Media Is The New Weblog!

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress
can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -- Mohandas K. Gandhi

“The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk?
But rather, Can they suffer? -- Jeremy Bentham

“To insult someone we call him ‘bestial’. For deliberate cruelty and nature,
‘human’ might be the greater insult.” – Isaac Asimov.

1. testing a finished cosmetic product on animals
2. testing individual ingredients of cosmetic products on animals
3. testing any combination of ingredients on animals
4. contracting a third-party company to perform any of the above tests
5. using a subsidiary or third-party company to perform any of the above tests in countries were animal testing is not banned.

Some of the tests conducted on animals include:

• eye irritancy tests (Draize)
• acute toxicity tests (LD50)
• and skin irritancy tests
  

In 1944, John Draize developed a scoring system to grade eye damage. Since the war, the Draize test has become the standard procedure for estimating the eye irritancy potential of a wide variety of products, including shampoo, hairspray, deodorant, detergents, drugs, and pesticides.

In the Draize test, a liquid, flake, granule, or powdered substance is dropped into one eye of a group of albino rabbits. The other eye is used as a control. Rabbits are most commonly used in this experiment, because they have insufficient tear ducts. They usually receive no anesthesia during the tests. Irritation levels are observed over several days. Damage to the cornea, conjunctiva, and iris, as well as discharge, are recorded and combined into a single score.

The maximum score possible is 110, which usually means destruction of the eye. The tests sometimes last from 72 hours to 7 to 18 days.

Since the cornea is one of the most sensitive tissues in the body, irritation and ulceration produces considerable amounts of pain. During the tests, rabbits are often confined in a restraining device, with only their heads protruding. Their eyelids are usually held open with clips. Since the rabbits are restrained, they are unable to rub their eyes to relieve themselves from the irritation in their eyes. Pain relieving drugs usually are not administered because experimenters claim their use would interfere with the test results. As a result of these factors, many animals will break their necks or backs in an effort to escape.



Charles R. Magel, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy and Ethics at Moorhead State University, explains it best:

“Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: “because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction.”

It is important to note that results from animal tests are not transferable between species, and therefore cannot guarantee product safety for humans. Thus, these tests do not provide protection for consumers from unsafe products, but rather they are used to protect corporations from legal liability. This evidence begs the
question…why are countless animals being tortured and sacrificed to supposedly protect humans, when the success rate is this minute?


Hundreds of cosmetic companies have turned their backs on animal testing and are taking advantage of the many sophisticated non-animal test methods available today including Epipak - the use of cloned human tissue to test potentially harmful substances. This method is used by Avon, Amway, and Estée Lauder.

Countries such as the U.S. and Japan require that all new ingredients must be animal tested to ensure safety. This means that every 'new improved super formula' we see advertised has involved much cruelty in its development.



How to Find Cruelty-Free Products:

I wrote to a company, and they said that none of their products are tested on animals? Is this a satisfactory response?
No! It is quite possible that their finished products have not been tested, but the ingredients that go into the products may well have been. When writing or phoning a company, always ask for a fixed cut-off date that applies to both the company itself and its suppliers, as this is the only way you can guarantee that its products are cruelty-free.

• We do not carry out animal tests (another company may have done it on its behalf!)
• Contains only natural ingredients (still may have been tested on animals!)
• Environmentally Friendly (doesn't necessarily mean animal friendly!)
• Our policy has been not to test products or ingredients since year xxx (a dangerous statement as this implies a FCOD, but again they may have contracted the animal testing, or it may be done by their suppliers.)
  

1. Television: Mom
2. Telephone: Me
3. Cellular Phone: Me
4. Computer: Me

The only reason my mom uses the television more than me is because she usually watches while doing her work. She doesn't have time for the other devices.

Which family member uses it the least?

1. Television: Me
2. Telephone: Mom
3. Cellular Phone: Dad
4. Computer: Dad

My dad is cell phone and computer illiterate so he usually enjoys T.V. more. I am least seen using the T.V.

Use is restricted?

