Taking a Close Look at the Work of Richard Grusin Essay

ï ¿ ¼Sensationalization, Media Affective Emotion ï ¿ ¼Ã¯ ¿ ¼Ã¯ ¿ ¼ In this paper I take a close look at the work of Richard Grusin on premediation and remediation, alongside Brian Massiumi’s idea of the half-life of disaster, to argue how mediation affects current events - specifically through the story of the recent loss of Malaysian Airlines flight 370. Media has played a large part in shaping American history, since its early days in the colonies through today. Media has been used as a tool to influence public perception and opinion. Whether a British vs. an American perspective during the revolution, a distortion by yellow journalism of the 1800s, or in more recent times, and the polarized political ideologies between the republican and democratic†¦show more content†¦This trend of premediation or reporting on an event that has yet to actually take place is an idea that seems to be here to stay. Premediation is the fears of George Orwell’s novel 1985 in living color. It is today’s equivalent of having the police inside a person’s head; media can control the public’s thinking. (Grusin 4). In today’s fast paced... give it to me now society, few people take the time to really dig deeper into issues that are reported on in the news. Instead they take the reports at face value. Many of these stories have a much larger back story that is never told. Media outlets report stories from their perspective and focus on what is most important in their opinion, not necessarily what is the most important underling issue at hand. They use their often political biases, along with data mining, to give their viewers of what they want to see to gain the highest ratings possible (Grusin 4). Ratings can at times be the larger motivator of what gets reported rather than what the most dire of situations. Grusin goes so far as saying that politics, media networks and their sovereignty are now all so intertwined that they are almost inseparable (4). It is not just the media deciding what viewers get to see but also the government behind the scenes dictating limitations as well. Through this, he is arguing that governing people is achieved through the media because of

George Orwells 1984 - 1973 Words

Andre Diggs English 4 Quarter 4 Assignment Period 5-8 May 5, 2013 George Orwell 1984 In George Orwell s novel 1984, there were many issues in the government, sex /marriage and privacy that shows an uncanny resemblance to the world we live in today. I found many comparisons in the government, in Orwell s novel he wrote that the slogan of the party was â€Å"WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH†; this slogan is contradictory to everything that we are trying to escape. It is also similar to the ongoing war in Iraq, what is the purpose of this war exactly? Only the government really knows, they only inform you on what they want you to know, which is also very closely related to what they depict through technology, such†¦show more content†¦Currently there are eight countries in Nevada that have active brothels, men from far and wide travel to Nevada just to explore the freedom of sex, the freedom to do so without worrying about consequences from the law. Winston also felt the need to frequent the prole area to feel free from â€Å"big brother†, to purchase sex and not worry about looking over his shoulder, when Winston and Julia where caught in there room he was took into interrogation where he is tortured and manipulated into believing that whatever the party says is right, should be accepted. If you are caught soliciting prostitution in California you could be fined up to $1,000 in fines, serve up to six months in jail, face immigration issues, lengthy probation, require HIV testing, and strict probation with random search and seizures. It may seem that in today s society the punishment is harsher than what Winston endured, but the thought of receiving electric shock because you engaged in sexual activity is unheard of and quite inhumane. Winston was so warped in his thinking that when he fantasized of Julia he would often imagine himself killing Julia at his moment of climax, this shows that eventually no matter what you believe, a constant barrage of others opinions and beliefs will alter your opinion a s well. Winston and Julia eventually reunite and Julia has been brainwashed as well, it mirrors the effect of institutionalized people, once you have been locked for a period of time itShow MoreRelatedGeorge Orwells 19841168 Words   |  5 PagesGeorge Orwell author of 1984 recently made it on Amazon’s list of â€Å"100 books to read before you die† for his widely read novel with thought provoking subjects like: the dangers of totalitarianism, physical control, psychological manipulation, manipulation of information and history, and technology. Through the themes in 1984, George Orwell demonstrates that a dystopian society created by totalitarian rule can infiltrate the minds of its citizens through various mediums. The famous novel falls intoRead MoreGeorge Orwells 19841138 Words   |  5 PagesGeorge Orwell’s â€Å"1984† perfectly captures a potential dystopia that would occur to the human race if a totalitarian government was present. As a result of this, Orwell identifies the purpose of the novel: to warn people what could possibly happen if they were not careful. A totalitarian government is similar to a dictatorship and demands complete obedience. Orwell focused on what type of plot would be most beneficial, how the plot would impact the audience, and how the subplot builds on a conflictRead MoreGeorge Orwells 19842185 Words   |  9 PagesLiterary Analysis The author of the novel 1984, George Orwell, is a political critic. Therefore, he used very precise descriptions of situations and words to provide the