Hey Third Block.
Did I imagine it when Kunkle said Cody's essay would be online somewhere??
I can't find it on his teacher page or on Cody's blog.
I know he was going to make copies after class, but I never got one. If anyone could help, I'd really appreciate it.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
"Times have changed for student protesters"
"The idea of a massive social movement that can rise up and change out government doesn't seem possible."
I found this line to very true of today's youth. As we were watching the video Two Days in October, I was thinking this exact thing. It seems impossible that today's apathetic youth (or semi-apathetic) could be capable of organizing something like the sit-in that the students at UW-Madison did.
The thing that hits me the hardest is the fact that all this technology that Lampert Smith talks about getting in our way, could really help us astronomically. We could have such an advantage over earlier generations. All we would have to do is send a mass text or put a message up on facebook, and we would instantly have the attention of all of our friends. With all this new technology comes so many more distractions and we fail to realize what is really important.
I found this line to very true of today's youth. As we were watching the video Two Days in October, I was thinking this exact thing. It seems impossible that today's apathetic youth (or semi-apathetic) could be capable of organizing something like the sit-in that the students at UW-Madison did.
The thing that hits me the hardest is the fact that all this technology that Lampert Smith talks about getting in our way, could really help us astronomically. We could have such an advantage over earlier generations. All we would have to do is send a mass text or put a message up on facebook, and we would instantly have the attention of all of our friends. With all this new technology comes so many more distractions and we fail to realize what is really important.
Monday, October 19, 2009
My Undying Love for Seth Meyers
Today in class, we were given a very brief introduction to satire through Jonathan Swift. The piece that Mr. Kunkle read to us "A Modest Proposal" was a very extreme example of satire. His "modest proposal" was that the poor people sell their babies to the rich for food and this would essentially eliminate the impoverished population. I, for one, am very excited about this unit, because it is so right up my alley. My favorite part of SNL every week is Weekend Update with Seth Meyers, possibly the greatest example of satire in our society :). Not only does it spoof the "night's top stories," it also, in a way spoofs the satirical news desk shows like John Stewart. Seth Meyers sits behind a weekend update news desk and talks about things that happened that week and occasionally interviews people who shed light on said happenings. The interviewees are portrayed by SNL cast members. He often has people to impersonate political figures, cartoon characters, celebrities, made-up characters, and once, a goose. Last year, they started airing a Saturday Night Live Weekend Update Thursday. It was started by the popularity of the of the 2008 election and Tina Fey's impersonation of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. They are continuing to air the Thursday edition this year: three in the fall, three in the winter, and three in the spring. I tend to be one of those obnoxious people who use sarcasm as a way to deal with the weird things people say or do, so this unit on satire is very appealing to me!
Click here to see a video of my favorite Weekend Update guest. I encourage you to find the other two videos as well (I didn't want to overwhelm anyone with links in this post)!
Click here to see a video of my favorite Weekend Update guest. I encourage you to find the other two videos as well (I didn't want to overwhelm anyone with links in this post)!
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Sound and Fury
I found out during a church homily that Helen Keller once said that of all three of her disabilities, she disliked being blind the most. It had something to do with the fact that seeing was the ultimate form of communication, how you use your eyes to look out onto the world, but people also use your eyes to look into, for lack of better explanation, your head, to search for hidden meanings or emotions (that was a crap ton of commas, sorry). Since her eyes were closed off both ways, she had no way to communicate inward or outward with people. I started thinking about how I couldn't fathom having just one of Helen Keller's disabilities, much less all three, and this got me thinking about Sound and Fury again.
In this day and age, doctors can fix just about everything, including being deaf. The cochlear implant is a device implanted into a deaf person's ear to help them hear well. It doesn't completely "fix" deafness, but it helps. In Sound and Fury, Peter talked about how he was deaf and was able to become successful at his job. He also admitted that he probably could not go any higher due to his deafness and that it was significantly harder for him than it would have been had he had the ability to hear. Peter's wife and children were also deaf. My concern with this documentary was that I felt like Peter was holding his family back.
First, he wouldn't allow Heather to get the implant. He was so proud to be deaf and to have a deaf family, that it clouded his judgment. He was more concerned with his pride than what was best for his daughter. If he had kept an open mind to start with, he might have realized sooner that it really was in her best interest for the future to be able to hear. She would have so many doors open to her. She could be even more successful, and it wouldn't be as hard on her. As her father, I would think that Peter would want to make life as easy as possible for Heather.
Second, he moved his entire family to the deaf community when they were more concerned about being apart of both the deaf and the hearing worlds. It felt to me like he forced their hands a bit. He just completely submerged them in the deaf world. That is something that would hold them back tremendously when they eventually left the deaf community. I don't know if he realized how greatly it would impact them.