1. Television: No
2. Telephone: No
3. Cellular Phone: Yes
4. Computer: No

The cellphone is restricted because I occasionally share my phone with my Mom. I usually only use my cell phone for emergencies anyways. The other devices are not restricted because they are not used excessively.

Use is unrestricted?

1. Television: Yes
2. Telephone: Yes
3. Cellular Phone: No
4. Computer: Yes

These devices are not restricted because they are not used excessively.

Used mostly for entertainment?

1. Television: Yes
2. Telephone: Yes
3. Cellular Phone: No
4. Computer: Yes/No

My cell phone is rarely used for entertainment because of the fact that it is rarely used.

Used mostly for homework?

1. Television: No
2. Telephone: No
3. Cellular Phone: No
4. Computer: Yes

The computer is mostly used for homework because it is convenient for both writing down and researching homework topics. No books or pen and paper necessary.

Expensive to keep running?

1. Television: Yes
2. Telephone: No
3. Cellular Phone: No
4. Computer: Yes

These two items are the most expensive to keep running because they are the most used items by all members of my family. There is at least someone in the household using one of these two items most of the time

Cheap to keep running?

1. Television: No
2. Telephone: Yes
3. Cellular Phone: Yes
4. Computer: No

The cell phone is cheap to keep because the minutes are rarely used. The telephone in all is also a fairly cheap commodity.

List the names of your family members, and indicate which is their favourite media tool:

Mom: TV/Computer

Dad: TV

Me: Phone/Computer

Which is the least favourite? Why?

Cellular Phone: No one in the house uses a cell phone regularly, only when going out or for emergencies.

Do children of different ages or sexes prefer different items? Why?

Depending on the stereotype, or if children have been brought up to follow a stereotype.

Which item is used the most? Why?

Computer: Used equally among both genders. Computers provide Internet for all target audiences. Provides entertainment and social interaction. Cellular phones come a close second for popularity.

Which item is used the least? Why?

Telephone: The cell phone has taken over home phone use. Can be take on-the-go. Cell phones provide more entertainment and communication options than home phones.

Throughout our class examination on Avril Lavigne, my views on her and this case of plagiarism and copyright infringement have remained fairly the same throughout our classes’ many discussions. They have, however, expanded knowledge wise and have grown in understanding of the fine details of this case.

Basically, I believe that looking at Avril’s actions and reactions during this case can be boiled down and represented with one word. Responsibility, a key factor that may have very well enabled this case to end quickly, quietly and efficiently. Though there is likely no one evident that we can place sole blame on for the violation, people will naturally base their emotions and opinions off of who and what they know. They know Avril Lavigne, and recognize “Girlfriend” as her song. Therefore, Avril has most likely become the injured party. I don’t necessarily blame the viewers for their accusations however. We’ve discussed in class the possibilities of other cases involving Avril Lavigne and other bands/singers including My Chemical Romance, and Peaches, to whom she admitted to coping their song. I believe a situation like this can be compared to cheating, try it once, you don’t get caught, everything works out perfectly. Cheating as is plagiarism is just too convenient and easy to do, and is in no way the right thing to do. From what our class has learned about this case I see a definite possibly that this song is one of Avril’s repeat offences. This time however, the law caught her. As a role model to many who are years younger, Avril hasn’t been a very good example, and if in fact she hadn’t stole the song intentionally, I believe it is her job as well as her producer’s and writer’s to take responsibility and notice that there is in fact something wrong with what had happened. Sure, everyone makes mistakes, even ones they don’t mean to make, at least own up and recognize that you did in fact slip-up.

In my opinion, the Rubinoo’s has every right to accuse Avril of plagiarism of their song “I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend”, not only because I agree with all who found obvious similarities between the two songs in the beat, lyrics, tempo etc., but because the Rubinoo’s felt there was a infringement in Avril’s song. They had obviously found similarities and needed justice and credit if she did in fact plagiarize.

Basically, anything was possible in this case. I do believe Avril Lavinge to be guilty of copyright infringement and do believe that she got lucky by getting away with it. I hope that because of this incident she realized that it is possible for you to get caught and she returns to individual and her own creative writing, from her own feelings and soul, the way all music should be.