Mass Pollution & Illegal Pig Slaughtering Compliments of Smithfield Foods

By Marcie Barnes

**See update/edit after 4th paragraph regarding pig slaughter method.**

I'm not going to get into a lot of detail about why I've never been able to stomach pork very well. And I'm not going to preach to those of you who eat it. Instead I'm going to ask you to carefully consider what it is that you are putting in your mouth and how your dollars spent on this factory-farmed product impact the environment and your health.

This 2006 article from Rolling Stone sums up all of Smithfield Foods' dirty little secrets quite well. The subtitle tells us that "America's top pork producer churns out a sea of waste that has destroyed rivers, killed millions of fish and generated one of the largest fines in EPA history. Welcome to the dark side of the other white meat."

And as I suspected, the Chairman of Smithfield Foods, according to the article, is reaping the benefits in his "multimillion-dollar condo on Park Avenue in Manhattan and conveys himself about the planet in a corporate jet and a private yacht." (The article also notes that "the 500,000 pigs at a single Smithfield subsidiary in Utah generate more fecal matter each year than the 1.5 million inhabitants of Manhattan.")

If that's not disturbing enough, I realized after watching the documentary film Food, Inc. (please follow that link and search for showtimes near you) that they are slaughtering their pigs in an illegal manner -- at least at the Tar Heel, NC slaughterhouse where a worker filmed undercover footage for the documentary. (The Tar Heel facility is the largest slaughterhouse in the world, by the way). What appeared to be groups of a dozen or so pigs crushed to death by machine (which was the same observation made in this movie review) is a far cry from the terms of the Humane Slaughter Act of 1958.

**Update: I just got off the phone with a USDA official here in NC and he said they are not crushing the pigs, but rather containing them in a CO2 "tank" and it's the CO2 that kills them, although he admits it still "hurts" (he's apparently accidently gotten a lungful before). He also said there is an inspector whose sole job is "humane slaughtering" - he inspects that facility - asked to speak to him as well - and I am waiting for his call. Stay tuned.** 28JUL09

From the Wikipedia entry: "According to the law, animals should be stunned into unconsciousness prior to their slaughter to ensure a quick, relatively painless death." The pigs in the footage I saw were clearly, awake, walking, and "terrified" according to movie reviewer Brian Clark Howard.

Just last year, an undercover People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) investigator filmed a Sampson County employee mistreating pigs at another slaughterhouse. Consequently, the worker was charged with 6 counts of animal cruelty. What, I wonder, is the penalty for crushing approximately 35,000 pigs to death every day, possibly since 1992?

What you can do: Stop purchasing factory-farmed meat. This is found in fast food, most restaurants, and in most of the packaged meats in grocery stores. Instead, vote with your dollars by supporting local farmers who treat their livestock humanely. I just found this local, grass-fed ground beef at WholeFoods for $4.99/lb - which meant my husband's burger meat cost a whopping $1.75:

If you still think it's too expensive, simply cut your meat consumption by 1/3 or more and you'll be doing your body and the environment a big favor.

From the USDA's guidelines: "The gas must be administered in a way that produces surgical anesthesia quickly and calmly, with a minimum of excitement and discomfort to the animals"

Is that really what is happening? Send messages to:
Smithfield: http://www.smithfieldfoods.com/contact
Their rep, Paula Deen: @Paula_Deen (on twitter)
PETA: http://www.peta.org/about/c-report_cruelty.asp (The Smithfield plant is on Hwy 87W in Tar Heel, NC)

Have You Heard of Hypermiling?

By Marcie Barnes

I hear a lot of people complaining about high gas prices. A lot. Although I feel for people who are forced to make choices say, between food and gas to get to work, I am also glad to see the issue become top of mind for most Americans because quite frankly, the higher cost of gas is (finally) forcing us to start talking about long and short-term solutions to the issue. We've got to stop putting so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I was just reading this article, Major Arctic sea ice melt is expected this summer about how the South Pole is beginning to melt along with the North Pole. Scary stuff, in my book.

