Sunday, July 20, 2014
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
How to be Instagram Famous
Instagram continues to be a popular social network, after quite a few years. So you want to become Instagram famous? Here's how:
1. Post quality photographs
No one wants to look at a grainy or blurry photo, so don't bother posting them! Instead, post sharp photos that make the subject clear. The higher quality the better! If you can, try to take photos on a better camera than your phone, since the photos come out a lot nicer in quality. However, if you only have a phone camera, do your best to make sure that the picture is sharp.
2. Tag away
Make sure you tag the photo! This is basically like sharing the photo all over Instagram, giving you a much wider audience. However, make sure the tags are relevant to the photograph. People won't like a selfie tagged #whale. Chances are, if someone is looking at that hashtag, they want to see some whales, not your face.
3. Like other photos
Like other photos, and lots of them! Lots of times, if you like a lot of someones photos, they will like a lot of yours back, and possibly even follow you.
4. Comment on other photos
This goes with the liking of other photos. Commenting is very personal. If you are willing to take time to comment on someone's photo, there is a good chance that they will check out your photos and like them or follow you. So make sure you expand your presence through likes and comments!
5. Post frequently
Don't let your presence die out. Post as frequently as possible. However, do not just post to post. Try to keep the photos high quality, while posting often enough for your followers to not forget you. Don't forget, every post that is tagged gives you a much larger presence in the Instagram network.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
Joining the Bandwagon
I am happy to announce that Tibsar is now on Twitter and Facebook!
Show your support by following @tibsarblog and liking Tibsar
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Something Big is on It's Way
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
Healthy Living: A Choice?
A typical day in the life of an American consumer is filled with choices: paper or plastic, stairs or the elevator, credit or debit, fast food or store bought. Each of these decisions has its own sets of pros and cons. When deciding what to eat, though, the consumer may not know all of the pros and cons. This is why it is up to the consumer, if they so choose, to educate themselves on what is going into their body. Not all consumers may care what they eat or about their level of health. This is their decision. But in the case of those that care about their health, educating themselves is pertinent. Proof of the need for educating oneself can be seen at any fast food chain in America. For instance, David Zinczenko, the editor-in-chief of Men’s Health magazine, states that while researching the calories in the food at a local fast food chain, he found that their salad was listed as only 150 calories. However, by digging deeper he found that the after adding in the full packet of dressing that is served with the salad along with the noodles and almonds, the calorie count soared to 1,040 calories for the meal. While it may seem like the fast food company is concealing the actual calories that would be consumed by someone that eats this salad, the information is in fact available. All one would have to do is go to the restaurant’s website or use a simple Google search. The consumer can educate themself, and with the help of the multitude of resources on the internet, it’s easy. Educating oneself on what is going into one’s body is one of the best decisions a consumer can make when it comes to eating healthy.
Deciding to educate themselves on what they are eating is not the only decision that a consumer must make. Once they know the calorie count of the foods that they are eating, they must decide whether or not to substitute some of these foods with healthier alternatives. For some people, this may be the most difficult part of living a healthy lifestyle. Rather than going out for lunch every day during work, for example, the consumer can instead pack their lunch. Also, parents can teach their children to pick healthier foods when given the choice. In Will Haygood’s article, “Kentucky Town of Manchester Illustrates National Obesity Crisis,” a small town in Kentucky is highlighted as an example of the obesity crisis in America. In this town, about half of the population is overweight. Haygood argues that this is because of all of the fast food restaurants in the town. However, the people in the town of Manchester, Kentucky, have choices in their meals. They could eat at home rather than eating out for at least one meal every day. They can educate themselves on what is in their food, and then decide to make a change. Charlie Rawlins, a 20-year-old in that town made the decision to change, and has lost over 65 pounds because of it. Change is possible. It does not require “bringing [the] government between you and your waistline” as Balko puts it in his article, “What You Eat is Your Business.” In this case, regulation should be done by the consumer rather than the government. It does not take much to pick an apple over French fries, or making a sandwich over eating out. It is up to the consumer, not the government, to regulate what they eat and make healthy decisions.