I felt that Peter could have done more to help his family succeed and prosper and be a part of both the hearing world and the deaf world. I was really pleased to hear that the family (with the exception of Peter) did get the implant because I believe that it will help them all in the long run,
In this day and age, doctors can fix just about everything, including being deaf. The cochlear implant is a device implanted into a deaf person's ear to help them hear well. It doesn't completely "fix" deafness, but it helps. In Sound and Fury, Peter talked about how he was deaf and was able to become successful at his job. He also admitted that he probably could not go any higher due to his deafness and that it was significantly harder for him than it would have been had he had the ability to hear. Peter's wife and children were also deaf. My concern with this documentary was that I felt like Peter was holding his family back.
First, he wouldn't allow Heather to get the implant. He was so proud to be deaf and to have a deaf family, that it clouded his judgment. He was more concerned with his pride than what was best for his daughter. If he had kept an open mind to start with, he might have realized sooner that it really was in her best interest for the future to be able to hear. She would have so many doors open to her. She could be even more successful, and it wouldn't be as hard on her. As her father, I would think that Peter would want to make life as easy as possible for Heather.
Second, he moved his entire family to the deaf community when they were more concerned about being apart of both the deaf and the hearing worlds. It felt to me like he forced their hands a bit. He just completely submerged them in the deaf world. That is something that would hold them back tremendously when they eventually left the deaf community. I don't know if he realized how greatly it would impact them.
I felt that Peter could have done more to help his family succeed and prosper and be a part of both the hearing world and the deaf world. I was really pleased to hear that the family (with the exception of Peter) did get the implant because I believe that it will help them all in the long run,
Thoughts on AP Comp
I'm going to take this time to comment on what I think about AP Comp at this point.
I was really looking forward to this class and it has really held up to my expectations. I've always enjoyed reading, so the course reader has acutally been a lot of fun to read. That's not to say that there haven't been any frustrating essays... As you all probably know, I like to write. My favorite so far was the college application essay. My prompt was from the University of Chicago and was a lot of fun to write about because it was a lot of things that I had been feeling, but didn't have a proper outlet to let them out (ha. maybe that's where the name came from!). Writing this essay, inspired me to do a little more research on the school and made me want to complete the rest of the application. One of my favorite parts of college lit. last year, was the discussions. Our class could sit and talk about Flannery O'Connor or Franz Kafka or Crash for an entire class period, and I was really looking forward to that with AP Comp. I think our class has a lot of really great discussions. That's one of my favorite parts about the class. I love hearing all the debates between classmates and gaining more perspective on pieces by hearing how my peers interpreted an essay. I'm having fun so far. I hope the rest of the class is as enjoyable!
P.S. I also stole this idea from Elise. :)
I was really looking forward to this class and it has really held up to my expectations. I've always enjoyed reading, so the course reader has acutally been a lot of fun to read. That's not to say that there haven't been any frustrating essays... As you all probably know, I like to write. My favorite so far was the college application essay. My prompt was from the University of Chicago and was a lot of fun to write about because it was a lot of things that I had been feeling, but didn't have a proper outlet to let them out (ha. maybe that's where the name came from!). Writing this essay, inspired me to do a little more research on the school and made me want to complete the rest of the application. One of my favorite parts of college lit. last year, was the discussions. Our class could sit and talk about Flannery O'Connor or Franz Kafka or Crash for an entire class period, and I was really looking forward to that with AP Comp. I think our class has a lot of really great discussions. That's one of my favorite parts about the class. I love hearing all the debates between classmates and gaining more perspective on pieces by hearing how my peers interpreted an essay. I'm having fun so far. I hope the rest of the class is as enjoyable!
P.S. I also stole this idea from Elise. :)
See Baby Discriminate
First off, I would like to thank Stefanie for picking such an interesting article. I found it very interesting and thought provoking which leads me to my blog:
As I was reading and annotating this essay, I found myself asking a lot of questions (I actually ran out of room to annotate on the second page because of this).
The sub-title of the essay made me think about how babies always seem to be these innocent little uncorrupt beings, but the fact they can already "judge others based on skin color?" That right there took me by surprise. After I read the article, I can't say that I necessarily believed that. I think that their research was very comprehensive; however, it failed to prove to me that babies pass judgement due to skin color. Merryman and Bronson certaintly proved that six-month-olds can differentiate, but it seemed to be that it was simply because it was something different than what they are used to. As we disscussed in class, this can happen with any number of things. Keep in mind that thier subjects were babies. They are learning everyday with each new thing they see, just because they stared at the picture of the black individual longer doesn't mean they were thinking anything negative about it. Anytime a baby sees something different, they are going to take longer to look at, because it's new.
