Money has a big role in our society; we can’t do much, or get far without money. Money is valuable whether it’s in a pocket, bank account, stocks, or any other means of keeping money. In today’s society, money is backed by public faith in the government and the banking system. We have to believe that our money is being handled in the proper manner. If not, then we would all revert to the cliche of hiding our cash under the mattress. I don’t claim to be an expert on how banks handle money, or the economy. In fact, I used to believe that we either have money, or we don’t. However, after being introduced to this assignment, the Yap Fei, US gold, French francs, Brazilian cruzeros, and debit accounts are much familiar concepts. I’ve even learned why money is backed by faith. No one sees their money being transferred between banks or on the web. When we get paid, we aren’t handed cash, we don’t receive a physical check (at least most of us nowadays), the money’s all directly transferred to an account. We all trust that the numbers on a screen mean we have money, despite there being no proof that any of transferring or moving of physical money happened.
There is a huge problem in Vancouver with heroin addicts committing crimes to support their habits. The “free heroin for addicts” program is doing everything they can to stop the addicts. The problem is that there is a large crime rate due to the addicts. It is obvious that addicts have a hard time getting through their day to day lives. Daily activities such as jobs, interactions, and relationships are hard to maintain because of the fact that they are using. By heroin users being addicted, they will do whatever they have to do to get their hands on the drug. The types of crimes committed are those of breaking and entering as well as stealing. There are no limits to where they will go to retrieve this drug so that they can feed their addiction. The problem with this program is that it won’t help to ween these addicts off using heroin. It is only trying to save the city from rising crime rates that they’re up to. By providing the drug, these addicts will be off the streets, which in turn will prevent them from committing minor street crimes. This will also keep the heroin users out of the hospital. It is pointless that the hospitals have to deal with people that want to use bad drugs or unsanitary needles and find themselves being unable to afford hospital bills and hard to cope without the drug. This program gives people free heroin in the cleanest way possible. This will in turn fix the city but not the addiction that these people face.
1.) There is a huge problem in Vancouver with heroin addicts committing crimes to support their habits.
In Vancouver, heroin addicts are stealing, mugging, and breaking and entering, to support their addiction.
2.) Daily activities such as jobs, interactions, and relationships are hard to maintain because of the fact that they are using.
Addicts fail at maintaining relationships, and jobs, because they spend time supporting their addiction
3.)The “free heroin for addicts” program is doing everything they can to stop the addicts…The problem with this program is that it won’t help to ween these addicts off using heroin.
“Free heroin for addicts” is a program designed to help the addicts with their addition and interpersonal issues, but it propagates the cycle instead.
4.)By providing the drug, these addicts will be off the streets, which in turn will prevent them from committing minor street crimes. This will also keep the heroin users out of the hospital. It is pointless that the hospitals have to deal with people that want to use bad drugs or unsanitary needles and find themselves being unable to afford hospital bills and hard to cope without the drug.
Vancouver citizens aren’t concerned with getting addicts off heroin, they want the addicts to stop committing crimes, and filling up space in public hospitals
5.)This program gives people free heroin in the cleanest way possible. This will in turn fix the city but not the addiction that these people face.
This program aims to provide heroin in a clean way, but this only fixes the city, not the people suffering from addiction.
New Paragraph: In Vancouver, heroin addicts are stealing, mugging, and breaking and entering, to support their addiction. Addicts fail at maintaining relationships, and jobs, because they spend time supporting their addiction.”Free heroin for addicts” is a program designed to help the addicts with their addiction dand interpersonal issues, but it propagates the cycle instead. Vancouver citizens aren’t concerned with getting addicts off heroin, they want the addicts to stop committing crimes, and filling up space in public hospitals. This program aims to provide heroin in a clean way, but this only fixes the city, not the people suffering from addiction.
Analyzing search trends after violent crimes provides insight into the intentions of the people searching. There are distinct groups created after a polarizing event happens. Some people search because they want to know more about the event, others search because they want to write about it, and others search because they want to prove their friends wrong. My belief is that after violent shootings blamed on video games happen, there is an increase in searches for topics like “gun control”, “video games”, and “shootings”, because people want to gather information for their own day to day arguments. Each of the key-words are searched in varying levels, depending on the group. Not all of these groups are effected though when a particularly violent crime occurs because they don’t have a need for the information the internet offers. Also, no real conclusions can be drawn about these people except for their possible intentions.