Today, obesity is a rising problem in children and adults alike. Consumers have been deciding to make fast food a staple in their diet. As a result, people have been taking in calories that they didn’t know that they were taking in. Some argue that the government needs to intervene to fix this crisis, while still others argue that it is up to the individual. Many blame the food industry for the high calorie counts in their foods. While the food industry may produce unhealthy food more and more, they do this to make money. If there was less of a demand, the industry would change to whatever society was willing to buy. As it stands right now, much of society is okay with these high calorie foods. However, the availability of healthy food alternatives is there. All a person has to do to eat healthily is research what is in the food that they are eating, and then replace some of the unhealthier parts with something better. With the help of the internet or calorie counting applications that many consumers can download on their smart phones, this is easy. It is the responsibility of the consumer to regulate what they eat and make healthy food choices.
Liberal Arts Degrees: Can They Bring Success?
As it
continually becomes more difficult for college graduate to find jobs, many
students are looking for ways to ensure themselves of employment. Students look to engineering degrees,
thinking these will guarantee them a job, all the while others flee from
liberal arts degrees, as they do not consider them useful in finding a trade. Society tends to think that liberal arts
degrees are useless in today’s world. This
raises the question of whether or not the majoring in a liberal arts field can
result in finding a job pertaining to the average student’s studies. Before this question can be answered, I must
differentiate between a liberal arts education and a liberal arts major. For the sake of this essay, I will be
referring to a liberal education as it is defined by the Association of
American Colleges and Universities: “a general education curriculum that
provides broad learning in multiple disciplines”. This means that liberal education does not
simply prepare a student for one particular trade or field. Liberal arts majors, not to be confused with
liberal education, will be defined as specific programs of study that would
fall under a Liberal Arts degree, such as Psychology or Philosophy. While
students majoring in liberal arts tend to have a more difficult time
establishing a career, many are still able to find jobs because of particular
advantages liberal education can provide to its students.
While it
is true that students of all fields have trouble finding jobs in today’s
economy, unemployment rates for college graduates with liberal arts degrees are
significantly higher than those for graduates with other degrees. According to a study done by Georgetown
University, 11.1% of graduates with arts degrees and 9.4% of graduates with
humanities and liberal arts degrees are unemployed. Compared to the 7.5% rate for engineering
majors and the 5.4% rate for education majors, 11.1% is significantly
higher. Many argue that all majors are
created equal, yet these figures prove that that is not the case.
While the figures are focused on the amount of
people not working, the flip side shows that the majority of the graduates get
jobs. This leads to the question of what
kind of jobs these graduates get and whether or not they pertain to their
studies. Many liberal arts majors do not work in the field they focused their studies on. For instance, an English major may end up
working in public relations or publishing rather than in writing or teaching. So while the students are getting jobs, they
generally are not jobs that pertain directly to their majors. Also, liberal arts majors tend to have
“multiple careers” in many different fields, while students with
degrees in other fields tend to stick to one career. While liberal arts majors can find jobs, it
seems to be harder than it is for those with degrees in other fields. Also, these jobs may not be directly related
to their degree and can cause them to switch careers many times in their lives.
While
liberal arts does not produce many jobs, liberal education does have many
benefits for its liberal arts students and for students in general. Students studying under a liberal education
are required to take classes in a wide range of fields and topics. Liberal arts students study under a liberal
education tend to be well-rounded and versatile when it comes to finding jobs,
even if these jobs may not be what they were studying. This is what helps the liberal arts students
that do find jobs since they tend to have more options than those in
engineering based fields. However, these
options tend to be less in demand. Many
students in engineering or other trade based fields, however, predominantly
take courses solely related to their field.
This gives them a fairly narrow range of what they can be employed in,
although, to their benefit, the demand for what they have studied tends to be
high.
Liberal education would benefit
students in all fields. Sanford J. Ungar
found that companies were looking for potential employees that could “[better]
communicate orally and in writing,” a skill that an English major would
possess. David Foster Wallace describes
the skills that liberal arts students possess as knowing “what to think about.”
