Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Sunday, April 19, 2009
An Ideal University
One of the biggest problems with universities is the price that comes along with them. An ideal university, in my opinion, would be one that is more affordable: no in-state tuition over $5,000 and no out-of-state tuition over $10,000-$15,000 a year. Furthermore, graduate schools shouldn't be any more than $25,000 a year (and that's being lenient). These prices are still hard to afford for some even with scholarships and financial aid available because financial aid and scholarships can only do so much. In addition to affordable tuition, my ideal university would be like its own community with enough parking and housing for all of its students. I also think that it is a good idea to house people according to their sleep habits as Professor Johnson suggested.
For all of the work that a university's students and faculty do, it is important that universities offer good food to please their stomachs! Notice that I included faculty; unlike V Yonker's "The Ideal University" blog, I believe students should not be in charge of teaching themselves as they were in the movie "Accepted." In my view, a student will not learn by himself unless someone is there to guide them. Therefore, universities need their faculty members to guide their students in the correct path and encourage them to reach their dreams like Sandra Boyle.
Though universities do need faculty members, they need to make sure that they hire people who are creative in the techniques that they use to teach so that students will be more interested in learning. I am currently enrolled in many science classes which are required for my major. While taking these courses, I often find myself wondering why I need them or how I am going to use them later in life. Faculty members need to find ways to help students realize that these subjects are important and can be utilized later. For example, physics teachers can do an experiment where one student walks a certain distance, d, in time, t, and the other student(s) have to find his velocity, v. By using these type of hands-on, visual learning techniques, teachers can show their students that what they are learning can be used later and is not just a waste. Therefore, if students see a reason to learn material, they will become more motivated to understand it.
For all of the work that a university's students and faculty do, it is important that universities offer good food to please their stomachs! Notice that I included faculty; unlike V Yonker's "The Ideal University" blog, I believe students should not be in charge of teaching themselves as they were in the movie "Accepted." In my view, a student will not learn by himself unless someone is there to guide them. Therefore, universities need their faculty members to guide their students in the correct path and encourage them to reach their dreams like Sandra Boyle.
Though universities do need faculty members, they need to make sure that they hire people who are creative in the techniques that they use to teach so that students will be more interested in learning. I am currently enrolled in many science classes which are required for my major. While taking these courses, I often find myself wondering why I need them or how I am going to use them later in life. Faculty members need to find ways to help students realize that these subjects are important and can be utilized later. For example, physics teachers can do an experiment where one student walks a certain distance, d, in time, t, and the other student(s) have to find his velocity, v. By using these type of hands-on, visual learning techniques, teachers can show their students that what they are learning can be used later and is not just a waste. Therefore, if students see a reason to learn material, they will become more motivated to understand it.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Blog 10 - Communicating through Clothes
People now days are using their clothing and humor to communicate their religious views and/or affiliations. Depending on the shirt's text, some shirts did not seem as bad as the others. For example, the shirt shown on page 319, which has 'coexist' written on it is not as bad as the other shirts shown because it does not directly poke fun at religion through its images (LaFerla). In my opinion, the visual aspect of the shirt shows more humor than the textual and is a parody. Since I am religious, I would never consider wearing a shirt that would poke fun at my religion or any of it's beliefs.
In Paul Mitchell's essay, he says, "we could say that the previous examples are typical of a culture that ignores God." Mitchell says this regarding the shirts, such as the 'Jesus is my homeboy' and 'Mary is my homegirl', which he feels attack religion. However, by wearing shirts like the ones listed, can Mitchell really argue that they are "of a culture that ignores God"? Rather, people seem to remember God through their shirts, not ignore him.
If the shirts only contained text, they would become less humorous. Thus, they would be less upsetting to those who are religious. It would change the way I react to the shirts because I would find them less harsh to religion.
The shirt on the left displays a picture of a 'buffed up' Jesus outlined by white in a black background, or in other words, a Jesus who seems to have muscles. His face is calm, but with a 'don't mess with me' type of look aided by the black background. The text is written in bubble letters with Jesus written in the biggest font, and Homeboy written in a bit smaller font. Furthermore, the text is centered right over Jesus's chest, which draws your attention to his built. The halo in the picture makes you realize that the man in the shirt, or Jesus, is a god, or more like a type of strong guardian. The shirt to the right depicts an image of Jesus holding up a peace sign with his hand. He seems to be wearing a red hoodie with a white cap, which attempts to indicate how modern he is. He is standing in a very laid-back pose, leaning to one side. Thus, the shirt on the left seems to be more serious, while the shirt on the right is more humorous.