So, in thinking about ways I can personally try to reduce the amount of emissions I produce, I stumbled upon a phenomenon called hypermiling, which sounds like some kind of phenomenon found at a Hannah Montana concert, right? Not exactly, hypermiling is the practice of doing things such as over-inflating tires, keeping the vehicle properly maintained, changing driving habits, and coasting in order to maximize fuel efficiency. I have read that some also use the racecar technique of "drafting" - but at least in my state - that's called tailgating and it's against the law. To be used by professional drivers only, please. Here is a little more detail on some of the legal techniques with my suggestions added:

Maintenance: Your Tires and Your Engine

As mentioned, high tire pressure means that less energy is required to move the vehicle. However, it will also cause your tires to wear faster. I think the best advice is to keep them properly inflated, maybe a little over. And if you want to feel like a racecar driver, ditch the drafting and get your tires filled with nitrogen. Nitrogen does not expand or contract like regular air, so it offers a consistent air pressure and a "smoother and safer ride". Apparently, under-inflated tires can lower fuel efficiency by approximately 1.4 percent for every 1 psi drop in pressure of all four tires, so you definitely want to keep those tires properly inflated. Of course keeping your engine in proper working order is a priority. Hypermilers often recommend synthetic oil because it lubricates the engine better. Keeping your air filter clean also helps engine performance greatly.

Get the Junk out of the Trunk

Drivers can also increase fuel economy by driving a lighter-weight vehicle and getting rid of unnecessary weight. This does not include passengers, of course, as long as you are preventing another vehicle from being on the road by riding together.

Efficient Speeds and Less Braking

You get your best fuel efficiency while "cruising" with your foot off of the pedal (and with the transmission in the highest gear). I am lucky that I have a car with a built-in display for MPG, so I can see in real time what kind of mileage I am getting. This has helped me re-train my behavior in driving. Instead of the typical "get from point A from point B in the fastest manner possible" behavior, I now drive as if my brakes are about to go out. The more braking you are doing is directly correlated to how much gassing you are doing. This is where coasting comes in. I find myself deliberately looking ahead for brake lights, red lights, yellow lights, etc. and if I see a slow down coming up down the road, I immediately take my foot off of the gas and try to make it to the stopping point using as little brake power as possible. Saves gas, saves brake pads. This article from CNN says you can save 30% by driving this way. That's like getting a $1 discount per gallon with today's gas prices!

Fuel type

"If the engine is designed for high octane then higher octane fuel will result in higher performance (with full-open throttle), but not necessarily fuel cost savings, since the high-octane is only needed with the throttle fully open" (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypermiling) - ok, so I've been putting Premium in my car all this time, but apparently if I vow not to put the pedal to the medal, it sounds like I will be fine with a mid-grade. Maybe not. I talked to a few people in the know and the consensus is that higher octane fuel is analogous to putting Teflon in your gas to protect your engine:

"Its like trying to cook an egg on a hot, greasy pan vs. a warm sticky surface. One is quick an easy and leaves no mess.....the other leaves a mess, deprives you of eating some of your egg, and takes longer." (anonymous source)

My car actually requires an octane rating in between premium and mid-grade, so I am going to start pumping half of each to save a little. It'll take extra time, but such is the life of a proper hypermiler :) In the end, it helps save money for me and the environment at the same time.

...I understand this driving style may be a bit - emasculating - for some of you - ahem - racecar driver types out there, but get over it, or stop complaining about gas prices. Our planet needs your help.

Image credit goes to slightclutter on flickr.

Reaction: Virtually Real

(This post is part of an assignment for the class I am taking, Global Impact of New Communication Technologies at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This week, I will be posting reactions to my classmates' entries from last week -here is my example-)

By Marcie Barnes

Today's post is a reaction to classmate Cindy Anderson's entry titled "Virtually Real", from her blog "The Write Reason". Cindy focuses mainly on a website called Second Life (SL) which I had not heard of until she mentioned it in class. This is a 3D virtual reality website where people can join and create avatars (and pseudonyms if they like). A more detailed description is here. I chose to talk about this today because it has connections to all of the topics I've reacted to this week: online privacy, technology in the classroom, social networking, and defamatory postings.