On one hand, majors producing graduates qualified in only one skill would
benefit from liberal education. If
universities required their students to take a certain number of liberal arts
classes rather than simply having liberal arts colleges, students would be well
rounded while still skilled in a trade.
This would help students be proficient in many things rather than
slightly proficient in many things or extremely proficient in one thing. As Ungar said in his essay, “No one could be
against equipping oneself for a career,” showing that universities should be
doing anything they can to help their students get a career. If that means making their students better in
more fields while still training them in a particular field, it is the
universities job to do that.
Students
majoring in liberal arts degrees can expect to have a hard time finding jobs
when they graduate. Students majoring in
fields that are directed towards trades will more easily find a job and a
career, especially since these jobs are in high demand. However, these majors may lack writing skills,
whereas liberal arts majors would be proficient in such. In order to fix this, colleges should
incorporate a liberal education where students are required to take courses in
many fields in order to broaden their skill set. Also, in order to prevent one field from
being harder to find jobs in rather than others, liberal arts majors should
either be eliminated or altered to incorporate certain skill sets that would help
their students obtain jobs. In a time of
economic turmoil for the United States, students need to do all that they can
to prepare themselves for their career after school.
The Media's Contribution to the Suez Canal Crisis
The Suez Canal Crisis, which occurred in 1956, was a “humiliating end” to the imperial influence of France and Great Britain (The Suez Crisis: An Affair to Remember). The Crisis began when Abdul Nasser, President of Egypt in 1956, decided to build the Aswan Dam. He felt that building a dam would help his country irrigate during drought. Nasser approached the United States, the Soviet Union, and the World Bank to find funding for the dam. The United States intended to help fund the dam until it found out that Nasser had also asked the Soviet Union. The United States then rescinded their offer to help financially. This resulted in Nasser needing to make up for lost funds, which he did by nationalizing the Suez Canal. The canal connected the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea and made the trip considerably shorter and cheaper for ships. The canal had been both Britain and France’s main source of oil at the time. When Nasser nationalized the canal, Israel, France and, Britain joined together to attack Egypt in an attempt to make Egypt allow ships from all countries to travel through the canal. In response, Egypt sank the 40 ships that had been in the canal. The media in Egypt, Great Britain, and the United States reported stories about the Suez Canal Crisis that were not completely true. These stories were exaggerated and contained inaccuracies about the event.
The British media portrayed strewed stories of the Suez Canal Crisis to the people of Britain. The press, newsreels, radio, and the D-Notice System was used to push the media’s viewpoint on the Canal Crisis. D-Notices were “official [requests] to news editors” that asked them not to broadcast or publish particular pieces of a news story for reasons of national security (D-Notice). Anthony Eden, the Prime Minister of Great Britain during the Canal Crisis, used D-Notices to control what was being presented by the media. Newsreels were also regulated by D-Notices. Newsreels were short clips, played in cinemas, that presented the important news of the time. At the time of the Suez Crisis, people went to the cinema to see a movie very often, so newsreels had a large audience. They were considered part of the entertainment industry, so the newsreels tended to be non-controversial, pro-government clips. The British Pathe newsreel, Israel Invades Egypt – Britain Acts, shows the view on the Suez Crisis that was portrayed by the media. The newsreel shows shots of Egypt, along with shots of British soldiers boarding warships. It said that the “world [waited] tensely” to find out if Britain would gain control of the canal again (Israel Invades Egypt – Britain Acts 1956). This made it seem like Britain was not the only country that wanted to see the British flag over the canal and that everyone was on their side. This newsreel and many others contributed to the skewed message portrayed by the British media during the Suez Canal Crisis.
