Confidence: The Story of Judge George "Tookie" James
A story of the life of a honorable man, in the courtroom, in the community, and in the home, who has lived, and continues to live a rich life we all can be touched by. Even through hardships and bad times, times of happiness and success, and even through the differences in our outer epidermis, we can have the confidence that our Lord has a plan for our lives. Things happen for a reason, and even if we don't know why at the time, our eyes will be opened to his plan.
Come here the story of the first African American judge in Beaver county, a Westminster alum, as well as a member of our local community. Don't miss an opportunity to take just a few seconds out of your life for such a rich experience.
This Thursday, May 3rd, during the lunch period in Mueller Theater.
I encourage you to be a active member of our community here at Westminster, as well as challenge the pictures in your head and question what you know as truth, as well as to explore what you don't know.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Monday, April 23, 2007
UPDATE
We are currently in the editing stage of our documentary. I have been learning a lot about editing from working with Thomas. I think we will end up with more than we need, but the hard part is picking and choosing what we think should be part of the film, and what our star of the show wanted to include. Another aspect we are struggling with is making sure the right messages get to the audience. There are many aspects of the story to be told, but we must choose which ones will make the most impact.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
The Illusion will always be an illusion until someone proves it to be truth
I watched a night of prime time television this past Sunday night, and there was nothing I found interesting on. I pretty much watched NBC since ABC had reality TV that I wasn’t really in the mood for. From 8-9pm, I did the channel flip thing, watching a few programs at once, but nothing in particular. From 9-10pm, I watched "Cold Case", and after that, "Gone Without a Trace". I didn’t feel like I could agree with Meyrowitz on this particular night because I wasn’t really exposed to anything new. Cold Case did have flash-backs of suffragettes and how women fought for rights and the 19th amendment, but I could also look that up in a history book. Last night, during "CSI: Miami", I was exposed to Native American culture. It would have been beneficial if I hadn’t been exposed to it before, but what was portrayed was more a Native American political/business life, and, not that I am an expert, but there is a reservation near my parents home and one of our rivals in high school was a school on the reservation. I think in this case, my personal experience was more important than what I saw on television.
I think I would agree with Meyrowitz that this electronic era had affected the family unit. The parents are some what losing "authority" over what their children are exposed to. For instance, over Easter break, I was sent to the video store to get some movies. My nieces were going to be viewers so they sent me with title requests and my sister warned me to get "child appropriate" movies. "Accepted" was requested, and I even called to double check with my sister on the rating of PG-13 since I thought this would be on the boarder-line of what was allowed. It was okayed, but when I brought it home, my sister was surprised that it was PG-13. They are from Canada and the rating was only PG. Apparently, the US makes more liberal films, or has a higher standard of its rating system. Furthermore, I think television helps children become exposed to diversity more than young adults. I acted as a gate-keeper this weekend, and watched "Fresh Prince" and "The Andy Griffith Show" with them. They hadn't seen either, but I was questioned why I would want to watch televison in black and white. They might have sat through those shows because I picked them, and if I would have worn hot pink all day they would have too, but they still choose to watch "Deal or No Deal" for the rest of the evening. My poor dad had never seen the show before and he could just not understand why someone would want to pick the suitcases with the least amount of money in them. Of course, in his defense, he only saw a few minutes of the show here and there.
Getting back on topic, I would agree with what Baudrillard has to say about his theory about hyperreality. He says, "simulation becomes our perception of reality", and I think too often, what we see on television becomes our reality. I think his analogy of gambling works well. A moderate gambler can say no and stop whenever he or she wants, and so could a media consumer. However, in this day and age, how many people do you know that are just "average" media consumers. I think this is where the argument of Dewey comes in. The purpose of media should not be to simply inform the public, but become a discussion forum for what is going on in the world. If, as consumers, we question what we learn like students consuming knowledge, we find our way to the truth. I think too often we accept what we see as the truth without questioning it, in all aspects of our lives. People use the excuse that they are too busy to learn about a different culture, a new place, or become exposed to something outside of his or her comfort zone. Therefore, they use media as a tool, but don't check their sources. It is like using a book in a research paper written by my niece on Edgar Allen Poe. She doesn't have a clue of who she is, but could sound very intelligent on the topic if she wanted. If know one put the effort to understand that she was 12, they might accept her words as truth.
When Baudrililard refers to America as, "the only remaining primitive society," I can understand his point, but can't fully accept the statement either. I agree with Meyrowitz to a point, that media informs the mass, but I think the mass takes it too far and becomes lazy, including myself, and accepts it at face value. Media is a good tool, but it has to be used correctly to be useful.
I think I would agree with Meyrowitz that this electronic era had affected the family unit. The parents are some what losing "authority" over what their children are exposed to. For instance, over Easter break, I was sent to the video store to get some movies. My nieces were going to be viewers so they sent me with title requests and my sister warned me to get "child appropriate" movies. "Accepted" was requested, and I even called to double check with my sister on the rating of PG-13 since I thought this would be on the boarder-line of what was allowed. It was okayed, but when I brought it home, my sister was surprised that it was PG-13. They are from Canada and the rating was only PG. Apparently, the US makes more liberal films, or has a higher standard of its rating system. Furthermore, I think television helps children become exposed to diversity more than young adults. I acted as a gate-keeper this weekend, and watched "Fresh Prince" and "The Andy Griffith Show" with them. They hadn't seen either, but I was questioned why I would want to watch televison in black and white. They might have sat through those shows because I picked them, and if I would have worn hot pink all day they would have too, but they still choose to watch "Deal or No Deal" for the rest of the evening. My poor dad had never seen the show before and he could just not understand why someone would want to pick the suitcases with the least amount of money in them. Of course, in his defense, he only saw a few minutes of the show here and there.
Getting back on topic, I would agree with what Baudrillard has to say about his theory about hyperreality. He says, "simulation becomes our perception of reality", and I think too often, what we see on television becomes our reality. I think his analogy of gambling works well. A moderate gambler can say no and stop whenever he or she wants, and so could a media consumer. However, in this day and age, how many people do you know that are just "average" media consumers. I think this is where the argument of Dewey comes in. The purpose of media should not be to simply inform the public, but become a discussion forum for what is going on in the world. If, as consumers, we question what we learn like students consuming knowledge, we find our way to the truth. I think too often we accept what we see as the truth without questioning it, in all aspects of our lives. People use the excuse that they are too busy to learn about a different culture, a new place, or become exposed to something outside of his or her comfort zone. Therefore, they use media as a tool, but don't check their sources. It is like using a book in a research paper written by my niece on Edgar Allen Poe. She doesn't have a clue of who she is, but could sound very intelligent on the topic if she wanted. If know one put the effort to understand that she was 12, they might accept her words as truth.
When Baudrililard refers to America as, "the only remaining primitive society," I can understand his point, but can't fully accept the statement either. I agree with Meyrowitz to a point, that media informs the mass, but I think the mass takes it too far and becomes lazy, including myself, and accepts it at face value. Media is a good tool, but it has to be used correctly to be useful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