reader a clear understanding of the entity he is criticizing. When Winston describes the destruction of past records to create new ones to Julia, he says: â€Å"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every dateRead MoreGeorge Orwells 19842208 Words   |  9 PagesIn George Orwell’s 1984, the author utilizes Big Brother to showcase the immense power and influence the government has over its subordinates. The Party manipulates the people through inflicting fear, constant surveillance, and deprivation of knowledge, in order to oppress them from having incorrect ideas or behaviors that are not permitted in society. They are expected to live as respectful Party members, forcefully having to dedicate thei r lives to serving Big Brother. There are a plethora of charactersRead MoreThe 1984 Adaptation Of George Orwells 19842072 Words   |  9 PagesCensorship in 1984 In the 1984 adaptation of George Orwell’s classic, Nineteen Eighty-Four, the director, Michael Radford, plays on the ideas of censorship and control of all citizens. As one of the biggest themes that is presented in the film, the Inner Party makes it their mission to stop all citizens of â€Å"free thinking†. Citizens are not allowed to think poorly of the government, nor are they allowed to think impure thoughts. Those who try to condemn the government, and those that question theRead MoreGeorge Orwells 1984 Essay706 Words   |  3 PagesGeorge Orwells 1984 What look on humanity and human nature, if any, can be seen through this book, 1984? 1984 examines a future under the rule of a totalitarian society. One of the unique notes about Orwells 1984, is theRead MoreJustice in George Orwells 19841293 Words   |  6 PagesJustice in 1984 The concept of justice is an important subject in George Orwell’s 1984. Justice is defined according to Plato as â€Å"the interest of the stronger†. Justice plays a big role in 1984’s society. Justice is understood differently by the protagonists of the text than how it is represented by the societies in which they live. In the novel 1984 by Orwell, an extremely controlling totalitarian government called The Party, rules the society. They have introduced Telescreens which monitorRead MoreSymbolism In George Orwells 19841349 Words   |  6 Pages Symbolism in 1984 Literary concepts are often used in books to make the reading experience more enjoyable. In George Orwell’s 1984, Orwell uses a key literary element, symbolism, to do this. Orwell does this in a unique way. He makes the reader want to think one way, when the reality is far different. This causes the reader to be surprised when the truth of the matter is revealed. He is able to do this by having certain objects represent one thing, and then later reveal it is something far differentRead MoreTotalitarianism In George Orwells 19841028 Words   |  5 PagesTotalitarianism Used in 1984 A dystopia is a society which is characterized by misery, oppression, and unhappiness. Likewise, a totalitarian government neither allow parties to have different opinions nor freedom with a centralized government, therefore totalitarianism and dystopian societies are similar. In 1984, written by George Orwell, Big Brother is a dictator who gives the Oceanian population no personal freedoms and strictly dominates all of the country for their own selfish ways. Unlike OceaniaRead MoreSurveillance In George Orwells 19841219 Words   |  5 PagesSurveillance, or a close watch kept over someone or something for a specific purpose, features prominently in George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984. The book follows Winston Smith, a middle-aged man who lives in the futuristic society of Oceania, where the government of the Party, under the leadership of Big Brother, maintains strict control of the people and prevents free thought through propaganda, censorship, and surveillance. Winston t ries to think freely while evading detection and succeeds for

Research Essay Animal Law

Question: Describe the status of animals under the law and allow them to demonstrate their ability to explain, differentiate, critique and apply the major philosophical debates relating to animals and the law? Answer: Introduction The treatment made by human being to any species, is a matter which is having immense importance in recent times .There is a famous book which was published in the year 1975, called Animal Liberation, and this publication had brought huge reciprocation in Australia, as the people are imposed to think deliberately to take this cruel ministrations to animals on hold (Chandra, 2013). The government of United States also performed a pledge to protect their animals and created ninety animal law courses for the universities to conduct awareness through education. The provenance of Australia did not contribute much as compared to United States, as the latter one rose significantly in the scholarly literature on animals, whereas the legal academy of Australia has less inclination on this indispensable subject (Agoramoorthy, 2009). Still Australia had made pivotal move to bestow strong legal scholarship in animal law in many categories, such as territories, commonwealth and states, to monitor animal prosperity and equally entrusting their focus on farming animals and arranging systematic analyzing board. People have taken significant responsibility to get them into right shelter and to protect them from plastics (Chandra, 2013). The abolition on exploitation of animals for the interest of humans is certainly a topic to be discussed for the awareness of the true idea human interest over animal interest. That is the very reason of forming more wildlife sanctuaries. Status of animals under the law: The states and the territories of Australia has the power to regulate the animal welfare. Though, it is merely mentioned in the constitution