STS CIM 2

1. Work experience – Work placement report

Goal: You will make a presentation of your work placement in front of the class using a slide-show.
1. Watch the video. What type of document is it?

This is a promotional video for the Careers Center in Leeds (UK)
2. How many people speak?  Note down their names.
Three persons are interviewed. They are Constantin, Fleur, and Adam
3. How many parts are there? Note down the questions and underline the key words.
There are seven (7) parts: introduction -- skills developped -- promotion of the Careers Center -- Benefits from the placement -- Contribution to the company -- Choice of a placement in the industry -- Feelings
4. Use the answers from the previous questions and the words written on the screen to fill in the chart below.
5. What are the similarities and the differences with your work placement experience?



1
Constantin
2
Fleur
3
Adam
Part 1
Intro
studies engineering - tech development
studies music
studies history
Part 2
Skills developed
communication -- time keeping -- management
communication -- social media
discovered career options -- confidence
Part 3
+ careers center
offers secure placement -- has expert staff -- connected to industries
industry knowledge -- offers contacts
offers support -- a lot of resources -- CV + application support -- 
Part 4
benefits from

professional contact -- industrial insight

Part 5
contribution to
fresh new personality -- new way of thinking -- enthusiasm


Part 6
choice
personal development -- experience
competitive sector -- advance over other students
new experience
Part 7
feelings
challenging
exciting -- stimulating -- enjoyable
interesting -- fun -- worthwhile

Vocabulary: trouver des synonymes des expressions utilisées dans la ligne "feelings"

Good +
Not good -
useful – important – marvellous [GB] (-lous) [US] – serviceable – valuable – remunerative – smashing – estimable – worthy – helpful – beneficial – meritorious – excellent – sensational – neat – terrific – rewarding – praise worthy – wise – suitable – desirable – outstanding – exceptional – great – superb – top – wonderful – unique
uninteresting – boring – tedious – tiresome – monotonous – dull – dry – flat – routine – soporific – repetitive – repetitious – unoriginal – wearisome – disappointing – banal – pointless – unprofitable


Apprendre ce vocabulaire en gardant en tête que ce sont des synonymes de chacun des mots en en-tête du tableau.
Lors de la présentation orale du stage : utiliser au minimum cinq expressions différentes de l'une au l'autre colonne, ou des deux selon le besoin.


 Methodologie: la compréhension orale


An Intern's Harsh Critique of her Work Experience Placement Today-Tonight AUS. 2012 -- Audio script

Host: A journalism student who had spent two weeks working for one of Rupert Murdoch's biggest newspapers has scattered critics about her experience that's been printed in her University's newspaper. Clare Brady reports a start of the war of the words.

Sasha's quote: “Men were continuously and unnecessarily sexist.”

Megan Clement: “I thought it was a big mistake for any young person wanting a career in journalism”

A farrago student: “At the end of the day it's right to have an opinion.”

Clare Brady: Baptism of fire or bad taste? That's the debate after an intern in one of Australia's leading tabloids opened Pandora's box.

Quotes from the intern's article.

Clare Brady: Sasha Burden an intern at the Herald Sun gave an anonymous appraisal of her two weeks writing this piece at her University's in-house newspaper –  Farrago  – about her tabloid time. The Herald Sun's rival The Age gladly spreads her news.

Sasha said she heard a colleague say: “It's good to have the Catholics back in the news without paedophilia, although I guess there's still sex and gays.”

“Men were also (…) them”

Megan Clement: I thought she made a few mounts of tiny hills. Anyone picking on the people getting out of the elevator and opening doors, you're not going to get many people on your side by saying that's sexist, and I found her offensive.

Megan Clement is an editor for the online newspaper The Conversation: I thought there were things in this that would be confronting for a young person, probably aren't ideal in a workplace.

Farrago University's students shared her right to write:

“I think it's probably made people more aware of the process internship is involved.”

“She did have a terrible experience”

HS editor in chief Phil Gardner is perplex since Sasha didn't rise any concerns while she was at the newspaper.

Phil Gardner's quote.

Sasha declined being interviewed today and the question raised today is: has her piece put future work experience and internships at risk.

I really hope no workplace will be deterred to offer young people an internship.

