Sweet Injustice

"It's not fair!" - Working with 3, 4, and 5-year-olds every week and living with a 6-year-old pretty much guarantees that I hear this phrase on a regular basis. When they don't get to finish a puzzle, when it's not their turn to be the line leader, when someone else is treated differently from them - "It's not fair!" It amazes me how early on this sense of injustice is bred into these little human beings. Often, their application of this perceived injustice is a little off, but they do understand it to some extent. They are seeking out a sense of equality.

When thinking about this topic, I marveled at the number of times that I hear these dear, little ones proclaim that "it's not fair!" But then, it hit me how often I utter something very similar. When someone else in my family uses all of the ink in the printer right before I need to turn in a paper, when a fellow student rips my coat and doesn't apologize, when I get two flat tires at once - "This is so not fair!" I am so incredibly guilty of overusing this phrase. And the sad thing is that most of the time, I'm using it to describe something that's miniscule, petty, or just not worth the drama.

There are many people who probably feel like they have legitimate reasons to claim that life's not fair. When they lose a job, when a friend betrays them, when a loved one passes away - "It's not fair!" These circumstances are heartbreaking and much more worthy of this statement than an unfinished puzzle or a ripped coat. I'm not trying to minimize these difficult trials in any way. But I'm going to be honest: Life's not fair. This is the truth. But I believe we should be thankful for this injustice.

Think about it. The world's justice system and God's justice system. Totally different. In the world's justice system, we are constantly trying to balance things. Equal rights. Equal opportunity. Equal, equal, equal. Now, I'm not trying to say these movements are right or wrong. That's not my point. My point is that we work so hard to make everything the same for everyone.

Think of it like a see-saw. The world's justice system "see-saw" is perfectly balanced. Everyone is positioned carefully on the see-saw, in a line covering all the way from one end to the other end. Each person's position on the see-saw is based on their number of good deeds compared to their number of bad deeds. Depending on the numbers, some people will end up closer to the good side, some people will end up closer to the bad side, and some people will end up somewhere in the middle. The weights on each side counteract each other, and the result is a steady, straight see-saw. Balanced. Uniform. Even.

Now, consider God's justice system. There are two places to sit on God's justice system "see-saw." There's the perfect seat and the imperfect seat. That's it. There's no sitting in the middle on God's see-saw. I can't be in between perfect and imperfect; I'm either one or the other. Period. With this being the case, God's see-saw is grossly unbalanced. Only one Person, Jesus Christ, can sit in the perfect seat, and the rest of the world is crammed into the imperfect seat. The imperfect seat holds so much weight that it rests at rock-bottom while the perfect seat and it's Inhabitant rise sky-high. Terribly disproportionate. Yet, in God's justice system, this is just. Fair. Right.

It is hard for us to grasp this. We want everything to fit our definition of "fair." If a murderer and a candy-store thief stood trial at the same time, we would want the murderer to receive a much harsher punishment, but to God, the sin is the same. It's still sin. On a similar note, a faithful servant of Christ who has been a Christian for 60 years would receive the same acceptance into Heaven as an avid atheist who then professed Christ's name within the last week of his life. Do we frown at this? Do we purse our lips and shake our heads? Why? Maybe because our engrained definition of fairness fed to us by the world dictates that this is not fair. Just. Right.

Here's where it gets good! Think about God's justice system "see-saw" again. Remember how unbalanced it was? Remember how many people were squished together on the imperfect seat? Remember the sole Occupant of the perfect seat? Well, if Christ is the only One who is perfect, and Heaven is reserved for only those who are sinless, how is it that there are people in Heaven today?

God looked at that see-saw. He saw how unbalanced, how disproportionate it was, and He said that it was just. Fair. Right. Jesus Christ, the only perfect Being, sat on the perfect seat, and everyone else sat where they belonged, the imperfect seat. This was right. But God did something. He decided to be "unfair." Mind you, this statement is made using the world's definition of fairness. God has always acted in line with His definition of fairness. He is always just. But if we look at it from the world's perspective, what happened next seems "unfair."

God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, away from that perfect seat down to earth where all the imperfect people lived. Christ lived among us and still remained without sin. But one day, Christ did something for us. He took all the imperfect people's sins, from past, present, and future, and laid them all upon Himself. He sat on that imperfect seat for us, so we might have the chance to accept Him as our Savior and spend eternal life in Heaven, that place of sinless perfection.

God allowed life to be "unfair." It wasn't an accident. It wasn't a back-up plan. It was life, and it was not fair, in a magnificent way. Because life is unfair, Christ died for me. Because life is unfair, the punishment for my sin has been erased. Because life is unfair, I get to go to Heaven, and that is the most beautiful gift anyone could have given me: sweet injustice.

Life's not fair. Thank goodness.

