Oh. Parking tickets. They tick me off. Especially when there are fewer and fewer choices for parking at the campus of UNCG, and more and more times and unique ways tickets are issued. Does this really uphold the mission statement of the University's Parking Management?
Recently, as in this semester, the paint job outlining identified parking spots was redone. Great for visibility, but they marked off plenty of spots that could have been used easily, squeezing commuter students in and limiting space. Makes it easier to survey the area for extra tickets too.
Any student that parks on a yellow triangle (that last semester was a legit place to park) is ticketed for $50 immediately. I was enlightened with this understanding when desperate to park after one of the last ice storms hit, while parking spots were blocked with ice, and almost every day at 11:00 am the parking deck was closed for those without a parking pass(which had already been very annoying and time consuming). This excludes days the email was sent out allowing parking in the horribly long-wait park and ride lot. There was no parking anywhere. Believe me, I know every parking spot that exists in the area. I appealed the ticket and won, stating that the closing of the parking deck to those without a pass almost every day at the same time in combination with ice and none of the limited free parking spaces available made parking impossible and that I should not be fined simply because the parking management at UNCG had temporarily failed. I targeted their mission statement to allow all students adequate access to parking. Keeping student parking from becoming stagnant by patrolling every 2 hours is one thing, this was indeed another.
As a commuter student that doesn't exactly have the money to buy the holy sparkling privileged year-round parking pass for the parking deck, yes that pass which goes up another $50 every year, the free 2 hour parking is a necessity. Other additions to the ticket violation list now include parking a few inches over the white lines, even if the person behind you forced you to. hmmmh.
This is checked so frequently that many tickets are issued every hour. When parking is intentionally limited and no real flexibility exercised, the city and the University is actively exploiting hard-working college students, not even middle class yet, for money. Because they can. So, in short, those who don't have a whole lot of money and are going to college and must park their cars frequently typically get ticketed. Those who have plenty of money, a pass, or dont need to leave campus for work, have it made. They also have plenty of time to study. Power and money in the university system again--people with money can move forward much faster. It does not matter how much a poorer student knows and their ability to use their knowledge... even the University grading system is inaccurate because students with less time to cram for a giant exam are squeezed out. Time is money, right? Students that must apply for Financial Aid are also required to be full-time students, even though they are very likely to be working at the same time due to only a basic financial covering aside from loans. Loans are taken out anyway, but if a student only took out loans and did not work, and was paying for their education on their own, they would end up just like many people in America: ready to start out on a career, and already deep in debt. What a way to make your debut.
Anyway, I think there should be free parking all day for commuters that have a bicycle. The cars stay there, do not waste gas moving cars every 2 hours--the Piedmont was just sited for having the WORST AIR QUALITY in the area, exhaust the cause--and students aren't exploited that must work hard already, and are instead rewarded for going to school and using less gas to do so. It also saves time.
:::::::::::::End Rant!:::::::::::::::::
Friday, April 30, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
Media Use of Women's New Social Power: Oil and Gas Companies
Here is an advertisement promoting the immediate use of oil and natural gas for the United States of America in the name of liberating us from our current energy problems.
I'm a biology major. I've taken too many environmental courses including Biosphere to be swayed by this amazingly backward representation of what will benefit us in the future... and I've already tackled my own views and bias on the issue so don't get me started. (Unless you would like to debate daunting global realities and the boring long process of actually extracting oil/gas)
Media Scientific Fact and Influence Breakdown:
They focus on facts conveniently stacked to persuade you that this is the most viable option to agree with. Once you understand that the figures presented are the maximum statistics for extracted energy on the continent, you would also find that by the time the CO2 from that hits and before we could even possibly extract it all to use, we will have hit global warming crisis and peak oil anyway, the financial benefit to consumers spread out to be equivalent to very little, jobs that could have been for greener technologies taken temporarily, and the world gets a huge mess of consequences for the environment instead, which frankly doesnt make matters much better. It creates more dependency on current energy cycles with bad consequences for only temporary fixes that would take a very long time to create small benefits, and yes, a big bunch of money for the companies behind it now and like possible company insurance for the future. Political is personal for me. So is the environment I live in and the people I care about that must swim through the media (here I mean advertising media but it is seen in the real news too) of politically influenced information to figure out what is really going on here. The benefits she mentions, especially agriculture pesticides/fertilizers, are temporary fixes themselves that we've got to stop (several studies on organic and permaculture techniques show benefits for the environment and higher yeilds with less stress for the environment).