In Paul Mitchell's essay, he says, "we could say that the previous examples are typical of a culture that ignores God." Mitchell says this regarding the shirts, such as the 'Jesus is my homeboy' and 'Mary is my homegirl', which he feels attack religion. However, by wearing shirts like the ones listed, can Mitchell really argue that they are "of a culture that ignores God"? Rather, people seem to remember God through their shirts, not ignore him.
If the shirts only contained text, they would become less humorous. Thus, they would be less upsetting to those who are religious. It would change the way I react to the shirts because I would find them less harsh to religion.
The shirt on the left displays a picture of a 'buffed up' Jesus outlined by white in a black background, or in other words, a Jesus who seems to have muscles. His face is calm, but with a 'don't mess with me' type of look aided by the black background. The text is written in bubble letters with Jesus written in the biggest font, and Homeboy written in a bit smaller font. Furthermore, the text is centered right over Jesus's chest, which draws your attention to his built. The halo in the picture makes you realize that the man in the shirt, or Jesus, is a god, or more like a type of strong guardian. The shirt to the right depicts an image of Jesus holding up a peace sign with his hand. He seems to be wearing a red hoodie with a white cap, which attempts to indicate how modern he is. He is standing in a very laid-back pose, leaning to one side. Thus, the shirt on the left seems to be more serious, while the shirt on the right is more humorous.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Blog 8 - Jammin for a Topic
A. Song Titles:
1. Song Title: Keeping us Alive
Genre: rock
Explanation: This song explores the role of a doctor according to the Oath of Hippocrates. The song will show clips of doctors going to extreme lengths to save their patients lives, not end it.
2. Song Title: A New You
Genre: rock
Explanation: This song explores how research of stem cells should be allowed since they are the future of treating human diseases. This song will give soundbites of scientists who share information on the benefits of stem cell research using embryos.
3. Song Title: Unconscious but Feeling
Genre: Rock
Explanation: This song explores how some patients who are said to be in a vegetative state can still feel. Thus, it is immoral to take them off of life support. Unlike physician assisted suicide, in which the consent of the patient is taken before any action is taken, when life support is drawn, the consent of the patient cannot be taken. Wesley Smith, an attorney and Discovery Institute colleague states,"when family members claim that they detect signs of consciousness in their 'unconscious' loved ones, doctors should be less quick to assert that they are merely seeing what they want to see."
4. Song Title: Stop Gun Violence
Genre: Rap
Explanation: This song explores why and how we should stop gun violence. This song gives hypothetical examples of people who were the victims of gun violence and also provides possible solutions to gun violence such as stricter regulations when purchasing guns, like stronger background checks.
5: Song Title: Lifestyle of the Rich and Poor
Genre: rock
Explanation: This song explores the gap between the health care of the rich and the poor and, thus, why we need universal health care. This song include soundbites from interviews of doctors and politicians who support universal health care. Fact: About 47 million people in the United States are completely uninsured, while millions of people remain inadequately covered (Single-Payer National Health Insurance.)
Works Cited
"Single-Payer National Health Insurance." Physicians for a National Health Program - Health Care is a Human Right. 22 Mar. 2009 http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php.
B. Lyrics to Unconscious but Feeling:
Little Missy Jones
little did she know
she was being robbed of her life
without getting a chance to say goodbye
laying there all stiff and still
they assumed she was not there
and took away her life support
didn't even stop to look
just waited for her heart to die
all the while she was screaming inside
C. CD Title: Survival of the Fittest, Richest, and Meanest
D. The Cover:
Monday, February 23, 2009
Paraphrasing - Georgetown Students Bristle At New Restrictions on Parties by Susan Kinzie
What do you think about when you think of college? One of the things that comes to my mind is parties. Parties, which occur all over the college campus, are one of the main events that students take advantage of to get involved in their college. Unfortunately, most parties go hand-in-hand with drinking. So, what if, in an attempt to crack down on drinking, the parties came with restrictions? Georgetown University has begun to implement crowd limits and registration requirements on parties that occur in it's housing areas and the D.C. police has begun to scan the streets for students to arrest due to party-related violations (Kinzie). Furthermore, according to Susan Kinzie, parties that take place on the campus are "limited to 25 or 35 people... or 50 in a back yard or on a roof" and students must ask for permission to have a party, in which they can only bring one keg, by 10 a.m. Consequently, angry students have begun to take their parties to residential areas nearby (Kinzie). Now, not only are the students angry, but so are the people who live in the residential areas. Students are angered by the sudden regulations, which have caused an uproar on campus, resulting in the creation of a facebook group called "Work Hard-Play Hard, GU Students for Stopping the Madness" (Kinzie). In addition, the people who live in the residential areas are bothered by all of the noise caused by the parties, which now take place nearby (Kinzie). So, by enforcing these regulations so suddenly, is Georgetown causing more problems than it is solving? Are they being effective in their goal to spread safety? Most nearby residents and students would say no. Some students, like Camille Kolstad, believe they were much safer on campus (Kinzie). Yet, despite all of the opposition, school officials and the D.C. police stay firm to their belief that something must be done. Police commander Andy Solberg when addressing the issue with drinking in campus parties said, "It's gone on too long now (Kinzie)."
