounded description of the female character: "I'm not sure she's capable of any real feelings. She's television generation. She learned life from Bugs Bunny." Although he knows Christensen's true face, he was still not able to step away from getting romantically involved with her.

            The third member of the main cast is Peter Finch who plays Howard Beale, a very intriguing and unpredictable character. In the start of the film, during his air time, he tells the whole world that he plans to commit public suicide. This strikes Beale off as an instant character to keep an eye on. The actor's performance of Howard Beale is superb to say the least, he exemplifies the character as a man of desperation and lunacy. His famous message, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore," became an instant hit and is still referred to today as a classic movie quotation.

            Chayefsky's script for Beale is most impressive in these lines: "Television is not the truth... Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, sideshow freaks, lion tamers and football players. We're in the boredom-killing business." Honestly, it's as if Chayefsky also had a vision about the television industry of the future while he wrote the script. One would assume that a 1976 movie would feel outdated today, but Lumet and Chayefsky created such an innovative work that the concept of the movie seems even more relevant in today's society. The movie, to a certain extent, was able to pit the negativity and harsh reality of modern television and broadcast news.

            Two supporting casts, both of which had only one monologue, gave an extremely powerful and convincing portrayal of their part in the film. Ned Beatty, who plays Arthur Jensen, gives an immense speech as a business man, who reveals himself as an advocate of a single international state, to Beale warning him of what he can or cannot do during his TV show. During this scene, the film uses a dramatically dimmed board meeting room to deliver Beatty's commanding and rhetorical dialogue which instantly converts Beale. Needless to say, the setting and the zoom-in shots of Beale were ideal to deliver the idea of significance in this scene.  

            After Beale changes his preaches to Jensen's meaning of life, the ratings of the show eventually decreases because people do not like his new sermons. They do not like being told to dehumanize and find it rather depressing. This ultimately leads up to the famous final conclusion of Network. The ending is indeed very shocking, especially because of the year the movie was produced. However, the ending of the film was very necessary in order to show just how far some people are willing to get in order to achieve their desires. Network is able to demonstrate that idea flawlessly. We are able to see characters such as Christensen and Hackett who truly have no sympathy or remorse of their actions.

            The second supporting cast member who had only one monologue is Beatrice Straight who plays as Louise Schumacher. Although the lengthy dialogue was not as potent as Ned Beatty's corporate speech, it still delivered a very passionate and emotional feeling across to the audience that is worthy to be noted.

            The production design by Philip Rosenburg and Owen's Roizman's camera angles are very remarkable in the film. They are all refined and edited very well by the MGM picture. This film remains to be a very unique success of Hollywood productions from the 1970s. It's no wonder that the film was able to receive four wins out of 10 Oscar nominations.

            The events in Network may be ridiculous and overdramatic, but it seems that in today's shows, none of it is really that impossible to believe. Take, for example, we have "The Jerry Springer Show" as well as various reality TV shows on MTV like "Jersey Shore" or "16 and Pregnant". Television has been polluted with shows that seem desperate to grab viewer's attention ever since the 90s. It is even more so today than ever before. The film also gives out a very powerful message to its audience: that the media should neither be taken lightly nor should it taken for granted. When UBS used Beale to increase its ratings, they did not anticipate that in the end, they would have a conflict with the White House or even losing all of those viewership. The media, including TV, movies, books, music, films, radio and etc, can be a very influential force. It should be used responsibly since the consequences of lightly approached actions are detrimental.

            In conclusion, Network has many main ideas as well as sub-ideas. Some points hit the audience loud and obvious while others stay well within context, those can get mixed or even lost. I would definitely recommend this movie because it is such a good example of how the media industry works and it shows the extent of how far some may go for greed. Although these ideas are nothing new, the way that director Sidney Lumet incorporates them into Network is just astonishing and well polished.

Works Cited

Network. Dir. Sidney Lumet. Perf. Faye Dunaway, William Holden, Peter Finch, Robert Duvall.1976. Film.

"Network (Film). " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_(film). Wikipedia.org, n.d. Web. 19 Jan. 2012.

Image URL http://trickledown.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/network1.jpg

Mexico - Crime Rate Low, DR - Crime Rate High

Recently this morning I came upon a rather interesting blog story,


http://www.hispanicallyspeakingnews.com/hsn-network/details/if-facts-dont-lie-is-mexico-safer-than-the-u.s/5666/

Patrick Osio Jr writes about the crime rate relative to the US, Mexico and Dominican Republic. Basically, to sum it all, US tells families and college students not to visit Mexico because it is "dangerous", therefore they visit DR as a second choice. However, research shows that the crime rate in DR (approx. 11%) is higher than US (approx 8%), which is higher than Mexico (approx 1.3%).