of Australia regarding their common wealth role and its significance (Jordan and Kellogg, 1907) but every time, the commonwealth got entrusted with the responsibilities on regulating animal laws and that shows the Australian government should enhance their constitution by adopting more rules for providing animals in more protective sheds. In the year 1837, the Australia had got its first anti-cruelty legislation which was validated in Van Diemans land, continued in New South Wales, which was included in the legislation in 1850. All these legislations had not got the idea to provide sanity to animals and was therefore labeled as an offence especially if any individual would be found guilty of harsh treatment to animals, he shall be punished as per their criminal laws (Leavitt, 1990). So it is clear that the law initially was not based on the foundation as it did not have particular validation on the protection of natural resources. The 1848 revolt in Europe had raised an issue on sufferance of universe, targeting the lower class society in the offence of killing animals. Therefore, for not having a separate law for the welfare of animals, legislature had involved many anti-cruelty legislations pertaining to criminal laws (Short, 2007). In police Acts, the government of Australia had introduced new legislation for the p rotecting animals, in 1860s. Some customs which were predominant before 20th century have been considered devilish activities of human to animals. There were also some practices which involved business and some are for cultural diabolic, they are from killing of animals to branding, dehorning of castles, spaying, castration and, ear-splitting. The era of 1970s and 1980s, had shown some important exclusion from all these evil practices (White, 2012). The Animal care and protection act 2001 has brilliantly demonstrated that the harsh treatment on animals which includes unreasonable pain, circumstances which are unjustified and deformed carcass are legally taken into consideration which at the end of the day is criminal offence to a life. The enforcement laws, regarding animal welfare is having variation from States to territories. The regulatory methods of Australian authority have three standards of agents, and they are as follows: a departmental authority, the police and the royal society, all based for the Prev ention of Cruelty of Animals ('RSPCA'). But the responsibility of the police services is limited as they do not entrust much to get general duty on animal laws (Harrop, 2011). They only get a very small unit to investigate the offences concerning cruelty on animals, unlike United Kingdom; police administration has got severe responsibilities to take charge on animal laws as their introduction of various laws on the favor of animals make them strong enough to dealt with any given cases. The RSPCA has divided some jurisdictions to different roles for getting effective enforcement. In one of the example cited here by RSPCA is, in Queensland, the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries have specific agreement to get easy access for understanding. With the joint collaboration of RSPCA and DPIF, they have introduced a MOU, a subject which enforces different Acts to different locations with expert opinions. Animals as property: The law that exists in New South Wales is basically known or referred to as the prevention of cruelty To Animals Act 1979.According to this law a person is not entitled to any action of cruelty towards the animal. Often the defense against this act that has countered the law on many instances has been under section s 24(1)(b)(ii) according to which the person charged with the offence will not be guilty if the animal is destroyed with the purpose of food for the consumption of human beings in a manner that is devoid of inflicting no more pain than is necessary towards the aforesaid animal. Property has no reference to a thing in particular instead it is an implication of the legal relationship that is existential as a law often referred to as a bundle of rights. The idea that exists pertaining to animal law basically overlooks the fundamental rights of animals when any conflicting human interests are found to exist. The owner of the animals always is given the upper hand when his interests are pitted against the animal so far as benefits are concerned. If there happens to be some proven and justified form of excess exploitation then only the interests of animals are observed. The law and legal system of the most of the western countries are primarily based on the culprit in proving the overall exploitation of the non-human, common law and civil law tradition plays a dualistic role which help to divide the non-human into two distinct normative entities that are person and things. Animal are treated as the thing and more precisely as the property of the individual. Animal laws related to the legal relation in the current law exist among the people. It is evident that there cannot exist a relationship between the thing and person. The status of the animal as property is based on the limited type of the legal protection which is increased to non-human. Under the current law of animal continue to be regarded as item of property, they are included as under the definition of the right for the purpose of the Australian consumer law consumer Guarantees regime nd are interpreted as the proper for the purpose.This is mainly so because in accordance with Yanner v/s e aton(1999), a property happens to exist to serve for a purpose and the laws are made under the assumption that the animals will not be harmed or inflicted more suffering than is necessary mainly because of the fact that excess exploitation of animals will only reduce their lifetime together with quality and value which is a direct loss