Works Cited
Kinzie, Susan. "Georgetown Students Bristle At New Restrictions on Parties." Washington Post. 8 Sept. 2007. 23 Feb. 2009. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090702816.html?nav=rss_metro/dc>
Works Cited
Kinzie, Susan. "Georgetown Students Bristle At New Restrictions on Parties." Washington Post. 8 Sept. 2007. 23 Feb. 2009. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090702816.html?nav=rss_metro/dc>
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Cheating to Win
As I was watching this video, I found myself wondering why in the world someone would make such a big deal about the use of steroids if there are no real long-term health risks caused by it. However, the video only focused on the use of steroids among healthy adult males, but what about unhealthy adult males? The video also failed to address the effects that the drug has on others, like women and children. Thus, arguments could be made that steroid use among 'healthy' males influences steroid use among unhealthy males, women, and children. Other arguments could be made that steroid use among unhealthy males, women, and/or children is bad; so, why should healthy adult males be allowed to use it? Furthermore, what constitutes a healthy adult male? If healthy adult males were allowed to use steroids, who would stop others from using them to get steroids? It would be yet another case of how children use adults over the age of 21 to get their hands on alcohol; however, in this case, it would be people, not only children, using healthy adult males to get steroids. So, do I think that steroids can be used responsibly? No, of course not! Like any other drug, the abuse of steroids is inevitable. If someone wants to get bigger, they will probably use more steroids, which is another topic that the video failed to address: the overuse of steroids. However, the biggest and most important topic that the video failed to address is that its cheating! Legalizing the use of steroids would be like allowing children to cheat in school; both have no long-term health effects and they both have good outcomes, one gives you a good body, the other gives you good grades. So, what do you have to lose? Only your self-respect.
My reaction to steroid use is that it should be regulated. So, I am glad that students are being tested for steroids because it is cheating. However, I think there should be different standards for professional athletes vs. high school athletes. I would think that professional athletes would be likely to use more steroids than high school athletes. Yet, I do not think that there should be different steroid use standards for different sports because even though sports are different, the main aspects to them are not. The key aspects for each sport are speed and strength, which can be enhanced by steroids. Thus, steroid use among different sports would most likely be nearly the same.
As Hoberman suggests, I also think that steroid use is, to some extent, caused by our culture's desire for people to be the best. However, it is also caused by the desire of people to do well and, not to mention, look good. Although our culture's expectations are somewhat responsible for the use of steroids among athletes, it all comes down to who you are as a person and what actions you choose to take. When things go bad, you can't always blame others for the actions that you made. Eventually, you have to recognize that it was your actions that placed you in this situation: you chose to take steroids; thus, only you are to blame.
My reaction to steroid use is that it should be regulated. So, I am glad that students are being tested for steroids because it is cheating. However, I think there should be different standards for professional athletes vs. high school athletes. I would think that professional athletes would be likely to use more steroids than high school athletes. Yet, I do not think that there should be different steroid use standards for different sports because even though sports are different, the main aspects to them are not. The key aspects for each sport are speed and strength, which can be enhanced by steroids. Thus, steroid use among different sports would most likely be nearly the same.