Virtual reality and online privacy: at the outset, it would seem that a virtual world would be a great way to have privacy. However, there are a growing number of corporate "sponsors" buying real estate in this world, and I wonder how information they have access to about the members (I.P. address, email address, etc.) In addition, there is something unhealthy about being too private. I think when you are able to put your name (and likeness) out there and stand for what you truly believe in, you are truly free. I am sure a lot of people are living there as themselves (to the extent that they can) for fun, but from what I've read, there's a lot of sneaky stuff going on there, too. And don't forget, your best friends are in your real world.

Virtual reality and technology in the classroom: Well, I honestly hope this sort of virtual reality "game" would never be allowed in the classroom. As the Wikipedia article mentions, Second Life was created by and largely used by 3D artists, so I understand and appreciate the talent and creativity that has gone into this. So, I think kids who have an interest in art/graphics should most definitely get involved in this type of project. However, I fear that what Cindy says may be true - virtual reality may become the new Facebook or MySpace. This concerns me. At least on the current popular social networking sites, kids are using real pictures of themselves and I think for the most part trying to create a page that represents themselves and their interests. I just think virtual reality can be very very dangerous if not used in moderation, in all of its forms, and this about as pure a form as you can get.

Virtual realty and social networking: Another concern about using a virtual world as a social network would be the addictive quality of such a place. And even more frightening: add in the fact that real estate can be bought and sold (among other things) with real money. This is how the advertisers are making their presence known - by buying private islands and such. At least on MySpace it is free for anyone to use, there is a level playing field in that regard. I worry that people (teens included, they have their own Second Life) will run up credit cards after getting too deep into a world like this. And the fact that child pornography has somehow seeped into this world is doubly troubling.

Virtual reality and defamatory posting: I read that some virtual police have been set up on Second Life in order to keep watch over the "gambling" activities. I wonder how long it will be before the police force grows to monitor other things. In any society, you're going to have crime. The Wikipedia article explains that "Chatting is used for public localized conversations between two or more avatars, and can be "heard" within 20 m. Avatars can also 'shout' ('audible' within 96 m). IM is used for private conversations, either between two avatars, or between the members of a group." So, if someone "shouts" something nasty about you in a virtual world, that could be considered defamatory slander. I wonder if the Second Life website records these "chats" and "shouts"? Or would it be up to the witnesses to say they "heard" it...and would they care, in a virtual world? Very interesting stuff.

I am thinking about signing up to learn more, but my inner graphic artist is telling me I'd be one to get addicted. Stay away, Marcie!

Reaction: Individual privacy in an online world

(This post is part of an assignment for the class I am taking, Global Impact of New Communication Technologies at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This week, I will be posting reactions to my classmates' entries from last week -here is my example-)

By Marcie Barnes

Today's post is a reaction to classmate Josh Voorhees' entry titled "Individual privacy in an online world", from his blog "A Newspaper with Infinite Bureaus". In it, Josh makes a lot of great points concerning online privacy, including the very true statement that" it is almost impossible to navigate the Internet while leaving no digital footprint behind."

I think I am careful on the Internet. But there are always going to be people out their bound and determined to fulfill their goals - usually motivated by greed - who may essentially "rip you off". I also probably place too much trust in corporations to keep the information I do provide safe. Google probably has the most information about me, since I use them for a lot of business, personal, and educational purposes. I tend to trust Google - but they are, if anyone - today's Big Brother, and are big in the business of marketing, so don't doubt their intentions. And another way we leave ourselves vulnerable is in the increasing usage of public wireless networks. I found these tips from Microsoft on keeping yourself safe in a wireless environment; but the fact is: the public hotspots we are using more frequently are not secure, so please remember: never enter a credit card number or other sensitive information unless you are on a secure (preferably non-wireless) network!

Even when you don't give out your information, or are told it will be kept private, be very wary. As an example, the Yahoo! email address I use was set up, at first, for the purpose of entering on websites that require an email address. I only do this when the site promises not to share my information. Lo and behold, within a few months the spam was coming in at regular intervals. Perhaps this is due to "bad" spiders (similar to a crawler) which scour the Internet looking for email addresses published on pages to steal. This is why you are probably starting to see people publishing their addresses like this: "marcie0305(at)yahoo.com" in an attempt to try and fool them. But I am sure they will not be fooled for long.