Take Two

Well, if you haven't already noticed, up to this point in time all of my posts have been purely scholastic. Dull, boring, mind-numbing, and worthy of nothing more than a homework grade. So, don't you dare go back and read them. Unless, of course, you get some sort of strange kick out of reading analyses of the Internet. Then, be my guest. But for the rest of you, don't do it. Believe me. You do not want to go down that road of boredom.

But today, my friends, this blog will change.

Disclaimer: I make no promises. What I write may bore you. When I write may be entirely sporadic. Why I write is questionable. How I write can easily change upon a whim.

I will write about what challenges me, encourages me, confuses me, saddens me, changes me, bothers me, excites me, disappoints me, surprises me, and inspires me.

I will write when I feel so led. Or I will write when I don't feel so led, but I make myself do it just for the practice.

Why I write what I write is inexplicable. Some things just can't be pinned down. There are a million different reasons why I am writing this now, and it would be impossible for me to try to figure them all out for you or even admit most of them to myself. But a short, easy answer is to say that I write just for the fun of it.

How I write has a lot to do with my emotions. Am I feeling happy? Sad? Goofy? Sleep-deprived? Energetic? Angry? Motivated? Unmotivated? Nervous? Giddy? Disconnected? Passionate? Inspired? A different mood evokes a different style of writing, and I write whatever comes to me naturally.

This is me. And this is my writing. That's all I have to give. Take it or leave it.

The Continual Metamorphosis

The birth of the World Wide Web was characterized as Web 1.0. It was new to nearly everyone. Very few people had ever experienced anything like it. It made many things, like information, more easily accessible. Web 1.0 changed the world, but it wasn’t long before something new came along.

Web 2.0 became the Web of the future, providing features that Web 1.0 had never dreamed possible. Now, people could not only find information, but they could share it, as well. Even while the world stands in awe of Web 2.0 technology, the Web is constantly changing and transforming. It won’t be long before something else will come forward, something that will lead our world into the future.

            Web 1.0 was the world’s introduction to the World Wide Web. It was invented by Tim Berners-Lee in 1989 (Evans). Berners-Lee classifies Web 1.0 as the “read-only web” (Getting). A Web 1.0 website consisted mainly of information. Companies would design their sites as a cyber presence for their business. There was no feature offering feedback or a section allowing the users to share their information. It was all about the site owners providing the information and the users accepting the information.

            Brian Getting states that this one-way give and take of information was “exactly what most website owners wanted: their goal for a website was to establish an online presence and make their information available to anyone at any time.” In fact, many sites today are still built with more Web 1.0 features in mind than the elements of Web 2.0 (Getting).

            Web 1.0 websites are not very conducive to our current society. Many of the features are awkward and slow (Evans). The information is not in a state of continual change as it is in Web 2.0 sites. Web 1.0 websites mainly allow reading only with little opportunities for user contributions (Evans). These types of sites fail to draw significant user interest.

            Web 2.0 is a completely different story. In 1998, Tim Berners-Lee shared his vision for the World Wide Web (Evans). “The dream behind the Web is of a common information space in which we communicate by sharing information,” (Evans). Web 1.0 had accomplished the desire for “a common information space,” but the element of information-sharing had yet to be completed.

            Web 2.0 websites are all about interactivity. Web 2.0 wants the user to be involved. Actually, these sites need the reader to be involved in order to function successfully. Dr. Mike Evans notes that Web 1.0 sites “saw the Web as publishing, not participation.” Web 2.0 noticed this mistake and set the goal to change it.

            Web 2.0 was coined as the “read-write web” (Getting). Users are literally asked to join in and contribute to the content being provided on the site. Web 2.0 was a whole new world of participation and interactivity, and users loved it.

“The newly-introduced ability to contribute content and interact with other web users has dramatically changed the landscape of the web in a short time. It has even more potential that we have yet to see,” Getting states.

Users love sharing their opinions, having pages on sites that are all their own, communicating with other users over the web, and seeing their own content displayed online. Web 2.0 sites feel more personal to users than Web 1.0 sites ever could. Social media sites are one of the most popular results of Web 2.0 sites. Users have embraced the social media craze, making these sites some of the most visited in the world.

As far as news gathering and distribution goes, Web 2.0 sites are much more conducive for a successful online news website than Web 1.0 sites ever were. Web 2.0 sites provide the unprecedented opportunity for continuous, ever-changing news. The deadline is always now. Stories can be posted on the site and then, updated 20 minutes later when new developments occur. The timeliness of Web 2.0 sites is amazing.

Web 2.0 also allows user participation. Users can find the stories they want more easily. They can share their opinions by “liking” a story, commenting on the story, or “sharing” it on their preferred social media site. Many online news sites also allow users to upload their own “news.” The technologies of today allow the common man to become the next reporter. Video, audio, and photos can be taken with mobile devices and uploaded to news websites with a few simple clicks. The users not only consume the news; they help provide it.