As Hoberman suggests, I also think that steroid use is, to some extent, caused by our culture's desire for people to be the best. However, it is also caused by the desire of people to do well and, not to mention, look good. Although our culture's expectations are somewhat responsible for the use of steroids among athletes, it all comes down to who you are as a person and what actions you choose to take. When things go bad, you can't always blame others for the actions that you made. Eventually, you have to recognize that it was your actions that placed you in this situation: you chose to take steroids; thus, only you are to blame.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Portfolio #2 - Thesis
The abuse of animals for or during any type of entertainment, specifically circuses, should be banned.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Paraphrasing
Plagarism is very common among students. Why? Students tend to directly quote from sources because they are unable to put things into their own words. Therefore, they tend to use many direct quotes when writing notes, which consequently appear in their final (Lester). According to James D. Lester, only 10% of your writing should be directly quoted from a source. Since the pathway to a good paper begins with notes, students should focus on using fewer quotes in them (Lester).
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Body Image: Who is to be blamed?
Who should we blame for the deepening disgust that men and women see in their bodies? The authors of the article "Evolving Ideals of Male Body Image as Seen Through Action Toys" seem to think that the toys we play with as children are to blame. To prove this, they compared the first Star Wars and GI Joe toys. In both cases, they found an increase in muscle size and muscular definition. For example, the earliest GI Joe figure shows no abdominal muscle, but as the years go on, the abdominal muscles of his counterparts become more defined. Similarly, the toy figures of Luke Skywalker and Hans Solo have become more muscular and toned. In comparison to their 1978 counterparts, the Star Wars toys in 1998 have obtained the physiques of body builders. Thus, although it is not sure to what extent these toys influence males, we should continue research to assess the impression that the toys make on our children.
On the other hand, the author of "G.I. Joe's Big Biceps are Not a Big Deal" seems to think that the idea that toys promote an unrealistic body image is preposterous. Yes, the toys do have some abnormal features, like the huge arms of a G.I. Joe or the big bust of a Barbie; but so what? They all have one thing in common; they're just toys! Boys have always wanted to be big and muscular. When they can find their role models in people who are actually real, why would they choose a plastic doll?
The tone found in the first article is a serious, researched tone. The authors provide exact numbers with a long list of references at the end. They also attempt to prove their point through an experiment. For example, they provide pictures to go along with their results so that we can see what they are writing about. Furthermore, the authors provide a table that displays the actual measurements of some of the toys and their measurements for if their height were extrapolated to 70 inches. All of their research, pictures, and the table allow the audience to recognize that there might be some truth in the argument that the author's present. I would expect that the authors directed this article towards an audience of other scientists and experimenters who would carry out this or a similar experiment further.
The tone found in the second article is a comical, almost satirical tone. I felt that the author's use of language was ineffective. Her only argument was, "They're just toys." I found little support for this argument. However, she did give examples of other 'ridiculous' statements that researchers and others have made about toys, like Barbie. I would expect her audience to be young adults or other adults who are easily swayed without solid facts.
Although I find the second article a bit ineffective, I agree more with it than with the first. I believe that toys have little effect on young minds. Rather, it is the young people who influence toys and the way they are built. When I was young, I played with Barbies a lot. It was my favorite because you could play out real, or somewhat real, situations with it since it was human. I also liked it because my friends favored it too. At that time, I do not remember ever thinking or caring about how skinny the doll was or how big her bust was. Thus, I don't think that dolls or other toys have much influence over the minds of the young. The toys merely reflect what children are thinking and/or seeing. Nowadays, since children are being exposed to more masculinity and feminism in ads or on TV, why should toys be left behind?
On the other hand, the author of "G.I. Joe's Big Biceps are Not a Big Deal" seems to think that the idea that toys promote an unrealistic body image is preposterous. Yes, the toys do have some abnormal features, like the huge arms of a G.I. Joe or the big bust of a Barbie; but so what? They all have one thing in common; they're just toys! Boys have always wanted to be big and muscular. When they can find their role models in people who are actually real, why would they choose a plastic doll?
The tone found in the first article is a serious, researched tone. The authors provide exact numbers with a long list of references at the end. They also attempt to prove their point through an experiment. For example, they provide pictures to go along with their results so that we can see what they are writing about. Furthermore, the authors provide a table that displays the actual measurements of some of the toys and their measurements for if their height were extrapolated to 70 inches. All of their research, pictures, and the table allow the audience to recognize that there might be some truth in the argument that the author's present. I would expect that the authors directed this article towards an audience of other scientists and experimenters who would carry out this or a similar experiment further.