The focus needs to be mostly on transcending negative environmental energy cycles, but we've got to overcome the oppression of powerful companies bestowing this skewed garbage upon us to maintain that power structure. This is seen throughout history too folks. It parallels loads of environmental stories from Love Canal to water control in L.A. but that's for another blog another time.
Advertising Rhetoric:
If an advertisement is going to appeal to the most current social birdcage, and have a liberating argument, it might as well use a powerful psychological icon for representing the case. Here, a woman, and a young businesswoman at that, is promoting a strong argument for setting America on a path to independent energy control. Her voice is bold, she wears black and white for dramatic contrast, and she is extremely confident in her statements about the liberating effect of oil/gas. So they're totally ripping off what we want in Women's and Gender Studies to be represented in female rhetoric and using it to continue a power structure that actually is not very liberating in the long run, and is in fact the highest profit maker world wide. (and the branching cause of extreme environmental degradation if you include the production of plastics such as vinyl... plastic is made from oil! This is the most toxic anti-environmental dependence we have today!)
mmhmm. My internal ecofeminist is pondering these implications and the use of women's appeal in such a manipulative manner. I wonder what Charlotte Gilman Perkins might have to say on the matter.
I'm a biology major. I've taken too many environmental courses including Biosphere to be swayed by this amazingly backward representation of what will benefit us in the future... and I've already tackled my own views and bias on the issue so don't get me started. (Unless you would like to debate daunting global realities and the boring long process of actually extracting oil/gas)
Media Scientific Fact and Influence Breakdown:
They focus on facts conveniently stacked to persuade you that this is the most viable option to agree with. Once you understand that the figures presented are the maximum statistics for extracted energy on the continent, you would also find that by the time the CO2 from that hits and before we could even possibly extract it all to use, we will have hit global warming crisis and peak oil anyway, the financial benefit to consumers spread out to be equivalent to very little, jobs that could have been for greener technologies taken temporarily, and the world gets a huge mess of consequences for the environment instead, which frankly doesnt make matters much better. It creates more dependency on current energy cycles with bad consequences for only temporary fixes that would take a very long time to create small benefits, and yes, a big bunch of money for the companies behind it now and like possible company insurance for the future. Political is personal for me. So is the environment I live in and the people I care about that must swim through the media (here I mean advertising media but it is seen in the real news too) of politically influenced information to figure out what is really going on here. The benefits she mentions, especially agriculture pesticides/fertilizers, are temporary fixes themselves that we've got to stop (several studies on organic and permaculture techniques show benefits for the environment and higher yeilds with less stress for the environment).
The focus needs to be mostly on transcending negative environmental energy cycles, but we've got to overcome the oppression of powerful companies bestowing this skewed garbage upon us to maintain that power structure. This is seen throughout history too folks. It parallels loads of environmental stories from Love Canal to water control in L.A. but that's for another blog another time.
Advertising Rhetoric:
If an advertisement is going to appeal to the most current social birdcage, and have a liberating argument, it might as well use a powerful psychological icon for representing the case. Here, a woman, and a young businesswoman at that, is promoting a strong argument for setting America on a path to independent energy control. Her voice is bold, she wears black and white for dramatic contrast, and she is extremely confident in her statements about the liberating effect of oil/gas. So they're totally ripping off what we want in Women's and Gender Studies to be represented in female rhetoric and using it to continue a power structure that actually is not very liberating in the long run, and is in fact the highest profit maker world wide. (and the branching cause of extreme environmental degradation if you include the production of plastics such as vinyl... plastic is made from oil! This is the most toxic anti-environmental dependence we have today!)
mmhmm. My internal ecofeminist is pondering these implications and the use of women's appeal in such a manipulative manner. I wonder what Charlotte Gilman Perkins might have to say on the matter.
Songs about Society: Modern Radio Rhetoric!
Whatcha Say by Jason DeRulo-- a very critical analysis
I really enjoy the uplifting "sound" of this song, its background music and the tones of the artist. However, when I listen to the lyrics, the message being sung about society is just depressing for me. Of course, I could be lenient and discuss the power of forgiveness and second chances, but that's not as much fun as slamming the song to understand the potential binds that might be prevalent.