I've also noticed that my Yahoo! page is showing me ads tailored to my geography (distance learning from the UNC system and NC State, for example) but I wonder if they also know I am a student and are targeting these ads at me for that reason? (Insert twilight zone music here.) Another site I visit for fun sometimes, Braingle.com, often shows me banner ads that say something like "Hey Raleigh! Get your ringtones here!" Now, I know I have never given any information to Braingle, but I gather that they are reading my I.P. address in order to glean my location. There is some concern from privacy advocates about this, of course. In the spirit of privacy, I will tell you that there are ways to surf anonymously, if you do a little looking around...

Finally, I can't help but to comment on Josh's #4 fear: "Big Brother" in which he says: "Imagine if your potential health insurance provider had access to your credit card bills and could tell how often you ate fast food, drank at a bar, or bought cigarettes, this information could then be used to set your premiums and deductibles." They do always ask about alcohol and cigarettes in the questionnaires, don't they? I think it's a stretch to think that our banks would invade our privacy like that (they'd lose a lot of customers). But I would like to see those insurance questionnaires include more comprehensive inquiries into your health factor, perhaps like the life expectancy calculator I wrote about here. That said, I do think it's possible that insurance companies may look for what you put out there - on social networks, possibly some of the sites you visit…hmmmm, gotta be careful what I purchase with that new Nationwide Visa!

Reaction: Classroom Access to Technology: Reason to Pause?

(This post is part of an assignment for the class I am taking, Global Impact of New Communication Technologies at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This week, I will be posting reactions to my classmates' entries from last week -here is my example-)

By Marcie Barnes

Today I am reacting to my classmate Amanda Toler's post called "Classroom Access to Technology: Reason to Pause?" from her blog, Global Criss Cross. I am interested in this topic, of course, because I too have a son (who will be entering the public school system in the next few years). Her concern about students' access to technology is certainly a valid one, considering the considerable expense of new technology and the rapid rate at which technology moves.

I was especially interested in the existence of "detractors of technology use in the U.S. classroom", especially in light of my last post which warns against spending too much time in front of a computer. These detractors "continue to question if the educational benefits of technology are worth the price". My opinion is this: I think that the money should be spent in the upper grade levels (high school) where students are preparing for future success in college and/or the working world. There is little doubt that technology will be part of the endeavors of the majority of the students. I think giving younger children exposure to technology is also paramount, but it need not be the latest-greatest computer sitting on their desks. I was happy to see a lone keyboard in my son's two-year old room, because I think that will help him familiarize himself with the layout of the keys. I know he will have access to a "real" computer where he can perform tasks in preschool (and at home), and I would be happy to see the same when he gets to kindergarten, as long as the tasks remain age-appropriate. Perhaps in middle school he should begin using the internet as a research tool, but again, no bells and whistles needed.

I ran across this page from the NEA (National Education Association) which includes their positions on Technology and Education. I would like to highlight the last one: "Students should also be taught the appropriate and safe use of technology". Although this statement is vague, hopefully that would be to include the health issues that can arise, the dangers of anonymity online, and even productivity strategies in a technology-driven world. Check out this post from author Timothy Ferriss about how marijuana smokers were more productive than those dealing with normal office distraction in a 2005 study! As important as technology is, I want to make sure our kids get the message that it's not healthy to be dependent upon it.

Amanda gives some excellent solutions that could help get more technology in the classrooms and in the most appropriate areas. I wanted to mention a charity I am very familiar with, donorschoose.org. This is wonderful charity that allows educators to post "projects" when they are in need of funding for a particular need. Then, donors can go in and choose the projects they want to fund. In this way, parents, other relatives, and even strangers can get involved in helping fund in areas where the government funding is lacking. It's like giving a little dose of private school into the public ones. Pretty cool!