The tone found in the second article is a comical, almost satirical tone. I felt that the author's use of language was ineffective. Her only argument was, "They're just toys." I found little support for this argument. However, she did give examples of other 'ridiculous' statements that researchers and others have made about toys, like Barbie. I would expect her audience to be young adults or other adults who are easily swayed without solid facts.
Although I find the second article a bit ineffective, I agree more with it than with the first. I believe that toys have little effect on young minds. Rather, it is the young people who influence toys and the way they are built. When I was young, I played with Barbies a lot. It was my favorite because you could play out real, or somewhat real, situations with it since it was human. I also liked it because my friends favored it too. At that time, I do not remember ever thinking or caring about how skinny the doll was or how big her bust was. Thus, I don't think that dolls or other toys have much influence over the minds of the young. The toys merely reflect what children are thinking and/or seeing. Nowadays, since children are being exposed to more masculinity and feminism in ads or on TV, why should toys be left behind?
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Blog 3 - Battle with Unhappiness
Against:
People choose to express their unhappiness in many ways, but when these methods become deadly, shouldn't we be the ones to say enough is enough? Shouldn't we attempt to stop those that are promoting these deadly ways? Eating disorders, such as anorexia and bulimia, are outlets for many women's discontent. According to Mim Udovitch's, "A Secret Society of the Starving," about one in 200 American women suffers from anorexia and two to three women in 100 suffer from bulimia. Many of these women find their safe haven in pro-ana and/or pro-mia sites, which claim to help individuals with eating disorders; but, do they really? In a journal entry written on a pro-ana livejournal webpage, a member wrote, "I now have fat legs, arms, tummy.. ew ew ew.. I want my bones back!", to which another member commented, "I'm sure I am worse off than you!! I have gained 22 lbs since last spring." Now, I can only imagine the member, who wrote the entry, imagining herself gaining 22 lbs and, thus, her resentment towards herself would only increase and she would become scared of seeing herself like that. The thought of being so 'fat' would be so hideous that she would attempt to lose even more weight, and consequently, bring herself near death. How is this helping, by helping women find outlets, which have the support of so many others, to express how much they hate themselves, by having one women talk to another only to find themselves more depressed, or by giving people a way to make themselves look as bad as they feel? As a girl, Claire, interviewed by Mim Udovitch said, "..you can't say that every ana loves herself and that she doesn't think anything is wrong with her at all. Or else she wouldn't be ana in the first place." So, in a place where everyone believes that something is wrong with them, how can they find anything right? The answer: they can't.
For:
Everyone needs someone to talk to. So, why should we be able to steal that comfort away? People with eating disorders are just that, people. If we are allowed to write about our emotions and feelings on a daily basis, then why shouldn't they be allowed to? Pro-ana and pro-mia websites are sites used by those with eating disorders. These sites allow them to communicate with others who are experiencing what they are. It's what lets them know that they are not alone. The members of this online 'community' not only become friends, but also become a family. As Claire, a girl interviewed by Mim Udovitch, put it, "..at the end of the day, I can go online and talk to them there, and they know exactly what I'm going through and how I feel. And I don't have to worry about them judging me for how I feel."
Not For or Against:
A person is diagnosed with anorexia when she is 15% under normal weight for her height and age. According to Mim Udovitch's "A Secret Society of the Starving", one in 200 American women suffer from this disorder. Furthermore, two or three in 100 women suffer from bulimia. In order to get through the hardships of their eating disorders, these women make use of pro-ana and/or pro-mia sites to record their feelings, while hearing and listening to others. So, you may be wondering why people don't use recovery sites. According to Chaos, a girl interviewed by Mim Udovitch, on recovery sites, you have to speak "recovery talk". "A lot of times people just need to know that they aren't reacting in a completely crazy way," said Chaos. For this reason, people with eating disorders find pro-eating disorder sites to be a safe haven. Although these sites are beneficial to those who have the disorder, they can be a harmful and bad influence to others. In "A Secret Society of the Starving", Chaos and Futurebird, two girls interviewed by Udovitch, attempted to dispute the assertion that the pro-eating disorder sites could give anyone an eating disorder. An eating disorder, they said, could not be given to someone unless they have the vulnerability towards it. In response, Mim Udovitch wrote, "..many adolescent girls teeter on the edge of vulnerability. And the sites certainly might give those girls the suggestion to... hey, what the hell, give it a try." So, how should one decide whether these sites are good or bad?