Although Web 2.0 has opened the door to numerous possibilities, it is true that Web 2.0 has also brought new concerns to the table. With Web 2.0 comes user-provided content, and with user-provided content comes varying views of discretion. Every person has a different code of moral ethics that they live their life by, but when thousands of users share the same space for displaying these differing ethics, tension arises.

Since Web 2.0, the world has been faced with the introduction of cyber crimes. Many of the crimes have involved the display of user-generated content that has offended or harmed other users. These issues involve each person individually, and since the amount of user-generated content is vast and innumerable, it would be impossible for a site to even attempt to monitor everything that their users are sharing or creating. Each person must abide by their own set of rules and ethics, but it is important to keep others in mind and make your online presence honorable and inoffensive.

The future of the World Wide Web is difficult to imagine. It already seems so innovative and technologically up-to-date. In the future, I imagine using the Web will become even easier. Search engines will be much more efficient, and user-generated content will continue to soar. I think online news websites will utilize the common man as the reporter even more than they do now, allowing the mere citizens to report from the scene as the story happens, which in turn alerts the reporters as to where the story is at.

Technology is definitely going to change. It always is changing, even now as I write. My brain is not futuristic enough that I can predict these changes, but I’m certain the changes will result in something incredible. As for now, Web 2.0 provides an exceptional platform to the World Wide Web, showing us how far we have come and how far we can continue to go.

Works Cited

Evans, Mike. “The Evolution of the Web – From Web 1.0 to Web 4.0.” Centre for Security, Communications and Network Research. Plymouth University. Web. 28 Nov. 2011.

Getting, Brian. “Basic Definitions: Web 1.0, Web 2.0, Web 3.0.” Practical Ecommerce, 18 Apr. 2007. Web. 28 Nov. 2011.

Telecommunications Act and Communications Decency Act of 1996

I looked at the Telecommunications Act and Communications Decency Act of 1996.


The Telecommunications Act and Communications Decency Act of 1996 is a protection for providers of websites that offer social media aspects to their users. This act provides a safeguard for the providers against the potential content that their users may create.

Section 230 of the act is the major proponent of this protection. If a user generates content that is found to be false, defamatory, or offensive to a certain person, the offended person cannot sue the website provider. This was put in place because providers cannot always monitor everything that their users are creating. The law states that providers cannot be held responsible in these cases. However, this law provides no protection for the users who actually create the content. They are still held responsible for their actions.

The telecommunications part of the act allows any business to operate within the market and compete against each other.

Both parts of the act are important, but the provider protection element appears to be the most interesting. It is a very important protection for all website providers that offer social media aspects to their users.

Continued from Last Post

The articles used active voice and utilized the inverted pyramid style. There were several sidebars containing information about most popular stories or top news stories. There were also ads located in sidebars. There are absolute links to similar stories, but they are not necessarily connected to the article. They are located in a bar at the bottom. The headlines for the stories are different. The online one is longer and more descriptive. I think they do this in order to capture the users attention and get them to click on the article.

This post is a continuation of the previous one. Sorry. I didn't get your e-mail. I thought we were just writing down our thoughts. :)

Print vs. Online

We looked at an article in the Post Dispatch titled "Floods but hard-drive supply." It talked about the business problems for hard-drive manufactures caused by the flooding in Thailand.

The print version of the article that we looked at consisted of a three-column story with a picture and caption. This article was actually taken from the Associated Press.

The online version that was posted on stltoday.com was the exact same article without a picture. There were multiple social media aspects allowing users to share the article on facebook, twitter, blogspot, etc. There was also an area to post comments. We also noticed that the article had been updated about 18 hours after it had been posted.

As we continued looking for this article, we found the same article on yahoo.com. There was a difference, though. On Yahoo, the article was longer. So, the Post Dispatch chose to cut out some of the information before they printed or posted the article.

We looked back at stltoday.com again and noticed that there were very similar articles on the website posted a few days earlier. These were listed at the bottom of the page of the first online article we looked at. One of these articles was the same as the one printed in the paper and the first online article, but it had more information (like the article on Yahoo). This article also had the same picture that was printed in the paper. Another article similar to our first article was extremely condensed and only talked about one aspect of the issue.

We noticed a lot of cutting of text to fit the purpose of the different articles and the different news sources. Social media aspects were also used quite a bit.

Class Project #3

I created my class project by creating a div for navigation on my first page. I then created a css page which I linked to my nav1 page. Next, I saved my nav1 page as nav2 and nav3 creating two copies of my first page. Finally, I added the links to all of the navigation text. And now, I am writing about it in this blog! The End