Reaction: Online Social Networking Problems

(This post is part of an assignment for the class I am taking, Global Impact of New Communication Technologies at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This week, I will be posting reactions to my classmates' entries from last week -here is my example-)

By Marcie Barnes

Today I am reacting to a post on my classmate Joe Recomendes' blog titled "Ramifications of Social Networking". Joe's blog is dedicated to talking about issues related to social networking online, and therefore his assignment from last week focuses on online social networking sites, particularly Facebook and MySpace. I am familiar with MySpace and can understand how it can be an addictive form of communication for our youth. When I was young, meeting someone new often was followed up by a lookup in the school yearbook. Now, kids can view profile pages that have a theme, possibly a multitude of pictures (and videos), and a list of that person's "friends" - hence the network. I use the term "friends" loosely, because I have heard that many people just try to get as many "friends" on their list as possible, even if they don't really know them. And even then, an online friend is never really a "real" friend. Furthermore, the addictive quality of these sites can lead to health problems associated with spending too much time in front of a computer (more later).

Why is an online friend not a true friend? I won't go so far as calling it a sixth sense, but we humans (and other animals) truly do send of signals to each other that cause us to trust, distrust, like, dislike, etc. Body language is a big part of this. Some people get along with certain kinds of people, it's not an issue of good vs. bad. So, let's say you befriend someone over a connection to a favorite movie or song and your online friendship goes swell for several months. Most of what you have formed about this person is really in your head. Eventually, you decide to meet. The new "friend" is still going to be shiny and new for awhile, everything will seem peachy. However, odds are, if you end up in a situation where you are now (finally) spending real time together, minus the adrenaline (and other hormones that compel you to make connections with other humans) of the initial excitement, that person is going to become annoying when the differences between your perception of them and the real them become clear. It's easy to form a meaningful "connection" with someone (akin to having a celebrity crush) that can become addictive and obsessive in and of itself. And frankly, it's dangerous when this happens with someone you actually have access to. I'll just reference Lisa Marie Nowak as an example, (the astronaut who became obsessed with another fellow astronaut), but I could probably find hundreds more references. Erin Hicks explains this phenomenon very well in her article, "Not love: fallin’ in limerance Part 1". It goes beyond security issues. Be very careful with online communities and communications, and keep your friends close in the real world.

As for health concerns, we all know about the obvious computer-related ailments, such as carpel-tunnel syndrome, back pain, and eye strain. But there's more: concerns about being near a wireless network (low-level radiation) too much, possible blood clots, sleep problems, headaches, and poor attention span (as if teenagers need help with that!) Along the same lines as what I said in my essay about Global Nutrition Communication Issues regarding how we evolved eating "organic" foods, we also evolved walking the land, breathing clean air and getting lots of sunshine. Lacking in these vital human needs, I believe, can cause a myriad of health problems that likely start with general sickness and depression. Thanks, Joe - I think the issues you discuss are very important for today's youth, and more.

Dr. Puja Kazmierczak of the Chiropractic Wellness Studio in Morrisville, NC offered this information and advice: "Sitting is to our spine as sugar is to our teeth ... they both decay the crucial structures of our body over time. In addition, the position that we sit in at our computers, using our keyboards and mouse is the major reason for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome in our society not to mention symptomotology that imitates CS. [Also,] simple changes in posture can be devastating for the neurological health of our bodies, as headaches, neck and shoulder pains and subsequent other compensatory pains further down our spines, begin to become evident. Over time people may also experience vertigo, balance disturbances and numbness in their hands. There are simple changes we can make at our work stations…and consider replacing that work chair with a Swiss exercise ball! It's an excellent change for your body's neurology and subsequent health!"

On that note, I am going for a walk!

Reaction: Who's Liable for Defamatory Postings?

(This post is part of an assignment for the class I am taking, Global Impact of New Communication Technologies at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This week, I will be posting reactions to my classmates' entries from last week -here is my example-)

By Marcie Barnes

My classmate, David Shabazz, wrote a very interesting piece last week titled "Who's Liable for Defamatory Postings?" I chose to write about this one first because I was quite intrigued by the question. Is there really a debate about this? Really? If someone spray-paints some defamatory statements about me on a wall, do I go after Duron for making the paint, and sue the owner of the wall for supplying the canvas?