The first group of people, who just want general information are the easiest to identify and examine. Their intentions are the easiest to guess at as well. They want information about violent crimes because they like finding out the information for themselves. After a shooting that happens, that’s blamed on video games they tend to react the least. These people don’t really care about what the shooting was blamed, they just want to know what the “what” is. For the most part, they also just want to be in the know of things that are happening in the United States. This group is created from anything big happening. There is always a hunger for information that people naturally have, regardless of whether that information is accurate. This is how fake news is spread often, because people simply want information of some kind relating to a topic. After a violent crime, this group tends to be the one’s searching for “shooting” the most, as they only have limited information and want more. For example someone unfamiliar with the Parkland incident in 2017, would likely search “Florida shooting”.
The second group, is the group of people who search to write about, or report the topics. Now this group is interesting because they are created for a purpose. The last group didn’t necessarily have a purpose outside of simply acquiring information, regardless of what the information entails. This group searches the most and for the sole purpose of getting the most accurate information. Most people who report on, or write about a subject want to have reliable information so they will obviously do quite a bit of searching. This group is also less interested in the “what” unless they are writing specifically about that. This group is significant because they are the group that takes information for their own benefit. The first group is mostly focused on acquiring some kind of information, while this group acquires accurate information that backs up their own opinion. A good example of this is news outlets. They will acquire accurate information of events, but may tweak what the causes, or effects are of the event to suite the message they are trying to send to their audience. A more right leaning outlet may focus less on ideas like gun control because they don’t even want that topic coming up. Now this group is the group that focuses the most of their searches on terms like “gun control”, “mental health”, and “shooting”. They want to see a correlation between these terms so that they can either include them in their own argument, or leave them out if they don’t agree with their point of view.
The last group of people is the group that searches to bolster their own personal arguments. Now this group isn’t writing for any outlet, or paper, so they don’t tend to be focused too much on accurate information. In fact, they mostly search for terms and ideas that only support their argument, not even acknowledging the other side for the most part. This group tends to search for all the key terms because they want to find a link of any kind between the terms in order to make their personal arguments sounder. This group searches the most out of any group because they are the group that makes up a majority of the searches. Directly after a violent crime happens that’s blamed on violent media, people either take the side of for or against. Are video games to blame for a violent crime, or is that a bunch of crap? People storm the internet searching not only for the answer, but one that satisfies them. It’s honestly extremely logical if we consider how many people want to prove themselves right. Especially if they are in an argument with their friends, or family about a topic. This is why the search trends increase so much after big shootings like the Sandy Hook, Parkland, and Las Vegas shootings.
In order to use Google Trends to analyze violent shootings in America, we need to become linguists. Google Trends is a tool that allows one to view how often certain phrases or words are searched through google, over a period of time. Linguist study how society uses words, how often these words are used, and how language changes over time. Google Trends is a way to narrow key words and see how often they are used. The study of key words changing over time is called diachronic analysis. Google Trends is a type of this analysis , and in fact it’s the best way to examine how violent shootings blamed on violent media effect search trends.
To show that analyzing Google Trends is a type of diachronic analysis, we need to know what makes up a diachronic analysis. There are three major pieces for this analysis. Two of them are “corpus 1,…and a formula for ranking how interesting each work is,” according to Adam Kilgarriff in “DIACRAN: a framework for diachronic analysis.” The last piece are the key-words being studied. Viewing search trends with Google Trends actually has all of these pieces necessary to be a diachronic analysis.
The key-words are the easiest piece to see. I stumbled across the keys-words by pursuing one thought “Violent media does not cause violent crimes.” This is a conclusion that has been reached time and time again through countless studies. However, what I found odd is that shootings like the Sandy Hook shooting in December 2012, or the Parkland shooting in February 2017, were both blamed on violent media (more specifically video games), despite that conclusion. When pursuing why this was the case I stumbled across Google Trends. I was curious as to when people were searching for terms like “gun control”, “ violent shooting”, and “mental health.” Unbeknownst to me, these were the key words in my own diachronic analysis. Google Trends shows all of its data as line graphs, that have dips and spikes depending on how often a term is searched. When searching a term like “gun control” there are notable spikes in December 2012, and February 2017, around the time that the Sandy Hook and Parkland shootings happened. This was the first step in my diachronic analysis.