for the property owner. The rights of the owners of property which in this case are animals itself are considered if any third party is found to infringe this legal binding and harm the animals. Overview of different theoretical and philosophical positions relating to animals and law: Animal rights refer to the legal rights those are entitled to the possession of the non-human animals (Arntzenius, 2014). Animal rights are entitled to the fulfillment of the basic interests of the animals ensuring avoidance of suffering. Animal law is taught in most of the schools of Australia. However, critics argue that the animals are incapable of entering into the social contracts. Utilitarianism is a theory that has been entitled to secure the interests of the animals. In animal liberation, it has been mentioned in the law that it is essential to consider the interests of the animals seriously. In other words, it has been argued that the human beings have been failed to consider the interests of the animals at large. It is evident from Singers theory of Utilitarianism, that When people seek to justify the horrific way in which animals are treated, they invariably point to supposed animal defects such as the inability of the animals to utilize human language or to reason as intr icately as human beings do. However, this particular law or legal right entails that human beings should give prior importance and equal importance to the animals. Singers theory is more applicable in case of animals than classical animal welfare. Utilitarianism engages the theories in normative ethics that hold proper course of action that maximizes the utility.It is evident that human beings have been failed to give prior importance to the animals just because of specific bias or specialism (Chandra, 2013). The concept of speciesism results into actual devaluation of the interests of the animals. According to Singer, the notion of equal treatment does not mean that animals receive equal treatment, and it does not preclude the morality of decisions to exploit a human or nonhuman. However, with the passage of time, Australia has been entitled to law of Animal Rights and Rescue management of animals. It is evident that the Animal Rights and the Rescue group of Australia carry out the procedures of rescue management of the unwanted and homeless animals. This particular group ensures the right of equal Consideration for the street animals and also provides shelter and care facilities for these animals. It is evident from the certain news reports and articles that The Australian Constitutionemphasizes on the animals rights so as to give emphasis on the procedures of animal welfare. It is evident that the standard regulatory approach is deficient in number of cases in Australia (Gibbard, 1984). The Australian anti-cruelty legislation was enacted in the year 1837. This particular entails the consideration of the animal cruelty offences in the criminal laws of Australia. Current Regulatory Paradigm: With respect to the theories of Australian philosopher Peter Singers book Animal Liberation, it has been articulated that the lives of the animals are of less importance than the lives of human beings. However, the paradigm lies in the fact that many Australian citizens take into consideration that current animal laws prevailing in Australia ensures animals with adequate protection from human mistreatment, cruel behavior from human beings (JihanLyou, 2008). However, it has been envisaged that the current regulatory framework could be improved. Thus, in order to improve the condition of the animals in Australia, certain legal acts have been enacted. These are as follows: The regulation of companion animals. Dog control legislation. The use of codes of welfare. Australias new regulatory regime for live exports. Animal welfare centers over the physical and the psychological wellbeing of the animals in order to maintain the animal ethics. The Australian Constitution considers that the animals do have a moral right. According to Kantian Theories, it is evident that both animals and humans have desires that can compel them to action but only humans are capable of standing back from their desires and choosing which course of action to take.Animals are not autonomous as they are incapable of expressing their will and ability(Pezet, 2014). Therefore, according to Kant, animals do not have intrinsic value. According to Singers theories, it has been argued that every animal should get equal consideration and equal interests. It can be contradicted that, somehow plants, animals and human beings are able to take nutrition. But only animals and human beings are having the ability of consciousness. This signifies that plants are inferior to the animals and human rights. Likewise, it can be contrasted th at human beings are more and more superior to that of animals and plants as human beings do have the capability of using logics and justification to their conduct whereas animals lack this particular characteristic. So they are often mistreated. It is evident from certain reports and articles that animals lack rationality. Contractualism however provides a view about the assessment of correctness and wrongness of the conduct of human beings towards the animals (Arntzenius, 2014). It is evaluated in certain theories of animal rights that social contracts can only be practiced or taken into consideration by rational persons and those human beings who have moral choice. However, moral choice excludes the consideration of animals into account (Harrop, 2011). Hence, with the implementation and the enactment of legal rights and norms it has been observed that appropriate actions includes morality and right actions are those which enables the assurance of maximization of the pleasure and minimization of the