British newspapers and radio broadcasts also manipulated its stories to spread its conservative, pro-Britain, anti-Nasser message. The use of the radio propaganda against Nasser “increased sharply” during the time of the Canal Crisis (Calhoun). The BBC, or the British Broadcasting Corporation, was responsible for many of these anti-Nasser broadcasts. Newspapers in Britain wrote against Nasser’s decision to nationalize the Suez Canal. Many of the leading British newspapers, such as The Guardian, The Express, The Mail, and the Times of London, were influential in what the American press reported during the Suez Crisis. The Guardian refers to the event of British troops leaving Egypt as an “unhappy story” (Guardian). By using an adjective such as “unhappy” the paper told the reader how to feel about the event. The major papers often "compared Nasser to Hitler" (Calhoun). The British and the American public would have had the atrocities committed by Hitler in their recent memory when reading these papers, causing it to have much meaning to them and much of the public to be influenced to dislike Nasser. The use of newspapers and radio broadcasts would have greatly influenced the opinion of the British public during the time of the Suez Canal Crisis.
The American media used its influence to turn the American public opinion against Nasser. The media started a “disinformation campaign” in which they gave the public limited information and portrayed Nasser in a negative light (Calhoun). America was not the only country that had started a disinformation campaign, though. Israel also started one, which directly influenced the American media. Of all of the American reporters in the Middle East-North Africa region, "forty percent" were reporting from Israel (Calhoun). Because of this, much of the information reported from Israel was influenced by the disinformation campaign, and therefore altered based off of what the Israel government was willing to release and how they wanted the story to be portrayed to the public. At times, this caused the information that was being reported to be opposite to the information that was confidentially being collected by the Central Intelligence Agency. The American media was influenced by the Israeli and the British media, causing it to many times be inaccurate during the Suez Canal Crisis.
Time Magazine wrote many articles on the Suez Canal Crisis that condemned Nasser and supported the decisions made by the United States government on the situation. Time Magazine was read by many people during the Suez Canal Crisis and had a large audience, causing it to have much influence on public opinion. One of the articles written by Time during the Crisis reluctantly admitted that Nasser had won the Suez Canal from Britain, but concluded by stating that there would still be a “price that Nasser [would] have to pay” (Through and Around Suez). The article refused to admit that Nasser winning the canal would be beneficial to him and argued that there would be such a loss in revenue that it was almost not worth winning. Another article states that Nasser’s actions would cause him to “end by willing his own downfall” (Nasser’s Revenge). This article opened with a quote in which Nasser tells the United States that he hoped that they would “choke to death on your fury” (Nasser’s Revenge). This quote along with the title, “Nasser’s Revenge”, would have immediately caused the American public to have a feeling of dislike towards Nasser. Yet another Time article described Nasser as a “brash young dictator” whose control of Egypt lead to the loss of allies and profits (Nasser Reacts). Time Magazine’s articles on the Suez Canal Crisis helped shape the public opinion of Americans and caused a general dislike towards Nasser.
The New Republic was another popular magazine that shaped a negative public opinion about Nasser. One article stated that Nasser played “the same role” as Senator McCarthy during the McCarthy trials (Halle). The article claims that Nasser is willing to do anything to extend his power and is therefore a threat to the international order. Comparing Nasser to McCarthy in this way would have the same effect on the public opinion as comparing him to Hitler did. Simply by reading that Nasser was similar to McCarthy in any way would cause Americans to dislike him. “As Nasser Sees Himself”, also published in The New Republic, states that one of Nasser’s “warmest admirers” had disclosed Nasser’s plan to build an empire. America felt that if Egypt became an empire the Soviet Union and Communism would grow. For this reason, Americans would have wanted to do everything in their power to prevent that from happening, and therefore would not have supported Nasser. Another article referenced a previous article published in The New Republic that had referred to Nasser as a “dangerous fellow” (If Nasser Wins). The article is now saying that the previous article had “[underestimated] just how dangerous” Nasser actually was. The article continues to explain that if Nasser won the fight over the Suez Canal, he would help the Soviet Union and supply them with oil. At the time America was extremely against the Soviet Union, so this immediately would have caused Americans to side against Nasser. The New Republic used a multitude of articles to push the American public opinion to be against Nasser.