Let me introduce my work placement part 2: The supply chain and company structure: Starbucks, USA
  1. What is a supply chain? Give hypotheses.
  2. Watch the video and answer these few questions.
    1. What type of video is it? Pick out elements to justify your answer.
      Promotional video for Starbucks supply chain
    2. What does the company make?
      They make coffee but they take care of the whole process from growing plants to selling the products
    3. What is a supply chain made of?
      Make -- Produce -- Deliver
  3. Watch the video again and fill in this chart.
Person's name
Role in the company
Information provided
















2. Environment : renewable energies v. non-renewable energies


Sustainability Explained Through Animation Listening Worksheet

Definition of sustainability 
things can go on forever and continue into the future
Sustainability for our planet
it can continue to provide what it was designed to provide
What our planet was designed to do (4 things)
- clean water
- fresh air
- food
- living standard
Contrary of sustainability
unsustainability
The four basic principles of sustainability for our planet
- reduce our dependence on heavy metals and fossil fuels
- reduce our use of synthetic chemicals
- stop our destruction of nature
- stop preventing people from meeting their needs
Consequence of the growth of the population
a larger demand for supplies (food -- water -- air)
Cause of the destruction of Nature
our demand for more
Complete this diagram which represents our system. Use the following words: economy, environment and society.


up: environment -- right: society -- left: economy

What it means :
everything sustainable works in this cycle
Consequences of sustainability for our future (5 things)
  • pollute less
  • waste less
  • have a better quality of life
  • produce things we value into the future
  • improve the chances for the earth to provide us with things we need to survive


     
    This logo represents a certification given to products made of palm oil. It asserts that these products were produces in accordance with the four basic principles of sustainability.
    RSPO stands for Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. Their website is here
    http://www.rspo.org/















    The following video was issued by the Cincinnati Zoo to promote sustainable palm oil. The presenter, who happens to be the director of the zoo, tells us about an application on smart phones that allows customers to find goods from brands that respect sustainability in using RSPO certified palm oil.
    An article from The Guardian to go further

     


     
    The  cartoon represents a man filling his car tank with bio-ethanol. This renewable sources of energies is usually produced out of plants such as corn, soya beans, rape seeds, etc... The man is obviously a white, westerner -- European, North American -- and there is a sign on his car that says go green. This man is certainly a supporter of green energies, and sustainability.

    In the background though, we can see two children who are begging for food. They look starved, and each one represents a different continent: the one on the left seems African, the other one Asian.

    It is a criticism of our western world whose ambition is to save the planet -- reduce gas emission, use renewable sources of energy, pollute less, waste less -- but which often forgets that being sustainable also means to not prevent other people, globally, from meeting their needs. By using edible plants such as corn to produce fuel (bio-ethanol) we, westerners, people from industrialized countries, so including Brazil, China, India and many other non-western countries, make the price of these plants rise, so that people from developing countries cannot access to food and suffer from malnutrition.

 

Hydraulic Fracturing FAQs
from the HBO website about the film Gasland

Is fracking safe?

No, fracking, as currently practiced across the United States, poses serious risks to the health and safety of communities and the environment.

Water supplies across the country have been contaminated in fracking-related cases -- either by natural gas that migrates out of wells and into underground aquifers, or by any number of byproducts from of fracking process: chemicals, harmful and/or toxic substances from the underground rock such as naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORMs), dissolved solids, liquid hydrocarbons including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene, and heavy metals

How serious is water contamination due to fracking?

Very serious. For one thing, we don't even know all the chemicals being used for fracking. But many of the ones we do know about are well-documented (1,2,3) for causing cancer, birth defects, and disorders of the nervous system. The same is true of many naturally occuring but highly toxic substances that are unearthed in the process, then seap into the water supply.

What do you mean you don't know all the chemicals being used for fracking? Haven't you done your research?

Oh, we've done our research, alright. The reason many fracking chemicals go unknown is they're never actually disclosed at all, anywhere, to anyone, ever.

Fracking was explicitly made exempt from the Safe Water Drinking Act by a piece of energy legislation passed by Congress called the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This exemption allows drilling and fracking companies to inject unknown and/or toxic materials directly into, below, or adjacent to underground sources of drinking water without reporting the chemicals or the quantities of these chemicals to the government or to the public.

What are the environmental considerations of fracking?