As David wrote about, this question first arose with Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe (1991) - I agree with the general outcome - that CompuServe was not liable because they were identified as more of a distributor than a publisher. Which means that they were just supplying a means of communication and were basically ignorant to what was going on. However, the second case David mentions, Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy Services case (1995), makes the subject even more interesting. Prodigy lost this one, because they were considered more of a publisher. Why? Editorial control. So, because they essentially had moderators and some automatic controls of what was posted, they became responsible for the content. Hmmmm...

In turn, Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was created to protect distributors and publishers alike: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." Sounds to me like another way to say only the speaker is responsible for his words. Simple enough. However, David raises an interesting point: "The interpretation by the courts should be one where we strike a balance between having freedom to express ideas freely and being responsible for the content of potentially harmful messages." So, if I own a wall that someone spray-painted a defamatory message on, is it my responsibility to remove it to lessen the impact of it staying up for a longer period of time?

I am often on the fence when it comes to issues like this, and I can hear David's frustration with online entities that essentially do nothing. My take on it is this: of course the author of the defamatory comments is liable, and I think the entity that provided the "canvas" does have a responsibility to provide a safe and honest place for people to speak, I think they should make rules and make those rules clear, I think they have every right to enforce those rules. But I don't think they are liable, perhaps unless being found guilty of being blatantly irresponsible. The California Supreme Court agreed with me last year, and I agree with this quote from the ruling: "Subjecting Internet service providers and users to defamation liability would tend to chill online speech," As a blogger and forum moderator, I appreciate the protection. But I'm not sure blanket protection is wise, either. What do you think?

Blog Action Day - A Short Wrap-Up

By Marcie Barnes

It's Blog Action Day and I'm a little late posting, so I thought I'd give you a rundown of some of the blog posts I found today that I enjoyed:

1) Moolanomy.com's Little things you can do to save money and our planet - This is a great list of 40 things you can do to help the environment. Surely you can find a few if not ten or more things to implement in your own life on this list!

2) Lifehack.org's You the Consumer - This is a great explanation of how we consumers truly are consuming the earth. I am fast becoming of the opinion that humans will be the cause of their own demise, and this is echoed in the quote from Pogo: "We have met the enemy and he is us". In addition, I think I finally found the origin of "Nothing to excess" in this article - one of my most favorite sayings.

3) Thetaoofmakingmoney.com's State Of The Nation - Check this out for a more humorous view via a video clip featuring Will Farrell aka George W. Bush.

4) Last but not Least: GAIAM.com's 5 Eco-Friendly Kids' Activities - Don't forget to get the kids involved! Getting outside in the clean air and hands in the dirt are great ways to keep healthy and happy, and can help save the Earth, too!

What Filters You? (A Perspective from the NC State Fair)

By Marcie Barnes

(This post is part of an assignment for the class I am taking, Global Impact of New Communication Technologies at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I will be looking into some issues related to Web Filtering and Censorship.)

I was thinking about the concept of web filtering on a really large scale today, and it occurred to me that the Internet is really just a virtual reflection of the world. I understand that most do not have Internet access globally, but in terms of information - you can get your hands on virtually any subject out there, if you are truly "unfiltered". In the real world, perhaps this is what those who seek "enlightenment" are truly looking for, an unfiltered existence.

Let me explain: I was at the N.C. State Fair today and I was closely observing the people I saw there. it is by no means a stretch to say that more than 50% of the people I saw there were overweight or obese. With the N.C. obesity rate at 24%, I am probably not too far off. Now, it may be true that obese/overweight people are attracted to the fair because of the food there, but I think people come to the fair for other reasons than the food (I don't like it that much myself, more on that later) - I would say the attendees of the fair are a good sampling of the N.C. population, especially since many are drawn out from rural areas for the agricultural events & exhibits. What I think is, that most people have been 'filtered' via the food choices put before them to choose and enjoy things that are truly unhealthy for them (in N.C., and America at large). As a near-vegetarian, I found it extremely difficult to find anything to eat at the fair that came remotely close to my normal diet (which I enjoy, and crave, just in the same way other folks crave and enjoy unhealthy fare.)