The second piece is the corpus. A corpus is a random body of text that’s being examined for the study. Normally its used to see often the key-words come up. This information can be used in turn to note how often words are used, and what words are going out of linguistic style. Usually its noted how often the key-word appears out of 1 million words. In our case with Google Trends, we can compare how interested google users are in our key-words to more common phrases like “sports”. This is not a new process by any means and has been done numerous times by analysts, and journalist alike. Data journalist Simon Rogers explains on “Google News Lab” that “to get a sense of relative size, we can add additional terms, which helps put that search interest into perspective…” This creates a scale for our key word which can act as our corpus. Now Google Trends have numbers out of 100 that rank how interested google users are in topics. In December of 2012 the term “sports” was given an interest rank of 92, while “shooting” was given a interest rank of 95. Meaning that google users were more interested in shootings compared to sports, a national past time in America. The term “sports” remains relatively constant throughout the years with a pretty constant interest which helps us use it as our “corpus”, or a means of comparison.
Finally, we needs a means of gauging how interesting each word is. Now as stated before, we have an actual means of measuring how interested the public is in each phrase when comparing phrases to one another. However, we need to decide what phrases are most suited for the purpose of analyzing the blame of violent crimes on media, on search trends. One thing to note is that the Las Vegas shooting is a bit of an outlier. Despite not being blamed on violent media, it is one of the top ten things searched on google in 2017. It’s being included as a means of measuring how interesting our media blamed shootings are to google users, compared to it. “Shooting” is a good baseline, but we see spikes at multiple places when big incidents happened but most notably around the times of the Las Vegas, Parkland, and Sandy Hook shootings. “Gun control” is a much weaker phrase as around the time of these crimes there was only a interest rating of 3-5 (compared to sports 80-90 rating). Other terms like “mental health”, “mass murder”, “video games”, “violence”, all have rantings anywhere from less than 1 to 5 around these times. All of these words were compared against sports. However, once we begin to compare these terms to each other, we start to see small jumps in the phrase “video games” around the times of the Sandy Hook and Parkland shootings. Now these jumps are small (only going from around 4 up to 9 and 10 when compared to shootings), but there is still an increase. This has identified three key phrases to our analysis “shootings”, “video games”, and “gun control”. Logically, these phrases make the most sense since they have to do with the topic at hand, but the relationship between these topics could provide insight into when/why google users show interest in certain topics.
All in all, using Google Trends is just another means of conducting a diachronic analysis. It has all the necessary components to be considered one. It’s not a brand new means of analyzing data by any means, but it can potentially grant insight into the relationship between blaming violent crimes on media and search trends of google users.
Kilgarriff, Adam, et al. “DIACRAN: A Framework for Diachronic Analysis.” Lexical Computing, 2013.
Ramat, Anna Giacalone, et al. Synchrony and Diachrony: a Dynamic Interface. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2013, books.google.com/books?id=YdnA6nBjXjAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn:9027272077&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQj6TkzY7eAhUyTd8KHQIXBiAQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q&f=false.
Rogers, Simon. “What Is Google Trends Data – and What Does It Mean?” Medium, Google News Lab, 1 July 2016, medium.com/google-news-lab/what-is-google-trends-data-and-what-does-it-mean-b48f07342ee8.
Link: Donate to Food Banks
The video opens with the camera looking at the back of a child. A majority of the frame is taken up with the back of his head, and the blue book-bag he’s wearing. The child is relatively well kept in terms on his hair and clothing, suggesting that his family has at least enough money to buy him clothes. The background is blurry, but the boy appears to be on a sidewalk walking through a neighborhood. Most details can’t be viewed in the background, which suggest two things. Either the director wanted the focus to be solely on the child, or we are looking at the world from the child’s perspective. The world is blurry because he’s not concerned with it, or cannot focus properly. From his book-bag we can tell he is in either elementary or early middle school. The book-bag also tells us that he is either on his way to school, or on his way home.
The view changes while the camera is still blurry. We are still looking at the back of the child’s head, but we are looking slightly to the left, following the gaze of the child. The child’s view is caught by something as he looks to the left. A blurry pipe or fence edge now takes up a majority of the right side of the frame. Possibly suggesting that the child has arrived at some gated, or fenced off area. This could mean that the boy is now home.
A door opens quickly and we see a pair of legs come walking in. The blue jeans and small gray colored shoes suggest that this is the boy from earlier. Until now we haven’t seen his lower body so this could possibly be someone else, but considering it seemed like he arrived somewhere before its most likely him. The camera is now once again focused on the legs of this person. From the smooth blueish gray tiled floor we can assume they are in a house.