People choose to express their unhappiness in many ways, but when these methods become deadly, shouldn't we be the ones to say enough is enough? Shouldn't we attempt to stop those that are promoting these deadly ways? Eating disorders, such as anorexia and bulimia, are outlets for many women's discontent. According to Mim Udovitch's, "A Secret Society of the Starving," about one in 200 American women suffers from anorexia and two to three women in 100 suffer from bulimia. Many of these women find their safe haven in pro-ana and/or pro-mia sites, which claim to help individuals with eating disorders; but, do they really? In a journal entry written on a pro-ana livejournal webpage, a member wrote, "I now have fat legs, arms, tummy.. ew ew ew.. I want my bones back!", to which another member commented, "I'm sure I am worse off than you!! I have gained 22 lbs since last spring." Now, I can only imagine the member, who wrote the entry, imagining herself gaining 22 lbs and, thus, her resentment towards herself would only increase and she would become scared of seeing herself like that. The thought of being so 'fat' would be so hideous that she would attempt to lose even more weight, and consequently, bring herself near death. How is this helping, by helping women find outlets, which have the support of so many others, to express how much they hate themselves, by having one women talk to another only to find themselves more depressed, or by giving people a way to make themselves look as bad as they feel? As a girl, Claire, interviewed by Mim Udovitch said, "..you can't say that every ana loves herself and that she doesn't think anything is wrong with her at all. Or else she wouldn't be ana in the first place." So, in a place where everyone believes that something is wrong with them, how can they find anything right? The answer: they can't.
For:
Everyone needs someone to talk to. So, why should we be able to steal that comfort away? People with eating disorders are just that, people. If we are allowed to write about our emotions and feelings on a daily basis, then why shouldn't they be allowed to? Pro-ana and pro-mia websites are sites used by those with eating disorders. These sites allow them to communicate with others who are experiencing what they are. It's what lets them know that they are not alone. The members of this online 'community' not only become friends, but also become a family. As Claire, a girl interviewed by Mim Udovitch, put it, "..at the end of the day, I can go online and talk to them there, and they know exactly what I'm going through and how I feel. And I don't have to worry about them judging me for how I feel."
Not For or Against:
A person is diagnosed with anorexia when she is 15% under normal weight for her height and age. According to Mim Udovitch's "A Secret Society of the Starving", one in 200 American women suffer from this disorder. Furthermore, two or three in 100 women suffer from bulimia. In order to get through the hardships of their eating disorders, these women make use of pro-ana and/or pro-mia sites to record their feelings, while hearing and listening to others. So, you may be wondering why people don't use recovery sites. According to Chaos, a girl interviewed by Mim Udovitch, on recovery sites, you have to speak "recovery talk". "A lot of times people just need to know that they aren't reacting in a completely crazy way," said Chaos. For this reason, people with eating disorders find pro-eating disorder sites to be a safe haven. Although these sites are beneficial to those who have the disorder, they can be a harmful and bad influence to others. In "A Secret Society of the Starving", Chaos and Futurebird, two girls interviewed by Udovitch, attempted to dispute the assertion that the pro-eating disorder sites could give anyone an eating disorder. An eating disorder, they said, could not be given to someone unless they have the vulnerability towards it. In response, Mim Udovitch wrote, "..many adolescent girls teeter on the edge of vulnerability. And the sites certainly might give those girls the suggestion to... hey, what the hell, give it a try." So, how should one decide whether these sites are good or bad?
Monday, February 2, 2009
Logical Fallacies - Faulty Cause/Effect
The medical examiner found a bullet wound in the victim, John Doe's, chest. She knew that at the time of the shooting, the victim's friend was the only one in the room with him. Therefore, the friend killed John Doe!
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Blog 2 - Runners vs. Joggers
When I saw the "We Are Not Joggers" ad, the first thing that jumped out at me were the words written in a bold and capitalized script that said, "Ever notice how it's always runners who find dead bodies?". This made me wonder what Pearl Izumi was trying to suggest. Were the runners the good guys or the bad? I then clicked on the the We Are Not Joggers homepage to view the whole campaign ad and learn more. When I looked through, I found a passage that was similar to the one posted on Ms. Johnson's blog, but a bit different. Unlike the passage on Ms. Johnson's blog, this passage included a sentence at the end that said, "Actually, with runners being such a dangerous breed, maybe the whole body-finding thing is more than just a coincidence." With words like those written into a dark, ominous-looking, stormy background, I have to admit that I was a bit unnerved.