Don't get me wrong, I can put away some Al's Fries or Funnel Cake like the best of them, but quite frankly the portion sizes are ridiculous to me. Only a few bites or so of either and I'm pretty much satisfied. I believe part of this may be genetic disposition, sure, but for the most part it's obvious that we are "bred" to like the foods around us and what are parents fed us as children. I have more recently "trained" myself to crave healthier foods as as I get older and I am sitting behind a desk more often than ever before, which means, I adjusted my filter for food.

Another thing that occurred to me while there: people in several other countries eat dogs. Why do we find this practice so disturbing? How is it any different from us eating pigs or (sacred) cows? As I watched the Painting Pig pick up a paint brush and swab the canvas I thought "My dog can't do that. Maybe we should be serving up corn dogs made of actual dog and taking the pigs home for pets." (Pigs are also utilized as drug-sniffers in some jurisdictions, for the record.) You see, our "American filter" tells us it's OK to eat pork and keep dogs as pets, while this may be disturbing to someone across the globe who has a different filter in place.

In many ways, people are stuck in the same circumstances: eating the same food, wearing the same makeup, whatever it may be. Take a look at the filters in your life, I bet it could do you good to try and circumvent some of them, look beyond them, and even apply some new ones. Our children certainly need some new filters, can you help?

Web Filtering: A Human Rights Violation?

By Marcie Barnes

(This post is part of an assignment for the class I am taking, Global Impact of New Communication Technologies at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I will be looking into some issues related to Web Filtering and Censorship.)

My last post got me thinking more about all the web filters out there and the debate as to whether they are constitutional. A lot of companies use web filtering software to limit what their employees have access to, it is common for parents to filter the web for their children, and even public libraries keep certain kinds of sites off-limits. This article from PC Magazine explains web filters well (but turns into sort of a product review towards the end.) And this piece from C|Net gives a good explanation of web filters and your children.

I found a blog that focuses on "protecting yourself against human predators roaming the Internet", and this post which nicely summarizes the debate - which basically involves how much filtering the government should be doing (in the case of children). I don't have as much of a problem with companies filtering the Internet, because I think it's fair for them to ask their employees to stay on work-related sites while at work. As for the library, that's a tough call. In theory, I would want the library to provide the Internet unfiltered, but since people of all ages use the library, I don't have a problem with porn filters. But what about blocking social websites such as myspace? Is that limiting access or simply preventing virtual socializing in the library? The government has weighed in on this already. What do you think?

Google: Too Much Power?

By Marcie Barnes

(This post is part of an assignment for the class I am taking, Global Impact of New Communication Technologies at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I will be looking into some issues related to Web Filtering and Censorship.)

This week in class we have been discussing the concepts of web filtering and censorship. Censorship has always been a topic of interest to me. As much as I agree with any company's right to include or exclude whatever products or services they choose, I do think there is an ethical consideration for any business to consider carefully to whom they market and how. As I have mentioned previously, a great deal of motivation behind my creating this blog comes from the firm belief that a lot of companies are sorely lacking in ethical considerations when it comes to marketing claims and the audiences to which they market.

When looking at a company like Google, which has not only become the leading search engine in the world but is also rapidly adding services to their menu and has become the place of choice for a variety of web services (including the platform this blog is written on, Blogger), I can't help but think: is it right for one single company to effectively hold the torch for such a huge and impactful phenomena such as the Internet?

Apparently I am not the only one with this question in mind. One well-known site, GoogleWatch.org, chronicles other publications questioning Google's authority such as Is Google God? And this past spring, Microsoft itself was trying to take a stance against a Google-opoly, as it has been called. (Oh the irony).

I also had some personal experiences recently that bolstered my concern. I launched a pay-per-click campaign with Google, and after awhile many of the keywords I included (I decide what keywords would trigger my ad to view, or so I thought) were suspended. The reason given was that Google's logarithm (used to determine relevance) was suspending them. Alternatively, I had the option to give them (in some cases) three times more money and they would turn my keywords back on. Pfft.

Also, last year's decision by Google to comply with the Chinese Government's Internet blocking campaign by setting up a filtered search engine for China has met with much criticism from the human rights arena.

I don't dispute the usefulness of Google and their services, and undoubtedly the talent of the people working there, I just worry anytime one company has such a hold on such a new and powerful technology, and the power to dictate the direction of it.