Box Robots: A Movement in Cardboard

I'm feeling really down with this sampling project. It seems to me like it will be really fun, but also quite challenging. It will be somewhat difficult to depict the complexities of thought and speech through the use of images alone. This is especially true when the topic is as specific as copyright law. It is a very interesting challenge, which is compounded by the fact the the project must be re-done using material that is in the public domain. It seems more like something that would be done in an art class than in an English class, which, in my opinion, rocks. I'm really curious to see the imagery-fueled depictions of copyright that others create. I would like to use a lot of really dark material, but I am not sure how controversial this project can be, and I don't want to freak anyone out either. There is a delicate balance between the ridiculous sarcasm that amuses me and the things that make other people uneasy. Such is the life. On a side note, I just got done making a robot suit out of boxes and accordion venting. If that doesn't make a statement about copyright, I don't know what does.

America, Censorship, and You

/\ /\
ll possibly copyrighted material ll


I found this image to be quite powerful and also to depict a darker truth regarding free speech. Time and time again in this nation the ideal of freedom of speech has been tested, and in several instances the constitutional right has provided little protection on the behalf of those who are openly critical of unpopular government policies. Some examples include the McCarthy witch hunts and black listings, the use of government troops to disrupt protests during the Vietnam war, and the more recent attempts to make flag burning illegal. While one may not agree with the political and moral stances of the individuals from the preceding examples, they still, in theory, have the right to voice their opinions. However, when the views that they express are in staunch opposition to the policies of the government, especially policies which

it knows itself to be unethical, there has been a tendency to suppress the controversial dialogue. Currently, there are numerous instances in which the individual rights to free speech have been abused. For example, some who have chosen to speak out against the current administration have been labeled as "unpatriotic" and had there reputations severally damaged. Others have been subjected to wire tappings that would have previously been considered to be quite illegal. Rage Against the Machine was labeled as "anti-family" and its members were accused of being terrorists by some Republican senators. The claims are ridiculous and are simply the result of the senators attempting to discredit the band through the use of slander. The group has been scathingly critical of many politicians and their abuse of government power which has earned them a good deal of disdain in the political world. Others have been put on terrorist watch lists for joining the Peace Corps or working with Doctors Without Boarders in the middle east. The main point seems to be that even in a democracy, those in power fight to retain their power. Greed appears to be an inevitable element in any human organization. Not to say that all people are corrupt, but all have the potential to be. When the corruption of a politician has the potential to be exposed, this greatly threatens their power, and in many cases, people will go to great lengths to silence the source of the discrediting information. This is one of the main faults that is inherent within free speech. Those in power and those with the proper connections will always have some ability to silence the common critic and/or "create" information to fortify their position. This is not to say that the first amendment is not important, but it can only be 100% effective in an ideal, non-existent world. It is important for authority to be criticized and for ideas to be questioned, for it is by these means that societies are bettered and governments are reminded that they exist to serve the best interests of the people and not of their wallets or egos.

Go Comments.

It's Fun to Steal

Wow! Plagiarism is fun AND easy! Thanks Scot Barnet! Sorry, I just really feel that there should be some kind of infomercial advocating plagiarism with an easy to use "How To" guide. I do not really think that the emotional and ethical impact of this project was as intense as would be expected if one were to actually undertake the process of plagiarising a paper. The element of stress that would come with literally stealing the written work of others was completely absent from the experience due to the fact that we were asked to plagiarize. Overall, the project was fairly relaxing. I was able to machine out a four page paper in a fraction of the time which it would normally take to fabricate a legitimate paper. Furthermore, I had to do very little critical thinking, and even less in terms of active involvement. The majority of the work involved was simply passively copying work that someone else had done before me. This raises another point: I truly believe that plagiarism such as this is nothing short of blatant theft. For me, the offense is particularly heinous because it does not merely involve material property, but taking credit for the work and creativity of someone else.

I think that the key to being a successful plagiarist is all in the sources. Selecting sources that are fairly obscure and have a style and voice similar to one's own are particularly important aspects of creating a forgery. Internet sites seem far too obvious and easy to find. Also, genuine, cited information should be embedded at various points in the work. I was actually somewhat surprised at how easy it was to plagiarize a full paper. I suppose that I will find out soon enough how effective my plagiarising process was. Given the ease of producing a plagiarized work, I may be inclined to plagiarize more often (insert sarcastic tone).

Ghost Writing Experience

For the most part, I really enjoyed the ghost writing experience. It presented a unique challenge in terms of the application of writing skills. It did not, however, sway my views of the ethics regarding such a practice. I still feel that in the end, ghost writing is an act of deceiving the reader. In many ways, taking the words of another and stamping your own name on them constitutes the very definition of plagiarism. Even if the author is profiting from the transaction and is able to relinquish the ownership rights to their work with no reluctance, I still believe that it is wrong for someone to receive intellectual credit for a product that is not theirs. If one does not have the skills to produce literature, it is simply fraudulent to imply that such talent exists. I believe it is analogous to a "singer" who lip syncs. If they do not have the vocal capacity to perform, why would they be allowed to retain such an occupation?

In my personal experience, I ghost wrote a description paper for a friend. She was required to use descriptive language to depict a location that was of special significance to her. The most difficult part of this assignment was describing a place I had never really seen, much less been to. I asked her to talk about the area in a very open and free-flowing conversation. I took notes of specific words that she used in order to get a feel for the way in which she interpreted the landscape. It was also difficult to capture the emotions and sentimentality of another person.

Overall, my friend said she was pleased with the way the paper was written and the language that was used. Obviously, there was some differentiation between her description and mine due mainly to the fact that I had no visual experience with the area being discussed. I found her ideas regarding employing ghost writers to be interesting. She said that if she ever were to have a paper ghost written, she would hire several different people to write different versions and then choose the style which she like best. This idea had never occurred to me before, and I think it stems from perfectionism. Even though this project seemed to go fairly well and was entertaining, I am still opposed to the idea of ghost writing.

Ghosts in the Political System

The more time I spend thinking about the functions of ghost writing within politics, the angrier I feel. The purpose of the democratic process is to elect leaders who have the credentials necessary to be successful in representing a nation. Leaders should establish themselves os advocates of what is just within society, as well as catalysts for change in those areas where proper emphasis was previously lacking. Words are powerful tools and can easily become weapons. The ability of a leader to speak and think in a sharp and eloquent manner seems to be of the utmost importance, especially given the prominence of the shadow which the U.S. currently casts upon global politics. The words our leaders implement can have long lasting effects, which may be productive or detrimental depending on the speaker's skill. It is for this reason that I believe that leaders should be held to a certain standard of communicative skill. To simply rely on vague, background entities to put words into the mouths of a global superpower is ridiculous. I want to know that the words of the person I vote for are truly their own. If they do not have the skills required, they have no business in the political world. It seems there is an utter lack of accountability in our government today, and creating a responsibility gap between our leaders and the words that they put forth only serves to fuel this problem. To say that ghost writing allows for a "checks and balances" approach to speech production seems naive. Checks and balances are fairly thoroughly provided for in the constitutional outline of our government. If the president feels that he needs someone to proof read his speech, fine. However, there is an enormous difference between seeking constructive advice and contracting for outside construction. As for time constraints, If G. Dubs can afford to take the grossly extravagant amounts of vacation time that have been an indicative of his term, I think he has time to write his own speeches. And I am not in any way saying that I would want the fate of our nation placed solely upon the "original" words of Bush, but I am saying that we should have considered his shortcomings more thoroughly before placing him at the helm. We should not resign ourselves to accepting deception and unoriginality in our leaders simply because it has become the norm.