"What makes a great Hamiltonian?" - could a question be any more ambiguous? I mean, even the article doesn’t really make a real attempt to narrow down the options – "Is it grace and accomplishment in the face of adversity? Is it generosity? For that matter, who qualifies as a true Hamiltonian? Does a person have to be born and raised here? Is it OK to move away and bring recognition from abroad? Is it most admirable to start somewhere else and choose to make a home here?" In my opinion, and no offense to the Hamilton Spectator, Wade Hemsworth, or any supporters of this type of project, I think that even asking this kind of question to the general public is in a way offensive, degrading and opposes one of the most important parts of being a Canadian in this new age. To say that there is such a thing as ‘the greatest Hamiltonian’ implies that there is a ‘worst Hamiltonian’ and that everyone in between is considered to be inferior to the person given this honorary title. One of the most defining qualities associated with most of the larger Canadian cities (Hamilton included) is multiculturalism. By setting up this ridiculous kind of competition we are sending a message that you have to be a certain way and accomplish certain things to be a ‘great Hamiltonian’. These types of ‘elections’ can make people feel that their accomplishments, skills and good deeds are below society’s expectations and can either cause them to try harder, or more likely, give up. I think the same goes for People Magazine’s annual 50 Most Beautiful People issue ( http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,1046248_1054061,00.html?cid=redirect-articles/ ), and other lists like this. 
http://www.lutherie.net/people.mag.jpgWho decides what is beauty? The obvious answer would be society - we decide what is beauty, but with all these lists and competitions, how are we ever going to change the stereotypes and unattainable images that we surround ourselves with?
So after reading the article "Should your daughter get the HPV vaccine?" by Erin Anderssen and Caroline Alphonso, I feel as though (as cliché as it may sound) my eyes have been opened, to a marketing campaign that I wasn’t really aware existed. I can’t tell you how many times I have seen those HPV and Gardasil commercials advertised on TV and plastered all over the walls in doctor offices and the backs of bathroom stalls, but until I read this article I didn’t really realize how political these advertisements were. I feel like this is a perfect example of mass communication, bordering on propaganda. While I do think that it is important to notify the public of harmful diseases and the vaccines available, I have to agree with some of the statements made by parents in the article that the vaccine is almost being forced upon the young daughters of this province and country in general. As noted in the article, families are only given a few days to decide if they want their daughter to be vaccinated at school (or else they will have to pay "roughly $400 for three doses over six months"). This is another way that people are being pressured. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbFzFtfTA3E – this is a link to a clip on the HPV vaccine in Texas. I thought that the satirical cartoons were rather insightful, although I muted the narrator’s voice after a few minutes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ8x3KR75fA - this is a link to one of the many Gardasil commercials advertised on TV. It amazes me how I, myself, a 20 year old female, was almost swept up by these ads, convinced that I must immediately go find my doctor and urge her to inject me with this miracle drug. Now don’t get me wrong, I do think that there are many benefits to getting this vaccine and that at the very least, these commercials draw attention to STDs and health risks that may not be readily talked about, but I think that the way it is presented to the viewers is a little excessive. I think that these ads pray of people’s worst fears – death and illness. There are no other preventative methods discussed or even any indication of how HPV is contracted – this, I feel is their way of only letting people know enough to be scared into getting the vaccine. In addition, these ads play up one of the average North American insecurities – not fitting in, and, as they stress in the commercial, not being "one less" statistic or "one less" victim.
Another important question that is brought up in the article is that by asking girls as young as 10 years old to get a vaccine that prevents sexually transmitted diseases, simply encouraging or at least condoning sexual behaviour from preteens? Since we as a society decide what is the norm and what is socially acceptable, are we desensitizing people to the idea of underage sex? Furthermore, perhaps by injecting these young girls with this vaccine and not fully discussing the issues surrounding it, we are giving them false impression that they can now have sex and be fully ‘protected’.
In the end, whether or not you agree or disagree with the government’s stance on the matter of HPV prevention and the Gardasil vaccine, I feel like its important to be well informed and know the facts before making a decision, so I leave you with this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTTLw_D1BkU (but ignore the bias last sentence of the clip).
Hello World.
Nice to meet you.
That is all.
<3
