As I see it, the problem with giving both sides of an issue is that by doing so, you legitimize points of view that are not valid. there are not two sides to every story and it is not always true that both points of view are valid. Should history textbooks include a section entitled "The Good Things that Slavery did for the Pre-Civil War South", or "Positive contributions of the Nazis to Building a Modern Europe?" I think not. Plastic bags are bad for the environment. end of story.
MUST disagree.
I read the Sheriff's Office report, and I come away with the opposite conclusion-- the problem is Bradley, NOT Prosser.
I wrote a whole analysis on it : http://sytereitz.com/2011/08/prosser-bradley-investigation-ends-chief-i-have-lost-confidence-in-your-leadershipsupreme-court-disgraced-democrat-delays-and-cover-ups-yet-again/
Few workplaces are free of disagreement, temper, or b-words.
The fact that Prosser can lose his cool once every 3 months does not sound wildly out of line to me.
If Biden and Obama can do it, why is everyone so hard on Prosser?
Nobody mentions that Bradley is not only equally dramatic as Prosser, but has also smacked a fellow Justice on the head for calling the Chief Justice by her first name! She's a real operator.
My read says Bradley and Abrahamson have been colluding in the delay of the collective bargaining law decision, and Prosser called them out on it right before a deadline. Bradley lost it, and charged at him. Later, she realized the gravity of her action in front of witnesses, and tried to play victim, going on the offensive. If you don't believe this, read my analysis with page references to the Sheriff's Report.
This issue drove me so batty that I decided to dedicate a Masters thesis to it. We have to decide what our goal is. Are we just interested in avoiding a stinky bag from meat juice leakage? (fair concern, although the consumption of dirty meat from supermarkets likely isn't; vegetarianism, or raising your own meat the ethical high ground solution here), Or is it to consider grander ambitions, like for example, our consumption of fossil fuels (continue to use up fossil fuels to make bags, or direct our efforts towards realizing energy conservation initiatives) so that an energy legacy can be shared with subsequent generations? Are we such capable thinkers? Maybe not. I urge you to read my thesis here for some food for thought: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:LnKRs4nunwgJ:dspace.royalroads.ca/docs/bitstream/handle/10170/398/TuckerNorel.pdf%3Fsequence%3D1+norel+tucker+thesis&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.ca
Until we agree on a goal, subjective commentary after an article such as this typically resembles claptrap.
Too often we force a two-sided debate when actually there are multiple sides to an issue. As for plastic bags, we should help our students ask: who owns this message about the benefits of plastic bags? And who stands to profit or gain from it?
If there are benefits to plastic bags, then we must also ask students to identify the negatives and then weigh all sides of the issue and alternatives.
I wonder who owns and promotes the message about cloth bags uniquely carrying bacteria. Hands carry bacteria, every surface carries bacteria. That's why we wash them. Which is easiest to wash and reuse?
As for trees being "killed" for paper bags, we might also want to discuss renewable forests, recycling, half-life, and the full cost of fossil fuels use to make the plastic bags.
I teach media literacy as it applies to food system and environmental messages. Key tenets in media literacy include: knowing who owns the message; identifying persuasive techniques used in the message; seeking missing information, and unintended consequences of the message; being able to recognize embedded values, and then being able to access other sources of information and creating our own media.
In 1906, Yale academic, William Graham Sumner said: "men educated in it (critical thinking) cannot be stampeded by stump orators..it makes good citizens."
I think you are missing two issues here. Firstly a PR firm writing sections in a school textbook does not give balance it gives students an industry view. If it is to be included it should be clearly stated that it is an industry view. Students can then see how industry uses PR to get it's view into textbooks.
Secondly the real choice is not between paper v plastic, it is between reusable bags v throwaway. This is a classic PR re-frame of the discussion to issues that appeal to people rather than the real choice. Neither the plastic nor paper industries want people to reuse bags because of the loss of income.
In Ireland we have a environmental tax on plastic bags equivalent to $0.25. The tax is ring fenced for environmental improvements. Throwaway bag usage has dropped by 95%. You still have the option of buying a throwaway plastic bags if you wish.
(Exceptions apply for small bags for meat etc.).
We no longer see plastic bags littering the streets and countryside. It seems to work. Consumers still have a choice except they now have to pay the real cost and this cost is highly visible not buried in increased prices.
As I see it, the problem with giving both sides of an issue is that by doing so, you legitimize points of view that are not valid. there are not two sides to every story and it is not always true that both points of view are valid. Should history textbooks include a section entitled "The Good Things that Slavery did for the Pre-Civil War South", or "Positive contributions of the Nazis to Building a Modern Europe?" I think not. Plastic bags are bad for the environment. end of story.
This issue drove me so batty that I decided to dedicate a Masters thesis to it. We have to decide what our goal is. Are we just interested in avoiding a stinky bag from meat juice leakage? (fair concern, although the consumption of dirty meat from supermarkets likely isn't; vegetarianism, or raising your own meat the ethical high ground solution here), Or is it to consider grander ambitions, like for example, our consumption of fossil fuels (continue to use up fossil fuels to make bags, or direct our efforts towards realizing energy conservation initiatives) so that an energy legacy can be shared with subsequent generations? Are we such capable thinkers? Maybe not. I urge you to read my thesis here for some food for thought: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:LnKRs4nunwgJ:dspace.royalroads.ca/docs/bitstream/handle/10170/398/TuckerNorel.pdf%3Fsequence%3D1+norel+tucker+thesis&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.ca
Until we agree on a goal, subjective commentary after an article such as this typically resembles claptrap.
Best!
N.
Too often we force a two-sided debate when actually there are multiple sides to an issue. As for plastic bags, we should help our students ask: who owns this message about the benefits of plastic bags? And who stands to profit or gain from it?
If there are benefits to plastic bags, then we must also ask students to identify the negatives and then weigh all sides of the issue and alternatives.
I wonder who owns and promotes the message about cloth bags uniquely carrying bacteria. Hands carry bacteria, every surface carries bacteria. That's why we wash them. Which is easiest to wash and reuse?
As for trees being "killed" for paper bags, we might also want to discuss renewable forests, recycling, half-life, and the full cost of fossil fuels use to make the plastic bags.
I teach media literacy as it applies to food system and environmental messages. Key tenets in media literacy include: knowing who owns the message; identifying persuasive techniques used in the message; seeking missing information, and unintended consequences of the message; being able to recognize embedded values, and then being able to access other sources of information and creating our own media.
In 1906, Yale academic, William Graham Sumner said: "men educated in it (critical thinking) cannot be stampeded by stump orators..it makes good citizens."
Melinda Hemmelgarn, M.S., R.D.
Food Sleuth, LLC
Tune into Food Sleuth Radio: www.kopn.org
I think you are missing two issues here. Firstly a PR firm writing sections in a school textbook does not give balance it gives students an industry view. If it is to be included it should be clearly stated that it is an industry view. Students can then see how industry uses PR to get it's view into textbooks.
Secondly the real choice is not between paper v plastic, it is between reusable bags v throwaway. This is a classic PR re-frame of the discussion to issues that appeal to people rather than the real choice. Neither the plastic nor paper industries want people to reuse bags because of the loss of income.
In Ireland we have a environmental tax on plastic bags equivalent to $0.25. The tax is ring fenced for environmental improvements. Throwaway bag usage has dropped by 95%. You still have the option of buying a throwaway plastic bags if you wish.
(Exceptions apply for small bags for meat etc.).
We no longer see plastic bags littering the streets and countryside. It seems to work. Consumers still have a choice except they now have to pay the real cost and this cost is highly visible not buried in increased prices.
Pages