So, Patrick suggests a great point - "Have you ever felt like you’re being duped but you can’t quite put your finger on why – what’s the motive? Is it to keep us from facing some bitter truths?  We keep reading how crime is down, how safe we are compared to most other parts of the world. But is it true?"


I, for one, wonder the same thing. Not to be an anti-government conspiracist or anything, but sometimes I feel the US government is hiding a little something behind everything.

Rise of Yellow Journalism

In the 19th century, a prominent writer named Mark Twain made his name through a number of writings as an author and a journalist. More importantly, one may be able to figure out how the 19th century journalism was depicted through the use of his own works. Two significant short stories, "Journalism in Tennessee" and "How I Edited an Agricultural Paper Once" show how yellow journalism was primarily used as a way to gain newspaper sales and to enliven public readers. Yellow journalism can be described as a biased opinion subterfuge under an apparent fact. It seems so, that during Twain's time period was when yellow journalism started to emerge and popularize. Additionally, Mark Twain was particularly critical about the practice of journalism since he uses satire and a hint of dark humor in most of his works.

            In the fictional short story "Journalism in Tennessee", the narrator tells about his job at the Memphis Avalanche as an associate editor. The Memphis Avalanche is a perfect example of a newspaper that practices yellow journalism. As the story begins, Twain submits his first article. The article tells about a railroad in which it is meant to be fixed as soon as possible. The next part of the article merely states that the popular and known editor by the name of John Blossom is stopping by town. Twain's article continues on with more information and news revolving around town. However, as soon as the editor sees this, he grows pompous and claims, "'Do you suppose my subscribers are going to stand such gruel as that? Give me the pen!'" (Twain, 2). The editor is trying to say that Twain's article lacks substance and significance and would not do well to sell to the Memphis Avalanche's subscribers. The editor then changes up the article, using his own opinion and rhetoric to amend the stories. On one hand, Twain writes, "John W. Blossom, Esq, the able editor of the Higginsville Thunderbolt," but on the other, the editor changes it to "that ass, Blossom, of the Higginsville Thunderbolt..." (Twain, 1-3). Additionally, while Twain writes, "it is pleasant to note that the city of Blathersville is endeavoring to contract with some New York gentlemen," the editor alters it to "Blathersville wants a Nicholson pavement- it wants a jail and a poorhouse more." (Twain, 1-3). Both of these examples show how much the editor must change in the stories in order to fit the needs of his readers. This is a clear illustration of yellow journalism in that the editor must alter the stories for the ability to profit in the newspaper industry. This also goes to show that the people of the 19th century do not exactly like to read concrete facts in the newspapers, but rather a specific yet entertaining outlook of the stories. It should be noted that the short story uses clever and witty humor when telling the story because there is no postulation of what will happen next in the story. The events are very abnormal in the least, yet quite entertaining.

            The second short story, "How I Edited An Agricultural Paper Once" tells a narrative of the protagonist's career in an agriculture paper. There are two main ideas of this story. The first being that Twain publishes stories about daily agricultural work while incorporating some sort of make believe components and it actually sells to people. The only readers that dislike his work are people who actually understand the specific work Twain mentions about. Twain's work even inspired a particular dangerous fellow, whom he tells Twain "you have taken a great load off my mind... my reason has stood the strain of one of your agricultural articles," (Twain 3). The stranger explains to the protagonist that the articles were able to help rid of his inner dilemma. The second main idea is that people who are regarded as experts in newspaper and books are usually less qualified than actual career experts such as doctors or engineers. While Twain is arguing with the past editor, he mentions "I tell you I have been in the editorial business going on fourteen years, and it is the first time I ever heard of a man's having to know anything in order to edit a newspaper." (Twain 4). Putting these two main ideas together, one can assume that editors in the 19th century did not have to have much knowledge about newspapers or any similar works to make a positive and profitable living. As long as it sells, editors and writers alike are allow to create made-up articles mixed with some factual accounts. Again, this short story tells of how yellow journalism was a popular method to meeting the general population's demand.

            In both "Journal in Tennessee" and "How I Edited an Agricultural Paper Once", Mark Twain demonstrates how editors of famous 19th century newspaper or magazine companies use yellow journalism to achieve popular demand and to maximize their profits. Both works hint to readers that during the 19th century time period, the public actually preferred to read fake, yet entertaining news, whereas oppose to today, society likes to read real, yet not as entertaining news. This also shows to prove that the practice of journalism in the 19th century had a lot of humor and amusement.