I didn't understand a lot of the families' justifications for not talking to their kids about race. Some said that just by drawing attention to it by saying something, it would automatically shed a negative light on the issue. Some just didn't know how to deal with the topic and not accidentally sound racist. As they said in the essay, "For decades, we've assumed that children will see race only when society points it out to them." I think this might have been going through the parents' minds when approaching this. They assumed that their children didn't know the difference and would continue with their ignorance-is-bliss lifestyle. However, the studies show that children do recognize differences, regardless of whether they are pointed out or not. So I think it's better to talk about race with your children. It may be difficult or awkward, but by avoiding the subject, you run the risk of having your children not fully understand why there are some people who look different from them and may inadvertant say or do something that could be construed as racist. The essay brought up a good point: that it's hard to talk to children about something like race, but it is one of those things that needs to be dealt with by the parents.
As I was reading and annotating this essay, I found myself asking a lot of questions (I actually ran out of room to annotate on the second page because of this).
The sub-title of the essay made me think about how babies always seem to be these innocent little uncorrupt beings, but the fact they can already "judge others based on skin color?" That right there took me by surprise. After I read the article, I can't say that I necessarily believed that. I think that their research was very comprehensive; however, it failed to prove to me that babies pass judgement due to skin color. Merryman and Bronson certaintly proved that six-month-olds can differentiate, but it seemed to be that it was simply because it was something different than what they are used to. As we disscussed in class, this can happen with any number of things. Keep in mind that thier subjects were babies. They are learning everyday with each new thing they see, just because they stared at the picture of the black individual longer doesn't mean they were thinking anything negative about it. Anytime a baby sees something different, they are going to take longer to look at, because it's new.
I didn't understand a lot of the families' justifications for not talking to their kids about race. Some said that just by drawing attention to it by saying something, it would automatically shed a negative light on the issue. Some just didn't know how to deal with the topic and not accidentally sound racist. As they said in the essay, "For decades, we've assumed that children will see race only when society points it out to them." I think this might have been going through the parents' minds when approaching this. They assumed that their children didn't know the difference and would continue with their ignorance-is-bliss lifestyle. However, the studies show that children do recognize differences, regardless of whether they are pointed out or not. So I think it's better to talk about race with your children. It may be difficult or awkward, but by avoiding the subject, you run the risk of having your children not fully understand why there are some people who look different from them and may inadvertant say or do something that could be construed as racist. The essay brought up a good point: that it's hard to talk to children about something like race, but it is one of those things that needs to be dealt with by the parents.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia
First, I would like to point out the irony in the fact that the longest word for a phobia according to The Phobia List.com is Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia and it is a fear of long words.
Ever since I was a little girl I have been afraid of pointy objects. This isn't some irrational fear where I freak out when I see a needle, but I have a stong distaste for them. That's the thing, the word phobia makes it sound like it's some over-the-top fear, but I can call myself an Aichmophobic and not be some crazed psycho who can't stand the sight of needles.
Back to the pointy objects. They don't even have to be directed towards me. I still can't watch the scene in the Parent Trap where Hallie pierces Annie's ears with a needle and a potato. I must not be the only one who can't stand it because the part of the scene where the needle enters the ear was cut from the television version. I don't like getting shots and I don't like watching people get shots. I have a strong distaste for broken glass (which sucks, because I end up cleaning up a lot of broken glass at work). Just about any object that could be construed as pointy, freaks me out. It's making me shiver just thinking about it.
I've had this recurring dream where I'm in a deli and a tiger comes in and bites my leg with his razor sharp teeth, and I wake up and my leg is asleep. I don't know why, but I've had it about 4 times since I was 5, and it scares the crap out of me every single time.
I also have nightmares about pointy objects going into my eyes, tongue, hand, etc. Usually it's a fork. As far as I know, I'm not afraid of forks, though.
Also, I have a strange and irrational fear of tassels. I really can't explain why; they just feel funny to me. That's all I have to say about that.
Ever since I was a little girl I have been afraid of pointy objects. This isn't some irrational fear where I freak out when I see a needle, but I have a stong distaste for them. That's the thing, the word phobia makes it sound like it's some over-the-top fear, but I can call myself an Aichmophobic and not be some crazed psycho who can't stand the sight of needles.
Back to the pointy objects. They don't even have to be directed towards me. I still can't watch the scene in the Parent Trap where Hallie pierces Annie's ears with a needle and a potato. I must not be the only one who can't stand it because the part of the scene where the needle enters the ear was cut from the television version. I don't like getting shots and I don't like watching people get shots. I have a strong distaste for broken glass (which sucks, because I end up cleaning up a lot of broken glass at work). Just about any object that could be construed as pointy, freaks me out. It's making me shiver just thinking about it.
I've had this recurring dream where I'm in a deli and a tiger comes in and bites my leg with his razor sharp teeth, and I wake up and my leg is asleep. I don't know why, but I've had it about 4 times since I was 5, and it scares the crap out of me every single time.