The camera panes to a different angle and we see the boy enter the house. The perspective of the camera appears to be from a different room as the boy faces away from the camera still. We have yet to see his face which leads me to believe that this is intentional. The boy may possibly be sad, or happy, but we have no way of indicating this thus far, which leads me to believe that the directors wants it to have an impact once the boy’s expression is revealed for the first time. From the blurry clock in the background (4: 35 PM) we can tell this is well after school gets done in most places in the United States. Meaning that he either had a long walk or had something to do at the school. This could be a part of what is effecting his mood, and why we still haven’t seen his face. The boy is actually framed almost in the center of the frame rather than in the foreground like before. In the foreground, we see a white door on the left and on the right, matching white drawers to an in wall cabinet or storage space. Above that in wall cabinet there is a hand painting of hands, with various colors. Below that is a small bucket filled with colored pencils and other utensils. Suggesting that the boy is artistic, and enjoys drawing. This could be why he came home to later because he was drawing. All these details are present while the boy swings his book-bag off quickly.
The camera zooms in as the boy enters the room, and we can confirm that the boy is in a kitchen. The book-bag lies at his feet. From the checkered pattern floor, the wooden table and chairs, the silver fridge, and silver washing machine we can confirm he’s in a kitchen. His arm is raised towards the fridge so he’s probably attempting to get something to eat or drink. On the wooden table we can partially see what looks like a book and maybe the top to a basket. O n the fridge we see papers hanging up. The wooden table is worn with many chips in the paint. The same is seen in the door and the white cabinets. Suggesting that either the family isn’t very well off, or that the house is old. The fridge opens slowly and almost nothing is in the fridge, save a few sauce cans and Tupper ware containers. We still haven’t seen the boy’s face, his gaze doesn’t leave the empty fridge for a solid moment. He is obviously internalizing about this and feels some type of way about it.
The camera pans between the crack between the door of the fridge and the fridge, and for the first time we are able to see the boys face. He looks into the fridge with a very sad or neutral expression. This could explain why he’s been looking into the fridge for so long. He’s possibly searching for food, and hoped there would be food, but there is none. This could also explain why earlier the scenes were so blurry. Once again it is possible that the scenes were blurry because we the boy was unable to focus which is a symptom of people who haven’t eaten. On the fridge we see a blurry drawing which confirms that the boy likes to draw, but he doesn’t seem to be paying attention to that.
The camera pans out and we are able to see the full frontal view of the fridge. The fridge still has almost nothing in it, but now in frame are a few condiments. On the left side of the fridge we see another picture of a family. it is crudely drawn but this gives insight into the boys age, he is obviously in elementary school rather than middle school. The family looks happy as the male figure waves, while the female figure holds the hand of the smaller figure in the picture. There then appears to be an animal all the way on the end suggesting he has, or had a pet of some kind. The male figure is waving despite the female figure extending a hand towards him. This could be used to infer that maybe the Dad is no longer present in the life of the boy. This could explain why he doesn’t have food in the fridge, and has to walk a long walk home from school. His mother has to work long days just to meet ends meet, so she’s unable to pick him up and can barely provide food. Nonetheless, this boy isn’t eating right now, and that made him visibly distraught.
There’s a small cut in time as there is now a chair beside the fridge and the boy is climbing it. It’s obvious that the boy moved the chair himself but that was left out of the footage. He appears to be climbing it to get to a higher up cabinet or shelf. This once again establishes that he is young and not very tall, meaning he’s in elementary school. The climb is quick which suggest this is something he use to doing. He is possibly checking a pantry for food after seeing an empty fridge.
The boy opens a cabinet and it is immediately confirmed that he is searching for food. Sadly, he is met with an equally empty pantry, spare a few canned goods, and Tupper ware container full of flower. Despite there being “some” food in the pantry and fridge, its obvious that this food is not easily accessible for a child, and is essentially inedible. It’s not likely that most elementary schools students know how to work a can opener, and if they do its very unlikely that they know how to cook whatever is in the can. All of this is suggesting that the boy has nothing to eat, and has no means of getting food for himself.
The camera then cuts to the boys face again. This is the first time the camera has directly looked at the boys face the entire video. He has the same forlorn/neutral expression he had before. These cuts to the boys face were intentional by the director because they wanted the audience to see the disappointment, sadness, or lost look on the boy’s face as he faced with no food. This is meant to stir up emotion as we have been watching this boy scavenge his own for food.
