Valencia, The Social Network

The Social Network follows the life of Mike Zuckerberg, the world’s youngest billionaire, as he creates (and is sewed over) one of the most important websites of our time: Facebook. I believe there is a political message behind this film; however I feel there is a more important message about how modern-day society is evolving.

The political message behind The Social Network is that privacy is a thing of the past. Things on the internet aren’t written in pencil, they’re written in ink. The only difference however is that with facebook, you choose which information you put out for the entire world to see. It’s strange to me that multitudes of people will complain about invasion of privacy, yet many of the same people will post the most intimate details of their lives on the internet for all to see.  

I think that social networking is both positive and detrimental to society. Facebook is like a gun, it’s a tool. However in the wrong hands that tool can seriously harm someone. Now I’m not saying facebook is the devil, I’m not gonna lie, it’s a pretty awesome tool to keep in touch with friends who are out of state or in different countries. There are some major problems with facebook and social networking in general.

First off, it is changing the way people interact with each other face-to-face and this is particularly evident in younger generations. In my opinion, kids are losing their guts (not literally of course). People start fights on the internet because they are too scared to actually confront a person and look them in the eye. Another problem is many people seem completely different in real life as compared to the internet. I think that a barrier is put up; a sort of virtual comfort zone that people can hide behind instead of dealing with things in real life. This leads to a lot of “fake” people. This is my main problem with social networking in general.

Another thing, I don’t think employers or schools should have access to your facebook page. I believe access to a criminal record is good and understandable, but not to facebook. I don’t believe one should be judged on their personal lives outside of work or school when being considered for employment or acceptance.  Many jobs and scholarships have been lost to pictures on facebook.

All in all, I believe facebook is a tool that can be used positively or negatively. It all depends on you. Just make sure you do some housekeeping on your photos every once in a while. It can avoid some rather unpleasant situations. I think it’s agreeable that some things just shouldn’t be shared.

Valencia, The West Wing

The image of the presidency that The West Wing creates is very idealistic. In West Wing, the president is represented as a kind, caring, compassionate, father figure. He is reasonable, fair, honest, and in control. He is even a God-fearing man, not to mention he has a great head of hair. All of these things are fine and dandy; I mean who wouldn’t want a president like him? He is by all means perfect for the job. Unfortunately, this image of the president is unrealistic.  

I believe the image that West Wing gives the president is unrealistic for a couple of reasons. First off, the president portrayed in West Wing is sincere and honest. When was the last time a president was honest during a campaign? How about while in office? I would say probably before the media became a huge part of campaigning. Politicians are known for their dishonesty and ulterior motives.

In West Wing the president seemed to actually stand up for what he believed in. What he believed in was also (surprisingly) not profit! Wow, what a guy. Back in real-life land, it is impossible to win the office without money or large corporate benefactors. With large sponsors come large responsibilities, or at least responsibilities to one’s sponsors. This renders many candidates vulnerable to becoming, basically, puppets for their benefactors.

I think my biggest problem with the image of the president is that he is portrayed as a real, genuine, honest, person. He doesn’t put up a façade or portray himself as something he is not. He doesn’t seem to have ulterior motives and appears to be genuinely interested in the welfare of the country and its people. He seems to be a man of his word who works for the common good. How many presidents truly fit this description?

Some of my favorite presidents include good ol’ Honest Abe, JFK, George Washington, FDR, and Teddy Roosevelt. Each president I listed worked for the common good and brought positive change. Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves, something that was very controversial at the time. He was then assassinated. JFK empowered the average American and even started withdrawing troops from Vietnam. He was then assassinated. Teddy Roosevelt was shot while giving his speech, yet he persevered. George Washington was a general in the American Revolution, literally fighting for what he believed in. These were all good men who stood up and stood out, and they had power. Nowadays, it is the good men who stand up and stand out who are punished. It seems that since the dawn of mass media, the presidency has declined into a contest of false images, empty words, and who has the bigger campaign sponsors. 

Valencia: Socialism

According to socialistagenda.info, socialism is defined as: “…a theoretical economic system that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution in the community of stakeholder as a whole.” This is, for the most part, how I view socialism. Basically it means there are no “higher-ups” in control of everything. It means the person who makes the bread is just as important as management. The root of the word socialism is, of course, social; and this is where the power lies.

I have a very open mind when it comes to politics. I have studied various systems of government from monarchies to anarchy (which is the complete lack of government.) What is appealing about socialism is that it puts everyone in power; which, in its pure theoretical pure form, keeps greed in check. In theory, under a system of socialism, CEOs would not be able to make the billions they do today unless the workers had significantly higher salaries. I look at socialism rationally and for what it is. Socialism is an equal distribution of power, economically. I think of socialism as economic democracy.

What’s so bad about socialism then? It is arguable that socialism takes away motivation and incentives to work hard in order to gain power. A theoretical argument is “Why would I want to work hard to become a CEO when the pay isn’t all that much better?” This is a valid point. However, what I believe where the danger lies is in the misconception of socialism. This is the first image I found when I searched “socialism” 

votebits.com

This is a blatant misinterpretation of socialism. The sickle and hammer is the symbol of communism. This would be like having a sign shaped like a hamburger that says “Hot dogs for sale” on it. This is the symbol for the socialist party in the US.

The problem is lots of people mistake socialism for communism, or fear socialism will inevitably lead to communism. According to Merriam-Webster socialism is defined as:

3. A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

  

Of course there's nobody who likes communism because they associate it with these guys.

harryallen.info

Valencia: Capitalism

I believe an obviously slanted film does have the ability to change a person’s mind. Certainly a slanted film won’t change most people’s minds, however I believe slanted films are especially powerful to those who feel. When I say feel I mean people that make decisions based on emotion rather than mentally thinking about and analyzing the facts in order to form their own opinion.

One scene I think is emotionally effective is, well, actually all the scenes that involve tears. Pulling at the viewer’s heart strings is always a great way to form an opinion, that is, if the person operates emotionally. Now a scene I find effective without relying on emotion is the scene where the factory workers occupied the factory until they got their paychecks. I think this scene is effective because it is the classic “underdog versus the big guy/the man” scenario. The workers fought for what they believed in and for what they deserved until they got it. Who doesn’t love when the underdog wins?

One scene I found ineffective was the whole Obama scene. He makes Obama out to be, well basically, a savior. People are crying, everyone’s chanting, WOO change! Alright, oorah, I’m down to change things. I think this was all just too much though, especially considering our situation today. Don’t get me wrong, Barack’s alright. He definitely is a leap from our last president as far as our image goes. Still though, all that hope and change, my take on it is if you can’t notice it; you’re doing it wrong. What’s important is people want positive change though.

In short, I believe Capitalism: A Love Story is propaganda. According to dictionary.com propaganda is defined as” information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.” This is my main complaint about this movie. It’s literally propaganda. I much prefer the Frontline type of documentary. It is well put together and most importantly lays out the facts for what they are. It is a documentary, not propaganda. I don’t think Michael Moore laid out the opposing argument in a proper manner because his film is about entertainment and propaganda. Capitalism’s purpose is to sway opinion while Frontline’s purpose is to present the viewer with the facts and allow the viewer to form their own opinions like big boys and girls. I’ve never liked being told how to feel about something, it’s very child-like. I’ve always preferred the facts; just the plain simple truths.

In conclusion, I believe Frontline is much more powerful as a documentary. Capitalism is much more effective as entertainment and propaganda. Each one serves its purpose well.

                                                              http://www.michaelhacker.at