While there are serious public health risks posed by fracking, there are major impacts on the climate, too. Methane, the same thing as natural gas, is a potent heat-trapping gas, up to 105 times more powerful than carbon dioxide upon release over a 20-year interval. Methane leaks at every stage of a fracking operation, from production and processing to transmission and distribution. The much-touted 50% reduction in climate impact from burning gas is not likely to be achieved for many decades -- if ever -- due to leaking. And we don't have many decades to stabilize the climate.

Don't we have the technology to make fracking safe?

Nope, no technology currently exists to make fracking safe. Here are some of the numbers from reports released by drilling giants Schlumberger, Archer Oil & Gas, Southwestern Energy, and the Society of Petroleum Engineers:
Around 5% of oil and gas wells leak immediately and up to 60% of them fail over a 30-year time period, according to multiple studies.
About 35% of all oil and gas wells are leaking now.

These industry reports support similar findings from state agencies, like the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.

Some recent modifications to cementing regulations misguidedly include requirements on cement strength. But it is not a question of stronger cement or better technology. Industry's own documents say that:

"strength is not the major issue in oil well cementing under any circumstances … cement clearly cannot resist the shear that is the most common reason for oil well distortion and rupture during active production."

In other words, the high stresses and rock movements deep underground will cause a significant proportion of wells to fail no matter what.
How deep do natural gas wells go?

The average well is up to 8,000 feet deep. The depth of drinking water aquifers is about 1,000 feet. The problems typically stem from poor cement well casings that leak natural gas as well as fracking fluid into water wells.

Why do so many wells leak?

Pressures under the earth, temperature changes, ground movement from constructing nearby wells, and shrinkage crack and damage the thin layer of brittle cement that seals the wells. And getting the cement right as drilling goes horizontal is extremely challenging. Meanwhile, once the cement leaks, attempting to repair it thousands of feet underground is expensive and often unsuccessful. Even if successfully repaired, methane migration might have been occurring for months or years.

Some recent modifications to cementing regulations misguidedly include requirements on cement strength. But it is not a question of stronger cement or better technology. Industry's own documents say that:

"strength is not the major issue in oil well cementing under any circumstances … cement clearly cannot resist the shear that is the most common reason for oil well distortion and rupture during active production."

In other words, the high stresses and rock movements deep underground will cause a significant proportion of wells to fail no matter what.

Other industry documents show that well failure is a widespread problem around the world, that abandoned wells are a major migration pathway to aquifers, and that there are multiple scenarios by which gas and other contaminants can escape a well to contaminate water supplies.

Industry also asserts that the gas reservoirs they target are thousands of feet deeper than water supply aquifers. Therefore, industry says, there is no way the water supply could have been contaminated by their operations. But the cement barrier around the wells can fail from many causes, or be absent, allowing gas to migrate out of the well and into the drinking supply.

Are the flaming faucets from Dimock, PA fake?

Not only are the flaming faucets from Dimock real, but contamination has been conclusively traced to the fracking-related activity of one particular company.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP) investigation revealed that the methane contamination was due to gas drilling, specifically finding that 18 drinking-water wells in the area were affected by the operations of Cabot Oil & Gas (1, 2).

Further tests of Dimock water by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency talso clearly showed contaminants tracable to Cabot's fracking activities.

Industy arguments that methane occurs naturally in the environment in the Dimock area and therefore should be expected in the water suplly are dangerously misleading. A Duke University study found that drilling into the methane layer allows the natural but toxic gas to migrate into the water supply.
Haven't there been flaming faucets for years because methane is a naturally occurring gas?

The flaming faucets documented in Gasland are the product of natural gas migration into water supplies in most cases due to fracking right next door. Numerous investigations have confirmed this fact, including studies by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, and many others. Industry is essentially claiming a giant conspiracy theory - that these families all across the country are lying in reporting that their wells never flamed before fracking.

Further, methane and natural gas are the same thing. So when industry claims methane in drinking water supplies is "naturally occurring" it's just another smokescreen. Industry also tries to defend itself by asserting that the gas found in water supplies sometimes has a different chemical fingerprint than the gas they are going after. They distinguish between biogenic gas - found closer to the surface - and thermogenic gas - found much deeper underground. Industry is after thermogenic gas because it's been "cooked" longer and therefore has a higher energy density. But industry's drilling pierces different gas layers and allows them to mix. Failure or absence of the cement well seal allows gas from any layer to migrate into the water supply.