I also have nightmares about pointy objects going into my eyes, tongue, hand, etc. Usually it's a fork. As far as I know, I'm not afraid of forks, though.
Also, I have a strange and irrational fear of tassels. I really can't explain why; they just feel funny to me. That's all I have to say about that.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Katie on "The Prevailing Opinion of a Sexual Character Discussed"
Upon finishing "The Prevailing Opinion of a Sexual Character Discussed", I found it to be one of those essays that took a few pages to get into, but once I got going, I got through the essay fairly effortlessly. Seeing as her 18th century style of writing was a bit unfamiliar to me, some of the essay was a bit confusing. However, I did understand the gist of it.
She discussed the way men and society viewed women. Basically, that education was wasted on women and all they were good for was to be some sort of trophy wife for the men to have. From the begining, women were taught how to behave best to get a husband, as if this were the ultimate goal in life. They didn't have any worthy role in society. Women weren't respected or allowed to follow their own dreams.
Clearly, times have changed since then. Women are now respected as active participants in their community. We have been grated the right to vote, we go to school, and have jobs; things that would have been unheard of in the eighteenth century, when Mary Wollstonecraft wrote this piece.
It was obvious from the introduction that this piece would have something to do with women's rights. I admire Wollstonecraft for being one of the few women of her time to stand up for women and not give in to men and allow them to treat women the way they did. I really liked this essay and the overall theme it portrayed.
She discussed the way men and society viewed women. Basically, that education was wasted on women and all they were good for was to be some sort of trophy wife for the men to have. From the begining, women were taught how to behave best to get a husband, as if this were the ultimate goal in life. They didn't have any worthy role in society. Women weren't respected or allowed to follow their own dreams.
Clearly, times have changed since then. Women are now respected as active participants in their community. We have been grated the right to vote, we go to school, and have jobs; things that would have been unheard of in the eighteenth century, when Mary Wollstonecraft wrote this piece.
It was obvious from the introduction that this piece would have something to do with women's rights. I admire Wollstonecraft for being one of the few women of her time to stand up for women and not give in to men and allow them to treat women the way they did. I really liked this essay and the overall theme it portrayed.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Katie on "Autobiography of a Face"
Over the weekend, I finished my non-fiction book Autobiography of a Face by Lucy Grealy.
In fourth grade, Lucy's face collided with a classmate's head which caused her to need a lot of tests done. After a toothache and presumed lockjaw, her doctors found out it was an Ewing's sarcoma which, defined by Wikipedia, "is a malignant round-cell tumor. It is a rare disease in which cancer cells are found in the bone or in soft tissue. The most common areas in which it occurs are the pelvis, the femur, the humerus, and the ribs". Lucy's Ewing's sarcoma was found in her jaw. She had surgeries upon surgeries to remove the cancer then several more to reconstruct the part of her jaw that had to be removed.
You always hear those heartwarming stories about people with cancer who don't let it affect their lives and stay upbeat; my grandma was like that. I think it's safe to say that Lucy Grealy was not one of those heartwarming stories. I think she tried to be, but handled things wrong as she grew up, turning to drugs, which ultimately killed her. She tried to put on a brave face, but it was more like a mask that disintegrated as she continued with her treatments, especially the chemotherapy. She was an inspiring child, but growing up with a disfigured face such as her's would not be easy for any adolescent. Her family suffered through financial problems after her father died and I think her faith slowly slipped away. Especially after so many failed reconstructive surgeries.
Lucy 's relationship with her mother was a somewhat disconnected one. Lucy never wanted to cry in front of her mother for fear of appearing weak to her. Her relationship with her father was not much better. She went through her illness and all that came with it believeing she had to be strong. She was constantly feeling as if she was alone. She went through high school always craving acceptance and approval: that meant having friends. She went to Sarah Lawrence where she did make many close friends. Once she had that attention, she needed more. The next step for her was love. Her face made her feel unlovable, a term she used copiously throughout her autobiography. And no matter how many valuable friendships she had, she needed to be loved. She used sex and men to fulfill this need. Because of her face, she was constantly in need. And I think she milked it. In Ann Patchett's book Truth and Beauty (what you could call the unofficial sequel), she tells of how she got a note from Lucy, whom she did not formally know at the time, asking her to look for an apartment for her in Iowa since she knew that she was going to be there. At Sarah Lawrence she became a campus celebrity. Everyone knew her story. And everyone liked her. She portrays herself as awkward and sheltered and ugly. But her friend Patchett describes her as more graceful and pretty. The contrast between Lucy's version of herself, and Ann's version of Lucy stunned me at first. Ann's Lucy was outgoing, fun, bubbly, and pretty.
I really enjoyed Lucy's book and look forward to finishing Ann Patchett's book about Lucy.