pain. However, as discussed above it is reflected from the classical Utilitarian theories that human beings feel superior to that of animals, so they find pleasure in killing and affecting animals to a large extent. They find pleasure in exploiting animals for food, clothing, and entertainment, which in turn affect the interests and the rights of the animals (Short, 2007). Therefore, the paradigm lie the fact that animals also have some level of moral values those need to be taken into consideration before affecting the animals in Australia as well as other parts of the world. Preference Utilitarianism: To shed light on the fact that utilitarianism is of vital importance, preference utilitarianism is to be taken into consideration. Preference utilitarianism is basically a concept in contemporary philosophy. The concept of preference utilitarianism differs from that of the classical utilitarianism. The concept of preference utilitarianism entails the promotion of the actions with the view of fulfilling the interests of both human beings as well as animals as concerned. According to Bentham, every human being must have a sense of shared sentience which reflects the overview about the sense of equal consideration for both human beings as well as the animals as well (Pezet, 2014). Equal consideration is a concept that the Australian Constitution enacted in order to give equivalent importance to the animals so as the human beings (Short, 2007). But on the contrary, the concept of equal consideration does not take into account a great degree of precision as presently, the utilitarian calc ulus is trying to maintain a specific level of balance between the minor interests of the human with that of the major interests of animals which centers the aspects of not suffering from the mistreatment from the human beings. Apart from this concept, preference utilitarianism entails that it is justifiable to utilize animals on a wider extent than of human beings. This is so because human beings do have the advanced mental capacity which the animals do not have (Sidgwick, 2000). So it is beneficial to use animals than that of human beings. In other words, Abolishing the property status of animals is therefore a strong focus of attention for many animal protection scholars. It is found in Australia, that people have chosen the way consuming milk from different sources other than animal sources. This signifies that there had been a wider scope of growth in the demand of meat over the few decades. Therefore, it is worthwhile that preference should be given in order to alleviate the s ufferings of the animals to a wider context (Harrop, 2011). According to the Australian philosopher, it has been observed that the interests of the animals are the same so as the interests of the human beings. He has given emphasis on the principles of equal consideration so as vegetarianism which includes factory farming and fur farming. Critique of Utilitarianism: From the above context, it is made clear that animals should not be made to suffer without any cause or reason. This should be the moral value and the principle of the human beings towards the animals. The concept of utilitarianism entails that every human being must look after the maximization of the pleasure and minimization of the pain (Williams, 2004). Therefore, consuming animal meat is against the law. Singer has suggested human beings to become vegetarian. However, there is a controversy, which underlies the fact that Singers theory has an absurd impact on human beings that human beings should eat flesh of another human. His theory is therefore insufficient for vegetarianism. Conclusion: Hence from the above discussion, it is evident that though the concepts and theories of moral vegetarianism are powerful, still it has certain loopholes. However, it is of vital importance for human beings to go by the animal rights and regulations those have been enacted by the Australian Constitution (Woolley, 1997). Every animal must be given equal consideration so as to enable maximization of pleasure to that of pain. References Agoramoorthy, G. (2009). Enforcement Challenges of Taiwan's Wildlife Conservation and Animal Protection Laws. Journal of International Wildlife Law Policy, 12(3), pp.190-209. Animal Learning: Learning Laws Repealed. (1972). Nature, 235(5338), pp.366-367. Arntzenius, F. (2014).Utilitarianism, Decision Theory And Eternity. Philosophical Perspectives, 28(1), pp.31-58. Chandra, R. (2013). Utilizing Utilitarianism: Animal Rights in Tourism.Tourism Recreation Research, 38(2), pp.255-257. Gibbard, A. (1984). Utilitarianism and Human Rights.Social Philosophy and Policy, 1(02), p.92. Harrop, S. (2011). Climate Change, Conservation and the Place for Wild Animal Welfare in International Law. Journal of Environmental Law, 23(3), pp.441-462. JihanLyou, (2008). The Right-Based Criticisms of Utilitarianism and The Response Strategies of Utilitarianism. Journal of Ethics, 1(70), pp.1-29. Jordan, D. and Kellogg, V. (1907). Evolution and animal life. New York: Appleton. Leavitt, E. (1990). Animals and their legal rights. Washington, D.C. (P.O. Box 3650, Washington 20007): Animal Welfare Institute. Pezet, D. (2014). Review The Animal Code: Giving Animals Respect and Rights Crossman Danny Arcadia Melbourne, Australia. Journal of Animal Ethics, 4(1), pp.112-114. Short, D. (2007).The Social Construction of Indigenous `Native Title' Land Rights in Australia.Current Sociology, 55(6), pp.857-876. Sidgwick, H. (2000). Utilitarianism.UTI, 12(03), p.253. White, S. (2012). Companion Animals, Natural Disasters and the Law: An Australian Perspective. Animals, 2(4), pp.380-394. Williams, N. (2004). Fears grow about animal rights activists. Current Biology, 14(19), pp.R819-R820. Woolley, M. (1997). Animal Rights.Science, 278(5338), pp.557a-561.