Additionally, Duke University recently conducted a peer-reviewed study that links water contamination with nearby drilling and fracking, concluding that water wells near drilling and fracking operations were seventeen times more likely to contain elevated levels of methane.

Do you agree natural gas from fracking is a bridge fuel while we develop carbon-free sources of energy like wind and solar?

Fracked gas is a bridge to nowhere. Reports (1, 2) suggest fugitive emissions of methane are so substantial that they completely outweigh any climate benefits of gas as compared to coal. Further, the flood of cheap natural gas in the market is having unintended consequences for renewable energy, which is being further squeezed out of the market place.

Gas is already displacing renewable energy. The costs of wind and solar are coming down all the time but they are battling for parity with fossil fuels on an asymmetric playing field. Until fossil fuels have prices that reflect their true costs to society - via a carbon tax, for example - renewables will continue to face stiff odds. The glut of cheap gas is only making these odds stiffer.


Isn't gas better for then environment than coal?

The leakage of methane - a potent heat-trapping gas - likely outweighs much, if not all of the climate benefit of natural gas versus coal. When burned in a power plant, natural gas gives off about 50 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions as coal. But this ignores the widespread problem of leaking methane. Methane's warming potential far exceeds that of carbon dioxide: On a twenty year time scale, methane traps heat up to 105 times more effectively than an equal mass of CO2. Unburned methane is a byproduct at every stage of the gas development lifecycle, including production, processing, transmission, and distribution.

Multiple studies (1, 2) suggest that "fugitive emissions" of methane from wells and pipelines are significant, thereby offsetting the climate benefits of gas versus coal.

Indeed, gas produced from fracked wells may actually turn out to be worse than coal: Once fugitive methane emissions exceed 2-3 percent of total gas production, natural gas's climate advantage over coal disappears over a 20-year time horizon. Recent studies (1, 2) suggest leakage rates well above this threshold.

In addition, shale gas represents one of the largest reserves of carbon on earth. If we burn more than a tiny fraction of it, putting its carbon into the atmosphere, it will be impossible to keep global temperatures from rising beyond a livable threshold.

Won't fracking bring us energy independence?

No. The idea that fracking is the key to American energy independence is a myth. We don't use natural gas to power cars, and we don't use oil to generate electricity.

Also, much of the gas fracked in the U.S. might end up overseas. This reality is dictated by basic economics: gas will flow to the highest bidder. Currently, gas in Europe costs about 3 times more per unit than it does in the U.S. Prices in Asia are even higher. These realities are leading to an explosion of permitting requests for the construction of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminals on our coasts for the purpose of transporting gas overseas.

Once gas starts to flow overseas, moreover, it is only a matter of time before gas prices rise in the U.S. Eventually gas prices will be dictated by the world market - like oil - and no amount of domestic gas supply will be able to influence this reality. (Meanwhile the energy it takes to liquefy natural gas, and the additional leakage of methane during processing and transport of LNG, further erode any possible climate advantage).
What about the jobs created by fracking?

The jobs created by fracking are not the kind of quality jobs American workers deserve. They are dangerous, exposing workers to chemicals whose long-term impacts on human health are yet unknown. And there just aren't that many jobs to be had, especially when compared to the plentiful and sustainable jobs available in the renewable power and energy efficiency sectors.

Consider these statistics:
Job creation in energy efficiency is 2.5 times to four times - for building retrofits and mass transit, respectively - larger than that for oil and natural gas.
For renewable energy, the job creation ranges between 2.5 times (wind) to three times (3) more than that for oil and gas.

In contrast:
According to a recent New York Times article, jobs in the oil and gas industry are seven times more likely to be fatal than the U.S. average.

Josh Fox is currently conducting an investigation into worker safety and chemical risk. He has interviewed many workers who have been asked to clean drill sites, transport radioactive and carcinogenic chemicals, steam clean the inside of condensate tanks which contain harmful volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and other chemicals and have been told to do so with no safety equipment. Many workers have been harmed and made ill to the point to which they can no longer function normally and have been fired or quit without health insurance.

A bill to address worker safety, drafted by State Senator Tony Avella of New York, dubbed "CJ's Law" in honor of CJ Bevins, a rig worker killed by an unsafe site in New York State, currently has more than 30 co-sponsors and is moving through the NY State Senate.