In fourth grade, Lucy's face collided with a classmate's head which caused her to need a lot of tests done. After a toothache and presumed lockjaw, her doctors found out it was an Ewing's sarcoma which, defined by Wikipedia, "is a malignant round-cell tumor. It is a rare disease in which cancer cells are found in the bone or in soft tissue. The most common areas in which it occurs are the pelvis, the femur, the humerus, and the ribs". Lucy's Ewing's sarcoma was found in her jaw. She had surgeries upon surgeries to remove the cancer then several more to reconstruct the part of her jaw that had to be removed.
You always hear those heartwarming stories about people with cancer who don't let it affect their lives and stay upbeat; my grandma was like that. I think it's safe to say that Lucy Grealy was not one of those heartwarming stories. I think she tried to be, but handled things wrong as she grew up, turning to drugs, which ultimately killed her. She tried to put on a brave face, but it was more like a mask that disintegrated as she continued with her treatments, especially the chemotherapy. She was an inspiring child, but growing up with a disfigured face such as her's would not be easy for any adolescent. Her family suffered through financial problems after her father died and I think her faith slowly slipped away. Especially after so many failed reconstructive surgeries.
Lucy 's relationship with her mother was a somewhat disconnected one. Lucy never wanted to cry in front of her mother for fear of appearing weak to her. Her relationship with her father was not much better. She went through her illness and all that came with it believeing she had to be strong. She was constantly feeling as if she was alone. She went through high school always craving acceptance and approval: that meant having friends. She went to Sarah Lawrence where she did make many close friends. Once she had that attention, she needed more. The next step for her was love. Her face made her feel unlovable, a term she used copiously throughout her autobiography. And no matter how many valuable friendships she had, she needed to be loved. She used sex and men to fulfill this need. Because of her face, she was constantly in need. And I think she milked it. In Ann Patchett's book Truth and Beauty (what you could call the unofficial sequel), she tells of how she got a note from Lucy, whom she did not formally know at the time, asking her to look for an apartment for her in Iowa since she knew that she was going to be there. At Sarah Lawrence she became a campus celebrity. Everyone knew her story. And everyone liked her. She portrays herself as awkward and sheltered and ugly. But her friend Patchett describes her as more graceful and pretty. The contrast between Lucy's version of herself, and Ann's version of Lucy stunned me at first. Ann's Lucy was outgoing, fun, bubbly, and pretty.
I really enjoyed Lucy's book and look forward to finishing Ann Patchett's book about Lucy.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Katie on "Skunk Dreams"
I'm going to be honest here: it took me a while to get through this essay. I'd start it, get bored, put it down, then start where I left off, and repeat this process over and over. I got about 6 pages in and realized I had no idea what she was talking about or what I had just read.
I'm not someone who is very easily distracted. Usually having noise in the background doesn't bother me when I'm reading. But it did while I was reading this. I felt like I needed to be somewhere quiet. At first I thought it was because I needed to concentrate more since her thoguhts jumped around so much, but as I read, I realized it was more that the tone of the essay that almost calmed me down and made me crave a quiet place to read.
So last night when it was nice and quiet, I decided I should just start over completely. I sat down with my pen and started annotating every single page. Mr. Kunkle's right: that is a helpful tool. It helped me sort out Louise Erdrich's thoughts. That was not an easy task, mind you. I found it difficult to decipher her meaning. She jumped around a lot without warning or transistions.
I have torn thoguhts about this story; I liked it, but I didn't like it. I liked it from page 343 on. I didn't like it up until that point. Though I'm sure it's all necessary to her getting her point across, some of it didn't make sense to me. Once all the elements of her story came together it was very beautifully written. Some of the anecdotes she told seemed unecessary to the story at first, but once I finished the entire thing, several of them related to the ending of the story. The dream sequence about the fence and what was on the other side was the most obvious one. While I understand the story and what happened, there's a part of me that is still wondering why she wrote it. While I may not understand the exact thinking behind the essay, I loved how it was written (after page 343). I thought the way she described the nature scenes she's seen was riveting. That was what made me want to sit somewhere quiet. It reminded me of the woods around my cousin's house and it made reminisce about some fond memories I've had there. Her accounts of these places were so vivid, it made me feel as if I was really there.
Even though I started out very confused by this story, Erdrich really redeemed herself by the end.
My aunt and her friend had heard me talking about this essay before, so now they both want to read it. I'll let you know what they think later. :)
I'm not someone who is very easily distracted. Usually having noise in the background doesn't bother me when I'm reading. But it did while I was reading this. I felt like I needed to be somewhere quiet. At first I thought it was because I needed to concentrate more since her thoguhts jumped around so much, but as I read, I realized it was more that the tone of the essay that almost calmed me down and made me crave a quiet place to read.
So last night when it was nice and quiet, I decided I should just start over completely. I sat down with my pen and started annotating every single page. Mr. Kunkle's right: that is a helpful tool. It helped me sort out Louise Erdrich's thoughts. That was not an easy task, mind you. I found it difficult to decipher her meaning. She jumped around a lot without warning or transistions.
