Thursday, October 23, 2008

Alaina Baker
COMP 106-007
Anne-Marie Yerks
October 7, 2008

Let me start off by saying that I do not believe in generations. There is no true definition that will make me believe that we all can be categorized by the progress made in our society purely because we may have been alive when it happened. Just because certain events and inventions have come to be during my life span doesn’t mean that I wish to associate with it. People give birth and people die everyday. With these two event being non-stop it is impossible to group people and call them a generation. Even if you did, then you would have to consider people to be apart of numerous generations or define generations by an exact amount of time.
In an article written by Siva Vaidhyanathan it is mentioned that people of my age group are referred to as digital natives by the author of Print Is Dead: Books in Our Digital Age. When talking about “digital natives” I also do not believe there is such a thing. Unless you were born in cyber space (which can not happen) there is no way you can consider yourself a native. Being native implies belonging to a person by birth or to a thing by nature, and I am pretty sure that on the day you were born you could not type one-hundred words a minute nor did the doctors pull you out of your computers mother board.
Technology is a funny thing that is constantly changing. You learn and understand all of the ways it can be used over time. Computers, phones, cameras, and Mp3 players are so widely available today that almost everyone in America has access to these devices. Knowing this should make it even harder for one to put only you people into a digitally adept category. In Vaidhyanathans article he not only argues that digitally adept people are young but that they also tend to be in descending order of importance: socio-economically privileged, English-speaking, white, and male.
This order of importance is completely out of line in my eyes. If I had read this article years ago when computers first hit the scene I may had believed it, but now the tables have greatly turned. Being privileged so to speak implies only that you have the money to buy your own computer. There is free access to computers all over any community. You could walk into any library, any college campus, or even your place of employment and have access to a computer. I am sure that there are a multitude of people who do not own a computer but know just as well how to use one as the next person.
Even putting English-speaking in this order is completely outrageous. People all across the world use computers. Japan, Australia, and many parts of Europe are all on the same level of the numbers of computers used as the U.S. Also on that note, not everyone who lives in the U.S. speaks English. Vaidhyanathan may have a good argument else wise but saying that the ability to speak English is a factor in being digitally adept is too far fetched.
This also ties into Vaidhyanathan including being white. The U.S. is such a melting pot of different cultures that is continually expanding. People from all over the world are constantly coming to the states making new lives in our society. Not a single one of my courses here at The University of Michigan Dearborn consist of all white people.
Finally we come to the last topic in Vaidhyanathans roughly printed order of importance of being male. I could not think of anymore of a perfect example than myself. Yes I am young, but I am also a female. I use a computer everyday, my cell phone is always close, I am savvy with a digital camera and my iPod is always in my bag. Many of my other female friends older and younger also demonstrate these digitally adept behaviors. Being a male does not imply that you are technologically advanced as a human.
I agree with Vaidhyanathan in many topics about generations and many of the authors he quotes. However placing this order of importance on people who are so called “digital natives” in my opinion does not make sense. I do not wish to be seen as a digital native because there many other people in the world who are so much more knowledgeable and experienced to me. I will agree that I was raised in a world that is constantly growing and expanding but that is all.

Thursday, October 2, 2008

Puppy Mills...BAD!
















Alaina Baker
October 1, 2008
COMP – 106 - 007
Anne-Marie Yerks

Breeding Misery
There are an estimated four hundred million dogs in the world. Many of these dogs are strays roaming the streets. To me these dogs are much luckier than those breed in puppy mills. Just a few weeks ago I visited many shelters, the humane society, and searched the Internet for my perfect pet. Before, I had looked up all sorts of breeders and even checked out my local pet store and in doing so I found out a lot more than I wanted to know.
A puppy mill is defined by most as breeding facilities that usually breed full-bred dogs in mass numbers. The mills either sell these dogs directly to the public or pet stores. Most people don’t know the origin of these dogs and often don’t understand why their new pet may be having problems. The mills advertise their dogs as any other breeder might, in newspapers and on the Internet. They often go unnoticed which makes it easy for them to make a profit.
The puppies are usually kept together in very small cages and are mistreated. Food and water is hard to come by for these dogs causing many of them to die and the “unwanted” ones are killed. Most of them never visit a vet while in the mill and are often inbreed which can lead to genetic diseases that will rise years later. Dogs that are rescued from these horrible farms typically express bad behaviors and are not socialized.
In my pictures I demonstrate a proper way of sheltering animals without a permanent home. The Michigan Humane Society is a very well kept organization whose only goal is to help animals find good homes with people who will take care of them. The dogs are kept in their own rooms so that potential families can view them. If there are two dogs from the same litter they will often be paired together in the same room for comfort. During the many times that I have been there volunteers routinely rotate the dogs in and out of their rooms for walks.
The people that work at the Humane Society are extremely nice and very passionate about these animals. Another component of the adoption process that I agree with greatly is that they will not let people who are seen as unfit to raise an animal to take one home. People sit everyday at these desks and sign contracts saying that the people from the Humane Society are welcome to come see the animal in your home at any time they please.
In some of my pictures of this facility you may have noticed that they are of different animals. That’s because these problems of over breeding is not just true in dogs. Cats, rabbits, hamsters, and small animals of all sorts need good homes. The cats that are eligible for adoption are kept all together in a big room full of fun things for them to play with. If some one wants to see any of these animals they are taken out of their room and put in one of many other empty rooms so you may get to know them better.
Finally on a recent visit to the Michigan Humane Society I found my perfect pet. She was only a twelve week year old Jack Russell puppy lying in her kennel with her brother. Her name is officially Abigail and she has been happily living in our home for about 3 weeks now. It was heartbreaking seeing all of these animals with no yard to run free in. I hope that this inspires people to adopt first before feeding their money to pet stores running their puppy mill scam on you.