Since I am not a runner, my response was probably very different from those who are. When I was looking through the full ad campaign, I felt as if Pearl Izumi was just trying to sell their product. Although their words alienate joggers, I felt as if Izumi wanted joggers to read their words. With their criticism of joggers, it is as if they are trying to persuade joggers to say that they are runners, when they are not. The joggers do not want to admit to themselves that they are the "joggers" that Izumi criticizes in their ad. So, because of the ads, they convince themselves that they are, in fact, runners and buy her product. They want to be the wild animals that Izumi relates runners to, not the domesticated and tame ones that they condemn.
The background was the first thing that caught my attention when I looked at the homepage. The stormy, dark, image with a dark shadow of a runner indicated that runners keep running no matter what; they never give up. More than the background, it was the words that made most of the impact. The words were what lent significance to the ad's intent to persuade. With statements like, "Running is in our nature," and "All of this made man what he is today. And all of it evolved from running," it is no wonder that people would begin to believe that they actually are runners, not joggers. Pearl Izumi attempts to promote the value of running, while discouraging that of jogging. Yet, they do not remember that as time changes, people change. We do not need to run like we used to before. However, running is in all of us, so if we need to, we will run. The important thing is that we remember to do what we're comfortable with. If running is what you find comfortable, then run; if not, you're at liberty to walk or jog as fast as you please.
The author of the Pearl Izumi ad appeals to ethos is strongest to me. Through the vivid words that the author uses to describe the differences between runners and joggers, I imagine the author to be an extraordinary and superior runner, to whom running is more than just a hobby. On the other hand, the Reebok ad appeals to pathos strongly. I imagined myself replacing the person in the image, with puke spilling out of my mouth. The image is not something I would want to come true. Regardless of my opinion, I would choose the Reebok ad to appear in a magazine because it appeals to more people. Unlike the Reebok ad, the Pearl Izumi ad singles out runners. I also feel as though although the first statement on the Pearl Izumi ad, "Ever notice how it's always runners who find dead bodies?," would catch peoples attention, it would not persuade them to buy their product because who really wants to stumble upon a dead body?
Since I am not a runner, my response was probably very different from those who are. When I was looking through the full ad campaign, I felt as if Pearl Izumi was just trying to sell their product. Although their words alienate joggers, I felt as if Izumi wanted joggers to read their words. With their criticism of joggers, it is as if they are trying to persuade joggers to say that they are runners, when they are not. The joggers do not want to admit to themselves that they are the "joggers" that Izumi criticizes in their ad. So, because of the ads, they convince themselves that they are, in fact, runners and buy her product. They want to be the wild animals that Izumi relates runners to, not the domesticated and tame ones that they condemn.
The background was the first thing that caught my attention when I looked at the homepage. The stormy, dark, image with a dark shadow of a runner indicated that runners keep running no matter what; they never give up. More than the background, it was the words that made most of the impact. The words were what lent significance to the ad's intent to persuade. With statements like, "Running is in our nature," and "All of this made man what he is today. And all of it evolved from running," it is no wonder that people would begin to believe that they actually are runners, not joggers. Pearl Izumi attempts to promote the value of running, while discouraging that of jogging. Yet, they do not remember that as time changes, people change. We do not need to run like we used to before. However, running is in all of us, so if we need to, we will run. The important thing is that we remember to do what we're comfortable with. If running is what you find comfortable, then run; if not, you're at liberty to walk or jog as fast as you please.
The author of the Pearl Izumi ad appeals to ethos is strongest to me. Through the vivid words that the author uses to describe the differences between runners and joggers, I imagine the author to be an extraordinary and superior runner, to whom running is more than just a hobby. On the other hand, the Reebok ad appeals to pathos strongly. I imagined myself replacing the person in the image, with puke spilling out of my mouth. The image is not something I would want to come true. Regardless of my opinion, I would choose the Reebok ad to appear in a magazine because it appeals to more people. Unlike the Reebok ad, the Pearl Izumi ad singles out runners. I also feel as though although the first statement on the Pearl Izumi ad, "Ever notice how it's always runners who find dead bodies?," would catch peoples attention, it would not persuade them to buy their product because who really wants to stumble upon a dead body?