Won't regulations force fracking be done safely?

Fracking is exempt or excluded from most major federal laws protecting environmental health. In the absence of federal oversight, states are empowered to regulate fracking. However, the current state-by-state patchwork of rules and regulations gives little cause for comfort.444

Fracking was formally exempted from the Safe Water Drinking Act by the Bush Administration in 2005 via the so-called Halliburton loophole - named after the company formerly led by Vice President Cheney that called for the exemption during Cheney's secret Energy Task Force meetings. Mirror exemptions exist under a host of other major federal regulations, including the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response Conservation and Recovery Act (CERCLA), the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), the Superfund law, and the Toxic Release Inventory under the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA).


Isn't the Obama administration issuing new rules on fracking?

The new rules *only* apply to fracking on federal land, which is only a tiny slice of fracking nationwide. These rules are inadequate to protect federal lands and are currently being weakened by tremendous industry pressure. As stated above, there are no regulations which can make fracking safe, either on federal or private lands.

The Department of Interior announced proposed new rules to regulate fracking on federal lands. However, the vast majority of fracking in the United States takes place on private lands. Regulation of fracking thus almost completely falls to the states. But state regulations have hardly been able to keep up with the recent explosion of fracking activity, and the laws and rules on the books vary widely in stringency and enforcement. Studies have also documented how industry "captures" local governments.

There is also a considerable lack of transparency among companies involved in fracking, which is aided and abetted by state and federal regulators. For instance, while states like Texas, Wyoming and Pennsylvania require "disclosure" of the chemicals used in a fracking operation, the requirement is gutted by "trade secret" exemptions, which shield companies from disclosing their toxic recipes. The federal government also memorializes the trade secret exemption in its new proposed rules, which, again, are only applicable to federal lands. The federal rules include another major giveaway to industry, in that they would only require disclosure of the "disclosable" chemicals (i.e., those not falling under the trade secret exemption) *after* the fracking operation is completed. That leaves concerned citizens and watchdog groups powerless to monitor possible contamination of drinking water supplies in real time.

What about the University of Texas study that finds no connection between fracking and water contamination?

The University of Texas at Austin has withdrawn that study after an investigation revealed that the lead investigator, Charles "Chip" Groat, has financial interests in the natural gas industry, which he did not disclose in his report.(fn)Bloomberg News reported July 23, 2012 that Groat has been on the board of Plains Exploration & Production Co. (PXP) since 2007. As a board member, Groat receives 10,000 shares of restricted stock a year, as well as an annual fee, which was $58,500 in 2011 - according to company filings. Groat has since retired from his UT faculty position; Raymond Orbach, director of the Energy Institute at UT, which conducted the study, has resigned as well.3

What's in fracking fluid?

Fracking fluid is a toxic brew that consists of multiple chemicals. Industry can pick from a menu of up to 600 different kinds. Typically, 5 to 10 chemicals are used in a single frack job, but a well can be fracked multiple times, and each gas play consists of tens to hundreds of thousands of wells - driving up the number of chemicals ultimately used. Many fracking chemicals are protected from disclosure under trade secret exemptions. Studies of fracking waste have identified formaldehyde, acetic acids, and boric acids, among hundreds of others.(fn)

For each frack, 80-300 tons of chemicals may be used, selected from a menu of up to 600 *different* chemicals. Though the composition of most fracking chemicals remains protected from disclosure through various "trade secret" exemptions under state or federal law, scientists analyzing fracked fluid have identified volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene - all of which pose significant dangers to human health and welfare.

Industry says it's misleading to suggest 600+ chemicals are used in a fracking operation since only a small percentage of this number of chemicals is used per well. But this "one-well" model is the biggest misrepresentation of all: fracking operations in a gas play typically consist of many thousands of wells. Cumulative impacts are what matter.

How much water is used during fracking operations?

Generally, 2-8 million gallons of water may be used to frack a well. Some wells consume much more. A well may be fracked multiple times, with each frack increasing the chances of chemical leakage into the soil and local water sources.