I have torn thoguhts about this story; I liked it, but I didn't like it. I liked it from page 343 on. I didn't like it up until that point. Though I'm sure it's all necessary to her getting her point across, some of it didn't make sense to me. Once all the elements of her story came together it was very beautifully written. Some of the anecdotes she told seemed unecessary to the story at first, but once I finished the entire thing, several of them related to the ending of the story. The dream sequence about the fence and what was on the other side was the most obvious one. While I understand the story and what happened, there's a part of me that is still wondering why she wrote it. While I may not understand the exact thinking behind the essay, I loved how it was written (after page 343). I thought the way she described the nature scenes she's seen was riveting. That was what made me want to sit somewhere quiet. It reminded me of the woods around my cousin's house and it made reminisce about some fond memories I've had there. Her accounts of these places were so vivid, it made me feel as if I was really there.
Even though I started out very confused by this story, Erdrich really redeemed herself by the end.
My aunt and her friend had heard me talking about this essay before, so now they both want to read it. I'll let you know what they think later. :)
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Katie on "Is Google Making Us Stupid"
Since reading the thought-provoking and intriguing “Is Google Making Us Stupid”, I’ve been asking myself a lot of questions about our society today and comparing it to our society less than a decade ago.
Today everything and everyone feels the need for speed. Fast cars, fast computers, fast phones. Ads on TV are constantly boasting “The Fastest 3G Network” and the quickest new gadgets so that people never have to be without their Facebook accounts or their Twitter updates. Some commercials even display people distraught because they have fallen into a dreaded “dead zone” and can’t access the aforementioned social networking sites.
It isn’t just the fact that people are becoming stupid by the technological crutches that we have been endowed with, it’s also enabling laziness and giving the idea that technology will always be there to help us. With the internet always accessible, young students don’t need to learn how to use an encyclopedia or a dictionary because all that information is easily and readily available on the internet. I’m no exception. I don’t remember the last time I used an encyclopedia. I couldn’t tell you where my family’s dictionary is right now. I was taught, but no longer use those skills. So I guess you could say, yeah, Google has made me kind of stupid. I used to be an avid reader, but now pretty much the only reading I do is for school. I tell myself that I just don’t have the time, but really, I just don’t make the time. Up until high school, every class had the opportunity a few times a week to go into the library, hear about new books, and then go pick a few out. The AR program (though annoying at times) promoted reading outside of school. I’ve even noticed a decrease in my reading speed. It takes me longer to get through a book now than it did when I was in 5th grade. That is due to a lack of focus.
I could really relate to what Bruce Friedman said here about the “staccato quality” to his thinking and how it has become difficult to read and absorb articles. We are all so distracted by so many different things now. Having music playing and TV on and internet open while we are doing homework. That “staccato quality” Friedman referred to comes from this, I believe. With so much media vying for our attention, it’s hard to pay attention to just one thing at a time for too long, before we become bored and need something else to entertain us.
I remember a research project we had to do in fourth grade on our favorite animal. Every day, our class would travel to the library where we would use the Dewey decimal system to find books relating to our subject, then sit down and take notes. Computers, internet, and Google were not part of our research time. My sister recently did that same project. I asked her if they ever got library time to find books and she they went once a week and didn’t get class time to take notes. On the other hand, she mentioned that they had frequent computer time where they were allowed to Google their animal and print out web pages to get information from.
I think Carr has something going here. It isn’t just Google, it’s all kinds of things that supposedly make our lives easier, fast internet, GPS, cell phones with everything you could possibly want, are just making it easier for us to become lazier.
Having said all this, I can’t imagine my life without Google or the internet. I would be lost if I had to try to complete those note cards without dictionary.com. Even this class is relying on the internet. All the materials we need and all the means we need to communicate are all on the internet. While the internet may be killing the written word (which sucks for me), I don’t know what I’d do without it.
Today everything and everyone feels the need for speed. Fast cars, fast computers, fast phones. Ads on TV are constantly boasting “The Fastest 3G Network” and the quickest new gadgets so that people never have to be without their Facebook accounts or their Twitter updates. Some commercials even display people distraught because they have fallen into a dreaded “dead zone” and can’t access the aforementioned social networking sites.
It isn’t just the fact that people are becoming stupid by the technological crutches that we have been endowed with, it’s also enabling laziness and giving the idea that technology will always be there to help us. With the internet always accessible, young students don’t need to learn how to use an encyclopedia or a dictionary because all that information is easily and readily available on the internet. I’m no exception. I don’t remember the last time I used an encyclopedia. I couldn’t tell you where my family’s dictionary is right now. I was taught, but no longer use those skills. So I guess you could say, yeah, Google has made me kind of stupid. I used to be an avid reader, but now pretty much the only reading I do is for school. I tell myself that I just don’t have the time, but really, I just don’t make the time. Up until high school, every class had the opportunity a few times a week to go into the library, hear about new books, and then go pick a few out. The AR program (though annoying at times) promoted reading outside of school. I’ve even noticed a decrease in my reading speed. It takes me longer to get through a book now than it did when I was in 5th grade. That is due to a lack of focus.