Unlike the media of Great Britain and the United States, the Egyptian media manipulated the events of the Suez Canal Crisis in a way that made Nasser seem heroic. The Egyptian Gazette told the story of the entrance of a train filled with the Egyptian police force into Point Said. It describes massive celebration and the train being decorated with “flowers and photographs of President Abdul Nasser” (The Egyptian Gazette). The Egyptian public saw Nasser as a hero that got them the Canal that they felt that they deserved and rid them of the British presence in Egypt. Before Nasser took office, Egyptians had felt like “second class citizens in their own country” because of the British (Trueman). The Egyptians had felt that Nasser had given Egypt back to the Egyptians. After being under the control of Britain for many years, the it is not surprising that with the help of the media, the Egyptians would be looking for a way to have freedom and independence. Nasser gave them this freedom, and in return they gave him their support. The media showed Egypt that Nasser was the savior that they had been looking for, which would have caused the Egyptian public to support Nasser’s actions and the nationalization of the Suez Canal.
When the British left the country and the Canal was won by Egypt, the media made Nasser seem like the country’s savior, a stark contrast to the picture of him presented in the American and the British media. Great Britain’s media portrayed Nasser as a dictator, while American media portrayed him as a communist. The media of each country used its influence to get its image of Nasser and the events of the Suez Canal Crisis to its population. By doing this, very different pictures of Nasser were painted to the public of different countries. The media was able to use its resources and its audience to influence the people to think the way that it wanted them to think. In the cases of Great Britain and America, the image that it wanted to show was a very negative one. However, in the case of Egypt, Nasser was shown as a hero that was helping their country find its way to freedom. These feelings created in the public are in direct response to the media.
The Suez Canal Crisis was a time of much conflict for Great Britain, the United States, and Egypt. Egypt’s President Abdul Nasser’s decision to nationalize the Suez Canal was not taken lightly by Great Britain, who had, up until that point, held control of the canal and received the profits. The United States became involved when Egypt received financial aid towards the building of the Aswan Dam from the Soviet Union. The media in the three countries greatly influenced the public opinion during these events. The media in Great Britain, for example, used D-Notices, newsreels, radio broadcasts, and newspapers to influence its public. The British media made Nasser seem like a dictator that had taken away “their” canal. The American media also portrayed Nasser in a negative light. They used major magazines such as Time Magazine and The New Republic as well as newspapers to influence the American public. These publications made Nasser seem like a communist that was against America and would do anything for his own profit. The American people reacted according and had a strong dislike of Nasser during the Suez Canal Crisis. The Egyptian media, on the other hand, made Nasser seem like a hero. Egyptian newspapers told stories of the Egyptian people celebrating Nasser. The media portrayed Nasser as a savior that brought Egypt its freedom and gained back the canal that was rightfully theirs. The Egyptian public loved Nasser and revered him as their President. The public opinion in these countries were influenced by the media. The media had specific images of Nasser that they wanted to portray to the people, and published their stories accordingly. The public was strongly influenced by these stories, which is shown in the way that the events were the same all over the world, but three countries had very different views of these events and the people involved in them.
Works Cited
Calhoun, Ricky-Dale. "The Musketeer’s Cloak: Strategic Deception During the Suez Crisis of
1956."CIA.gov. Central Intelligence Agency. Web. 14 Mar 2013.
"D-Notice." Wordnik.com. Wordnik. Web. 14 Mar 2013.
Halle, Louis J. "The Eisenhower Approach--Mccarthy & Nasser." New Republic 136.14 (1957):
7. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 Mar. 2013.
"If Nasser Wins." New Republic 135.14 (1956): 10. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 Mar.
2013.
Israel Invades Egypt - Britain Acts 1956. 1956. Film. 14 Mar 2013.
"Last British troops withdraw from Egypt." Guardian. 24 Dec 1956: Web. 15 Mar. 2013.
"Nasser Reacts." Time 68.13 (1956): 23.Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 Mar. 2013.
"Nasser's Revenge." Time 68.6 (1956): 21. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 Mar. 2013.
"The Suez Crisis: An Affair to Remember." Economist. 27 Jul 2006: n. page. Web. 14 Mar.
2013.
"Through & Around Suez." Time 69.21 (1957): 31. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 Mar.
2013.
Trueman, Chris. "The causes of the Suez Canal War of 1956."historylearningsite.co.uk. History
Learning Site. Web. 14 Mar 2013.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