The sheer volume of water brought to and from the fracking site means a glut of tanker trucks through your town. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation estimates each well, per frack, will require 2.4 to 7.8 million gallons of water. This translates into roughly 400 to 600 tanker truckloads of liquids to the well, and 200 to 300 tanker truckloads of liquid waste from the well. An eighteen-wheeler weighs up to 80,000 lbs. Day-in, day-out, these trucks destroy roads and bridges, leaving towns to clean up the mess.

Further, the one-well model is not an accurate representation of fracking operations, which can consist of 20 wells per "pad" and dozens of pads: Overall, 38,400 to 172,800 tanker truck trips are possible over a well pad life.


What happens to wastewater?

Wastewater disposal is among the biggest challenges of fracking. Although up to 85 percent of fracking fluid remains underground, the wastewater that does return to the surface (also called "flowback water" or "produced water" or "brine") is contaminated and must be treated and disposed of. This liquid waste is frequently stored temporarily in open pits, or "misted" into the atmosphere. There are several options for permanent disposal of wastewater: (1) trucking to an industrial wastewater treatment facility; (2) trucking to injection wells deep underground; (3) reuse by recycling into another frack job. Each option has multiple environmental risks.


Can fracking cause earthquakes?

Fracking has been proven to cause earthquakes, directly and indirectly. The National Research Council settled the debate about indirect cause with a comprehensive study in 2012. The study concluded that the greatest risk of earthquakes does not come from drilling or fracking but from pumping the wastewater from fracking into deep rock reservoirs. Such wastewater injection was blamed for earthquakes that occurred in Youngstown, Ohio, on Christmas Eve and on New Year's Eve 2012, measuring 2.7 and 4.0 on the Richter scale, respectively. The British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission concluded that fracking itself directly caused seismicity in the Horn River shale play, and that those earthquakes damaged underground well structures.

Does fracking cause air polution?

Before the wastewater is trucked to a remote injection well or processing facility for disposal, wastewater ponds and condensate tanks release volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 24 hours a day, seven days a week. As the VOCs are evaporated and come into contact with diesel exhaust from trucks and generators at the well site, ground level ozone is produced. Ozone plumes can travel up to 250 miles. This is apart and distinct from the carbon pollution issue, by which methane and CO2 from the gas production and combustion process contribute to global warming.

What is horizontal hydraulic fracturing?

Horizontal hydrofracking is a means of tapping shale deposits containing natural gas that were previously inaccessible by conventional drilling. Vertical hydrofracking is used to extend the life of an existing well once its productivity starts to run out, sort of a last resort. Horizontal fracking differs in that it uses a mixture of 596 chemicals, many of them proprietary, and millions of gallons of water per frack. This water then becomes contaminated and must be cleaned and disposed of.

How does hydraulic fracturing work?

Hydraulic fracturing or fracking is a means of natural gas extraction employed in deep natural gas well drilling. Once a well is drilled, millions of gallons of water, sand and proprietary chemicals are injected, under high pressure, into a well. The pressure fractures the shale and props open fissures that enable natural gas to flow more freely out of the well.


What is the Halliburton Loophole?

In 2005, the Bush/ Cheney Energy Bill exempted natural gas drilling from the Safe Drinking Water Act. It exempts companies from disclosing the chemicals used during hydraulic fracturing. Essentially, the provision took the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) off the job. It is now commonly referred to as the Halliburton Loophole.

What is the FRAC Act?

The FRAC Act (Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness to Chemical Act) is a House bill intended to repeal the Halliburton Loophole and to require the natural gas industry to disclose the chemicals they use.

http://one.gaslandthemovie.com/whats-fracking

*********************************************************************************

3. Social Issues
  1. Women's Rights: Gender Equality and Equal Pay
    1. Biased Google Search: UN campaign
      1. Look at this poster. Describe and comment.
  1. Look at the other posters. La modalité.
  1. Describe and comment the following cartoon



















C. Equal pay for women: Oprah Winfrey, Ultra Violet

Who speaks? What about?
    Say what these figures correspond to: 1980 – $ 22.000 – $ 50.000 – 1986
      What reasons did her boss give her the first time? The next time?
        What was her decision?
          Recap in French.


          D. Women who make America: Makers, PBS trailer
          1. In the chart, make a list of all the women interviewed. What is each one's occupation? Which ones do you know?
          2. Find the four parts that make this trailer.
          3. What is each part about? What period of time do they correspond to? What evolution can you see?
          4. Fill the third part of the following chart (next page)
          5. Do you think progress in society can be undone? Why? Give examples.
          E. Read the following article.
          1. What else do you learn about the show from it?
          2. Classify Anita Gates' positive comments and negative comments in a chart.
          3. Draw a time-line of events, and people.