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Blog 1 - A Hero
Every business uses various techniques to promote their products. In the Army's case, their product is the military. So, when businesses have begun using computer and video games to promote themselves, why should the Army stay behind? I don't find anything wrong with the Army using computer and video games, or even the internet, to recruit.
Most of the rhetoric found on the America's Army home website and events website are geared toward a teen audience. The home website makes use of a camouflage background to resemble an army member's uniform, while the events website is a plain brown, which I think must represent the ground or mudd. The main things I notice when I look at the events webpage, other than its background, are the words "Free, Easy, Fast" and the "Sign Up" link which pops out at you. The home page also displays a picture of one of its Real Heroes, which is the second biggest section on the website, so it really catches your attention. It also has a "Real Heroes" link on the top of the page. If you click on the link, you will come to a page that shows a list of soldiers who are considered "Real Heroes" and also displays the awards they have received for their heroism. This is another example of a rhetoric tactic because it conveys the message that teens, or others, can become heroes if they join the army. The home webpage also includes a media link, which displays very realistic screenshots of the game with captions describing the scene. The media webpage has links to screenshots from the 'Training' section and "Missions" section. I found that when I put my mouse over either one of the links, a caption, which said "View this hero's photo album", popped up. I think it's this heroism theme that promotes most teens to play the game or join the army because who doesn't want to be a hero?
As the army continues to use games and the internet to recruit, people continue to voice their opinions. Navy Veteran Boyle believes that the websites and games indoctrinate the ideology of war. I disagree with him. I believe that the game and websites are just exactly that: games and websites. The games have become more realistic than they were in the past, but we need to remember that they are not real. Many of the people shown in the trailer of America's Army tournament events just come to the event to play and have fun. Others are interested in joining the army and come to learn more. I think that the video game and websites enhance one's desire to join the army, but only if they have thought about joining it. Likewise, it can create sparks of interest in those who are already interested in the army. Otherwise, it is just a game.
Violence can be found, not only on video games and websites, but also in shows on TV, on the news, and in everyday life. I don't think that the America's Army website or game promotes violence. Video games just give people an outlet to express their feelings, which are sometimes violent, without actually being violent. However, I do agree that people can use video games to get ideas, but I believe it all comes down to how you are raised and how you think. Not everyone is the same. So, it is impossible to predict how people will react to what they see on TV, in theatre, on the internet, or in the video games that they cling to.
Most of the rhetoric found on the America's Army home website and events website are geared toward a teen audience. The home website makes use of a camouflage background to resemble an army member's uniform, while the events website is a plain brown, which I think must represent the ground or mudd. The main things I notice when I look at the events webpage, other than its background, are the words "Free, Easy, Fast" and the "Sign Up" link which pops out at you. The home page also displays a picture of one of its Real Heroes, which is the second biggest section on the website, so it really catches your attention. It also has a "Real Heroes" link on the top of the page. If you click on the link, you will come to a page that shows a list of soldiers who are considered "Real Heroes" and also displays the awards they have received for their heroism. This is another example of a rhetoric tactic because it conveys the message that teens, or others, can become heroes if they join the army. The home webpage also includes a media link, which displays very realistic screenshots of the game with captions describing the scene. The media webpage has links to screenshots from the 'Training' section and "Missions" section. I found that when I put my mouse over either one of the links, a caption, which said "View this hero's photo album", popped up. I think it's this heroism theme that promotes most teens to play the game or join the army because who doesn't want to be a hero?
As the army continues to use games and the internet to recruit, people continue to voice their opinions. Navy Veteran Boyle believes that the websites and games indoctrinate the ideology of war. I disagree with him. I believe that the game and websites are just exactly that: games and websites. The games have become more realistic than they were in the past, but we need to remember that they are not real. Many of the people shown in the trailer of America's Army tournament events just come to the event to play and have fun. Others are interested in joining the army and come to learn more. I think that the video game and websites enhance one's desire to join the army, but only if they have thought about joining it. Likewise, it can create sparks of interest in those who are already interested in the army. Otherwise, it is just a game.
Violence can be found, not only on video games and websites, but also in shows on TV, on the news, and in everyday life. I don't think that the America's Army website or game promotes violence. Video games just give people an outlet to express their feelings, which are sometimes violent, without actually being violent. However, I do agree that people can use video games to get ideas, but I believe it all comes down to how you are raised and how you think. Not everyone is the same. So, it is impossible to predict how people will react to what they see on TV, in theatre, on the internet, or in the video games that they cling to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)