how truthful is the "truth"?

blogger prompt. How might we productively and deliberately use different genres (and rational/irrational explanations) online to help us portray the "truth" of an ongoing situation?

After seeing both of the films, it's hard to know what is the "truth". There were multiple examples of rational and irrational explanations. I think she uses the irrational ones to compliment her rational explanations for the killings in Juarez and her uncle's death. The irrational ones provide a higher sense of credibility for the rational ones. Also, the irrational explanations play on our "pathos" because some of the irrational reasons are theoretical/religious explanations that cannot be denied or be viewed as fact. (For example, the woman who lost her daughter and the bird "knew". The mother also discussed how the bird was in tune with her daughter, etc.) and we discussed in class how that particular example may be a way of mourning and grieving the loss of her daughter. 

Who do you think is to blame for the killings of these women?

Who do you think is to blame for the killings of hundreds of women along the Mexican/U.S. border? From Shariff, to the bus drivers, police/government officials, sex slave organization, religious cult, or drug dealers, we have heard many possible suspects and a few have even been convicted. It is apparent to the majority of the class that Shariff is not the sole suspect, and that he could not be the woman-killing mastermind. But who is then? And is it a collaboration of these groups? I feel that the police are to blame for these brutal rapes and murders. From the woman who saw the photo albums and was sexually assaulted by an officer, to the mysterious bodies dressed in other girls' clothing. Also, the new bodies found after the area has been searched, seems awfully fishy to me. I also believe that the government is not doing anything about this due to little evidence against police officers and little enforcement of any new breakthroughs in the cases.

Why an emphasis on the maquiladora workers?

The Fregoso article on the killings of young women along the Mexico/U.S. border is shocking. I was not aware of the issue and the extreme government corruption that seems to be aiding these woman's deaths. The video corresponds well with Fregoso's writing but the video focuses on the maquiladoras more.  The video made it seem like all women who decide to work at these  maquiladoras are at risk. All of the women are portrayed as innocent, hard-working, trying to provide for their family, and poor. I think these attributes get the viewers sympathy/empathy used in the pathos aspect of writing. With the high number of kidnappings, rapes, and deaths-the maquiladora workers are not the only women being killed. So why do you think they have portrayed the movie to represent the maquiladora female workers as the main target for the awful killings of these women? I personally think they exploit the maquiladora workers due to increased empathy. 

Does my topic need a "good community"?

When asked today in class if we need a "good community" and/or "good citizen" to deal with our issue I was a little stumped. My issue is that of poor nutrition options on our campus. I believe that we need a good and strong community in order to make significant change. Because we are attend a relatively large university, many groups, clubs, etc must make their mark on our campus and voice that their opinion, and choices of the group/club are important for the mass majority of our campus. They try to engage in public discourse and promote their community's goals. I think that we form our own community as "eating students on campus" and if the issue is promoted well enough, and draws enough attention, students would enter the public sphere and share their demands for healthier food, or possibly go against my proposal of healthier options on campus and say that it is just fine the way it is, and nothing should change. A good community would promote what is best for the campus as a whole. What are your thoughts on a "good community"? And do you think that students would care about this issue? How could make them care? 

Warner-why must you be so difficult?

I am beginning to grasp the concept of the counterpublics but have some concern with them. Ideally you would be able to separate yourself from the physical body and enter the public sphere. Ideally the public sphere would work as a whole and communicate efficiently to work toward the better of the people. However, we get our views, morals, and beliefs from our background. Our race, gender, sexuality, nationality, etc. plays into a part of what we think would benefit us as well as others. I know Warner says that this is not in actuality what happens, but I am still confused by the concept. Whatever Warner.