          Redefining Women’s Work
          February 25, 2013
          TELEVISION REVIEW
          By ANITA GATES

          Gloria Steinem is the star. She always was.
          We see her in “Makers: Women Who Make America,” with her center-parted, straight, chest-length streaked hair; her aviator glasses; her youth; and her ravishing common sense, as a founder of Ms. Magazine. And there she is again, now in her late 70s, looking back on things with a philosophical, wearily amused clarity: “It was heady and exciting and naïve, imagining that if we just explained it to people, that it was so unjust, that surely it would change.”

          “Makers,” a three-hour documentary on PBS stations on Tuesday, is the story of the last 50 years of the American women’s movement, from the publication of Betty Friedan’s book “The Feminine Mystique,” which reassured housewives and mothers that they had good reason to feel unfulfilled, to the paradoxes of 2013.

          Most of us have seen the old television commercials before, those 1950s ads that marketed products by telling women how stupid and disappointing they were. So, in the beginning, this program feels like old news (one generation has seen it all before, and the other doesn’t care), but the narrative quickly comes together and still has the power to astound.

          None of Oprah Winfrey’s words of wisdom are as memorable as the story about her television job in Baltimore, where she was paid $22,000 a year, and her male co-host $50,000. Nora Ephron, who died in June, notes that the initial act of feminism for many women was their first divorce. Hillary Rodham Clinton appears and shares her opinions, but not nearly often enough. (The show’s Web site, makers.com, is chock-full of additional, often fascinating interviews.)
          Some of the old film and videotapes have not been shown widely in a while, and the 1973 battle-of-the-sexes tennis match between Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs looks strangely out of the Eisenhower era. But then the look of real life always did lag a decade or so behind movie images. The shocker is the 1967 Boston Marathon, then an all-male event. Its director reacts to a woman who had entered (using her first initial in registering) by running into the street and trying to remove her physically himself. Seriously. There are pictures.

          Women have made progress, as we know, so the show’s more mature talking heads, reflecting on their experiences, include corporate chief executives, Supreme Court justices and powerful politicians, as well as authors, actresses and one coal miner.

          They are joined by younger leaders, some of whom display brilliant logic. Sheryl Sandberg, the chief operating officer of Facebook, recalls her brother-in-law mentioning that he was baby-sitting. “Dude, you’re not baby-sitting,” she told him. “You’re the father.” But Marissa Mayer, the chief executive of Yahoo, says she is not a feminist because she doesn’t have that “militant drive” or a “chip on her shoulder.”

          Eleanor Holmes Norton urges us not to worry about the next generation of women, concluding, “They are not about to march back.” But the third hour of “Makers” deals with a present reality that includes campaigns to recriminalize abortion and even deny women access to birth control.

          It all makes me miss Bella Abzug.

          Name Occupation Information





































































































































          1. Rights of the persons with disabilities
            1. Video one – “Jobability” (UK)
            2. Video two – “Think beyond the label” (UK)
            3. Video three – Clip from “Talk” the Disabilty Rights Commission (UK)
            4. Video four – “Independent Lens”, Lives Worth Living, trailer, PBS (USA)
            5. Video five – Interview American disability rights activist Judith Heumann
            6. Video six – Evaluation

          1. Civil Rights Post-Ferguson
            1. Video one – The Civil Rights Movement: Rosa Parks on Larry King Talk Show, 1995
            2. Video two – Christine King-Farris: Tavis Smiley Late Night Show interview Christine King Farris, PBS, 2007
            3. Video three – Barack Obama: President-elect Barack Obama “Yes, We Can”, 2008
            4. Video four – Michael Brown: Grand Jury findings doesn't match some witness accounts, CNN, 2014
            5. Video five – Eric Garner: Grand Jury no indictment on choke-hold death NY protest organizer: We're here to stay, 2014
            6. Video six – Evaluation
          4. Genetics and nanotechnologies
          5. Robots
          6. Work surveillance – other forms of surveillance
          7. Finding a job – Working abroad

          No comments:

          Post a Comment