The boy then gets off the chair and walks out of the room with his hands in his pockets. With a clearly defeated look upon his face, he’s given up trying to find food. The same look is on his face as he exits the kitchen. The camera then cuts back the same view it had when the boy entered the kitchen in the beginning. This time as he leaves we are able to see his face the entire time. Once again I believe this was an intentional decision to have the audience see his face for this entire sequence. Its meant to draw up emotions of pity and sadness for the child because he can’t eat. We see his art on the fridge in the background and his hand painting in the foreground, which adds to the sense that he is innocent, young, and doesn’t deserve to go hungry. He simply wants to eat, and we the audience can immediately identify with that basic human need.
The video then cuts to a well dressed woman facing the camera and speaking. She is obviously addressing us, the audience. It most likely has to do with the situation that was just saw with the boy. She has a stern look on her face which indicates she’s speaking about something quite important and serious.
The video closes with the Feeding America logo and a link to their website. The woman before was most likely issuing a call to action about children going hungry, and then we, the audience, are presented with the tools to make sure that no child goes hungry.
I’m currently pursing the line of thinking that politicians and other people of power blame violent media (i.e. video games) in order to talk about controversial issues like gun control and mental health. Most people tend to think that the opposite is true, that most politicians and the media push the blame onto violent media because they want to avoid these subjects. Nonetheless, I see politicians constantly give their comments on these issues despite “pushing the blame” onto something else. Despite how much we try to avoid the tragedies like mass shootings there is always mention of a shooting or gun control in the news. It’s almost as if the issue wasn’t avoided at all.
Content: The article lays out the four major shootings; Columbine, Heath High School, Sandy Hook, and Parkland, that were identified as being connected to video games. The author then goes over the research that shows that video games are in fact not connected to violent behavior.
Use: Using the history can help give context to the essay, and put into perspective how many of school shootings were blamed on video games. This can also be used to create a correlation between when people most interested in things like control control, and shootings, and when the four shootings happened.
Content: The article clearly states that the link between video games and aggression is weak at best, and nothing in most cases. It gives figures, and explains the method used to come to this conclusion
Use: Most people already know this information, and it has been written about to death. Despite this, news outlets and politicians still claim that there is a connection between video games and violent media. The conclusion drawn from this study can help bridge a connection between why people choose to ignore this information and how it leads to increased searches in things like gun control.
Content: This source explains why misdirection works on people. More or less explaining how changing someone’s focus takes a lot of work
Use: Most people say whether intentional or not politicians are trying to divert attention away from a subject and focus on something else. This has a name and its called misdirection, it’s commonly used in magic. This article can help explain why people fall for misdirection, so why doesn’t it work for politicians? It’s because they aren’t implementing the same techniques to diver and I believe it may be purposeful. Although it may no be entirely concrete I believe there may be a connection here to be made
Content: This source explains how in most cases there are no positive effects when people talk about things negatively. The saying all publicity is good publicity isn’t entirely true.
Use: Once again nothing entirely concrete, but I think the looking into the effects of negative publicity can help see why violent media are the target for blame. If there’s nothing to truly gain from blaming the media, and the backlash that comes from blaming it, then why do it in the first place?
It’s hard to say, with the lack of definitive tests for the former, undertesting for the latter, underreporting, under or over-misdiagnosing of both
- This is a casual claim
- She says that we as a society lack the means to have a definite number of people returning from the war with trauma.
- The way she states it is in a negative manner, suggesting we should have a method of some kind to get a definite answer.
Now, he’s rounder, heavier, bearded, and long-haired, obviously tough even if he weren’t prone to wearing a COMBAT INFANTRYMAN cap, but still not the guy you picture when you see his “Disabled Veteran” license plates.
- This is an evaluative claim
- She says that this isn’t the guy “you” would picture. And its true because she playing upon the fact that most of us have a preconceived image of what a “disabled veteran” looks like.
- She does this to show a point that PTSD and symptoms of it aren’t necessarily visible. It’s not something that only happens to people we see as “disabled veterans” in our minds
,the British Ministry of Defence pardoned some 300 soldiers who had been executed for cowardice and desertion during World War I, having concluded that many were probably just crippled by PTSD.
- This is a numerical claim
- This claim relies on the number 300 to help illustrate the lack of respect of people with PTSD due to misdiagnosing and lack of understanding.
- This point does an adequate job of conveying just how many people can effected by the lack of understanding of PTSD
The result of a malfunctioning nervous system that fails to normalize after trauma and instead perpetrates memories and misfires life-or-death stress, for no practical reason, it comes in a couple of varieties, various complexities,
- This is a definition claim
- This claim is kind of a sneaky way to define what PTSD without saying “PTSD is…”
- It helps the author support how complex PTSD and how its understandable why its tricky to diagnose