I could really relate to what Bruce Friedman said here about the “staccato quality” to his thinking and how it has become difficult to read and absorb articles. We are all so distracted by so many different things now. Having music playing and TV on and internet open while we are doing homework. That “staccato quality” Friedman referred to comes from this, I believe. With so much media vying for our attention, it’s hard to pay attention to just one thing at a time for too long, before we become bored and need something else to entertain us.
I remember a research project we had to do in fourth grade on our favorite animal. Every day, our class would travel to the library where we would use the Dewey decimal system to find books relating to our subject, then sit down and take notes. Computers, internet, and Google were not part of our research time. My sister recently did that same project. I asked her if they ever got library time to find books and she they went once a week and didn’t get class time to take notes. On the other hand, she mentioned that they had frequent computer time where they were allowed to Google their animal and print out web pages to get information from.
I think Carr has something going here. It isn’t just Google, it’s all kinds of things that supposedly make our lives easier, fast internet, GPS, cell phones with everything you could possibly want, are just making it easier for us to become lazier.
Having said all this, I can’t imagine my life without Google or the internet. I would be lost if I had to try to complete those note cards without dictionary.com. Even this class is relying on the internet. All the materials we need and all the means we need to communicate are all on the internet. While the internet may be killing the written word (which sucks for me), I don’t know what I’d do without it.
Katie on "Talk of the Town"
For the most part, I don't understand to point of people owning guns. Yes, they are used for hunting. But why are non-hunting guns sold to the public so liberally? And why do teenagers have such easy access to guns?
Here are some facts about school shootings in the U.S. There have been 75 since 1966 in the United States alone. There have been three so far this year. California has had the most school shootings: 10. Wisconsin has only had two. 34 of the 50 states (68%) have had one or more school shootings. The Virgina Tech massacre of 2007 had the most fatalities: 33. Only five shootings have been classified as massacres.
These statistics make it difficult to fathome why more action hasn't been taken to prevent school shootings. If parents have guns, why are they not hidden and locked up? Why are teenagers able to buy guns? How are students able to get into school with weapons? What motivates these students to do this? Intolerance, bullying, teasing, and hazing. These are believed to be the causes behind the students coming to school with guns.
Gopnik names three specific cases where shootings occured and gun control laws were tightened and that helped prevent such shootings. I'm sure they're are others as well. Why can't that happen here? What is it going to take for people to realize that this is a problem? There have already been 204 lives taken by school shooters. When is enough going to be enough? Of all the issues debated in this year's presidential election, gun control was not a major one.
Why is it that other countries are able to take a stand against gun control and somewhat resolve the issue and we can barely talk about it? I like what Adam Gopnik said at the end of his piece: "There is no reason why any private citizen in a democracy should own a handgun". I think it is completely unnecessary.
The parents asking why in this story represent more than just parents. They represent everyone who wants to know why this happened...again. Why something was not done between 1966 and now to prevent innocent children from being killed. And those people asking why have a right to ask why.
Susan Sontag bummed me out a little. She talked about the "ineptitude of American intelligence and counter-intelligence, about options avaliable to American foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, and about what constitutes a smart program of military defense". Meaning a lot of information is being kept from the public about Iraq as well as other issues.
She seemed very condescending and negative toward our government (which is not always the best way to get your point across), but she did make a good point. How are we supposed to stay strong when we aren't given all the information on certain issues?
Here are some facts about school shootings in the U.S. There have been 75 since 1966 in the United States alone. There have been three so far this year. California has had the most school shootings: 10. Wisconsin has only had two. 34 of the 50 states (68%) have had one or more school shootings. The Virgina Tech massacre of 2007 had the most fatalities: 33. Only five shootings have been classified as massacres.
These statistics make it difficult to fathome why more action hasn't been taken to prevent school shootings. If parents have guns, why are they not hidden and locked up? Why are teenagers able to buy guns? How are students able to get into school with weapons? What motivates these students to do this? Intolerance, bullying, teasing, and hazing. These are believed to be the causes behind the students coming to school with guns.
Gopnik names three specific cases where shootings occured and gun control laws were tightened and that helped prevent such shootings. I'm sure they're are others as well. Why can't that happen here? What is it going to take for people to realize that this is a problem? There have already been 204 lives taken by school shooters. When is enough going to be enough? Of all the issues debated in this year's presidential election, gun control was not a major one.