Have a listen to a fragment to hear Whatcha Say if you aren't sure about which song I'm talking about:
By the way, Tiger Woods, this song is for you... ::few coughs::
This song is all about money, disloyalty, attempts at the control of women, and *conditional* forgiveness of a woman for a man. I've noticed a lot of songs by male singers portray this mistake-forgive me-ok relationship control lyric pattern, and women a he's not here-there you are-whats the deal-ok or the rebellion of that pattern (Lady Gaga for example). Of course you have other songs that repeat "when a heart break no it dont break even" but this is all really just a recent radio song pattern I happened to notice. I'm not attempting to generalize here too much. We have just gone over the oppressive irony of Eminem in class that shows this is nothing new.
Rhetoric Analysis
Key Lyrics I Have a Problem With:
"but when I become a star we'll be living so large, I'll do anything for you, so tell me girl- mmm whatcha say, ooh that you only meant well? Yeah of course you did...that its all for the best.."
He is using male privilege here to make the statement that he will have lots of money and powerful stability, that this should be attractive to her, and she should ignore her emotions in order to be stable with him and have a higher place in society as a result. The ironic pity cries of "I can't live without you" place illusionary power and importance on the girl, in order to put her back in her place--under his control. What he really can't live without might just be that; control over a woman, specific or not.
Video: His character portrayal in the video is displaying a poor me scene with a bad ass attitude undertone. Very classic. The poor me visual runs over the "that you've always been well?" statement during the song. This is not coincidence. He doesn't want to appear to be controlling the woman, but begging to have someone he actually cares about. (which, this song can be translated to be also...) However, it is clear that he wishes for her to forget the whole thing and forgive him on the basis of power rather than emotion, when ironically his emotional rhetoric on screen is what prevails to win the relationship discrepancy.
So let's flip it on the singer. Mmmm whatcha say J.R., mmm that she only meant well? Well of course she did when she left! Mmmm whatcha say whatcha say that it's all for the best? Empowering herself TO leave! Well of course it is. Illusion and deception of power on the relationship level, demolished.
I really enjoy the uplifting "sound" of this song, its background music and the tones of the artist. However, when I listen to the lyrics, the message being sung about society is just depressing for me. Of course, I could be lenient and discuss the power of forgiveness and second chances, but that's not as much fun as slamming the song to understand the potential binds that might be prevalent.
Have a listen to a fragment to hear Whatcha Say if you aren't sure about which song I'm talking about:
By the way, Tiger Woods, this song is for you... ::few coughs::
This song is all about money, disloyalty, attempts at the control of women, and *conditional* forgiveness of a woman for a man. I've noticed a lot of songs by male singers portray this mistake-forgive me-ok relationship control lyric pattern, and women a he's not here-there you are-whats the deal-ok or the rebellion of that pattern (Lady Gaga for example). Of course you have other songs that repeat "when a heart break no it dont break even" but this is all really just a recent radio song pattern I happened to notice. I'm not attempting to generalize here too much. We have just gone over the oppressive irony of Eminem in class that shows this is nothing new.
Rhetoric Analysis
Key Lyrics I Have a Problem With:
"but when I become a star we'll be living so large, I'll do anything for you, so tell me girl- mmm whatcha say, ooh that you only meant well? Yeah of course you did...that its all for the best.."
He is using male privilege here to make the statement that he will have lots of money and powerful stability, that this should be attractive to her, and she should ignore her emotions in order to be stable with him and have a higher place in society as a result. The ironic pity cries of "I can't live without you" place illusionary power and importance on the girl, in order to put her back in her place--under his control. What he really can't live without might just be that; control over a woman, specific or not.
Video: His character portrayal in the video is displaying a poor me scene with a bad ass attitude undertone. Very classic. The poor me visual runs over the "that you've always been well?" statement during the song. This is not coincidence. He doesn't want to appear to be controlling the woman, but begging to have someone he actually cares about. (which, this song can be translated to be also...) However, it is clear that he wishes for her to forget the whole thing and forgive him on the basis of power rather than emotion, when ironically his emotional rhetoric on screen is what prevails to win the relationship discrepancy.
So let's flip it on the singer. Mmmm whatcha say J.R., mmm that she only meant well? Well of course she did when she left! Mmmm whatcha say whatcha say that it's all for the best? Empowering herself TO leave! Well of course it is. Illusion and deception of power on the relationship level, demolished.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)