Why is it that other countries are able to take a stand against gun control and somewhat resolve the issue and we can barely talk about it? I like what Adam Gopnik said at the end of his piece: "There is no reason why any private citizen in a democracy should own a handgun". I think it is completely unnecessary.
The parents asking why in this story represent more than just parents. They represent everyone who wants to know why this happened...again. Why something was not done between 1966 and now to prevent innocent children from being killed. And those people asking why have a right to ask why.
Susan Sontag bummed me out a little. She talked about the "ineptitude of American intelligence and counter-intelligence, about options avaliable to American foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, and about what constitutes a smart program of military defense". Meaning a lot of information is being kept from the public about Iraq as well as other issues.
She seemed very condescending and negative toward our government (which is not always the best way to get your point across), but she did make a good point. How are we supposed to stay strong when we aren't given all the information on certain issues?
Friday, June 26, 2009
Introduction
Hello, fellow AP Compers. I am blogging to you all from Parker, Colorado. It is from here that I will be doing the majority of my blogging. I've been here for about a week and half now and I'll be here until August 13th. This is the third year that I've come out here to stay with my aunt and uncle and two cousins to babysit my cousins while my aunt and uncle are golfing and working (more golfing than working). Anyone who knows me knows that this is always the highlight of my year. The last few weeks of school it's all I talked about (I believe I said that Spanish 4 was destroying my soul and the only thing that would restore it was a breath of the dry, high-altidute air here. Spanish makes me over dramatic). I'm having a lot of fun out here, but it's a lot of hard work, early mornings, and long days. James is 3. He talks all the time, ALL THE TIME. If it wasn't so adorable, it would drive me nuts. Ben is 1 1/2 and climbs all over everything, including me. If it wasn't so adorable, it would drive me nuts. OK, less about them and more about me.
I have known that I want to be a journalist since 7th grade in Mr. Herbst's english class. I have been working toward that goal ever since. There hasn't been a time when I've ever considered doing anything else. I've worked on the newspaper since freshmen year and served as editor-in-chief last year. My class load is pretty well rounded, but there's more of a focus on english. I also love singing so I've been involved in choir and the musicals since freshmen year as well. I love music in general. Any kind of music. It's a huge part of my life; it doesn't matter if I'm singing or listening.
I plan to go to college out here in Colorado. I'll probably live with my aunt and uncle for a while but that's OK. I would really like to go to UC Denver or UC Colorado Springs, somewhere relatively close to Parker in case my aunt and uncle ever need a babysitter!
My best friend in the world is my cousin Lacey. She will also be a senior next year at Eau Claire Memorial. She and I have a lot in common, but also have differences that allow us to teach each other and learn from each other. We text and e-mail constantly so we don't lose touch because we don't get the chance to see each other very often.
At home I work at Hobby Lobby. I like it, but I'm pretty sure my boss is mad at me about the Colorado thing :/.
Well, the aforementioned details are really the bases of my life: Colorado, journalism, and music.
I'm really excited to take this class. I'm really enjoying my non-fiction book, Autobiography of a Face. It's the first one my mom recommened when I asked her about non-fiction books she'd read, so I was glad to see it on Mr. Kunkle's list. It is a really well written book and I'm looking forward to finishing it. I also look forward to getting to know you all better through your blogs and your interpretations of these stories.
☮ Katie
I have known that I want to be a journalist since 7th grade in Mr. Herbst's english class. I have been working toward that goal ever since. There hasn't been a time when I've ever considered doing anything else. I've worked on the newspaper since freshmen year and served as editor-in-chief last year. My class load is pretty well rounded, but there's more of a focus on english. I also love singing so I've been involved in choir and the musicals since freshmen year as well. I love music in general. Any kind of music. It's a huge part of my life; it doesn't matter if I'm singing or listening.
I plan to go to college out here in Colorado. I'll probably live with my aunt and uncle for a while but that's OK. I would really like to go to UC Denver or UC Colorado Springs, somewhere relatively close to Parker in case my aunt and uncle ever need a babysitter!
My best friend in the world is my cousin Lacey. She will also be a senior next year at Eau Claire Memorial. She and I have a lot in common, but also have differences that allow us to teach each other and learn from each other. We text and e-mail constantly so we don't lose touch because we don't get the chance to see each other very often.
At home I work at Hobby Lobby. I like it, but I'm pretty sure my boss is mad at me about the Colorado thing :/.
Well, the aforementioned details are really the bases of my life: Colorado, journalism, and music.
I'm really excited to take this class. I'm really enjoying my non-fiction book, Autobiography of a Face. It's the first one my mom recommened when I asked her about non-fiction books she'd read, so I was glad to see it on Mr. Kunkle's list. It is a really well written book and I'm looking forward to finishing it. I also look forward to getting to know you all better through your blogs and your interpretations of these stories.
☮ Katie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
