I’m posting this in class while Mahoney is talking. I'm also working on my paper due... now! Just thought I'd check in.
Oh, and Diana Hacker rocks!
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
The End of Term Anxiety
Well, now that it's almost 12 on Tuesday night, and I'm just beginning this draft that due tomorrow (oh wait no, today!!) I am kind of actually beginning to see some shape in my paper. Just a question though-- why do we always get bombarded with so much work for all our classes in the very last weeks of the semester? It happens every time, no matter far in advance you plan.
Anyway, I am doing my paper on customer service. I just had an idea about putting an appendix on the paper with some bad cust. service stories, either as an employee or a customer. So, if any of you have any and would like to comment and tell me about them, that would be wonderful. You know, just in case you have nothing to do before next thursday and are bored!! Thanks!
Anyway, I am doing my paper on customer service. I just had an idea about putting an appendix on the paper with some bad cust. service stories, either as an employee or a customer. So, if any of you have any and would like to comment and tell me about them, that would be wonderful. You know, just in case you have nothing to do before next thursday and are bored!! Thanks!
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
The thing that bugs me most about citation is all the zany parts you are suppose to find about a given website which seem completely inaccessible.
According to the OWL (online writing lab) these are the necessary components of citation:
Author(s). Name of Page. Date of Posting/Revision. Name of institution/organization affiliated with the site. Date of Access.
I often times find it hard to find a byline for a website.
The date of access & date of revision kind of bother me feeling unnecessary. While the site could be completelychanged I always feel bad because most likely the date of access is the night before the paper is due so i am clearly pinned as a procrastinator.
In reality what I am looking for is the bare minimum of acceptable information of an online citation. What is acceptable?
According to the OWL (online writing lab) these are the necessary components of citation:
Author(s). Name of Page. Date of Posting/Revision. Name of institution/organization affiliated with the site. Date of Access
I often times find it hard to find a byline for a website.
The date of access & date of revision kind of bother me feeling unnecessary. While the site could be completelychanged I always feel bad because most likely the date of access is the night before the paper is due so i am clearly pinned as a procrastinator.
In reality what I am looking for is the bare minimum of acceptable information of an online citation. What is acceptable?
So...
I did the interview with the Abercrombie and Fitch employee. It was a little difficult to get anything good out of her because she seemed to like her job. She had also been there for quite a while, I believe she said two years. So...Here is the juice...
1. She described the poster in the stockroom that is hanging on the inside of the back door: "It describes the ideal customer." .....Well thats freaking great lady what did it say!?!?!? It was like pulling teeth I am telling you! She continued..."The ideal customer should like to party, needs to be athletic, should be sociable, and needs to look good in our clothes."
Now was that too hard? So,,,they need to look good in your clothes huh? Well,, what if they don't? We then discussed how small their clothing is in relation to other stores that are targeted to the same age group. Her reply....
2. "Our tops do run pretty small, but our clothing is geared towards twenty year olds. Sometimes moms will come in and try to shop but we try and push away that customer and concentrate mainly on our ideal customer."
I said...DID YOU JUST SAY YOU PUSH THEM AWAY...and she said,,,wait thats not what I meant. As you can see it was too late,,,I already wrote it down. Wait till I tell my mom! SO this is looking good! They have an ideal customer, who is athletic, aka firm and usually thin, sociable, aka popular, and will look good in their clothes, aka 110 pounds. Then they try and "PUSH AWAY" anything that doesn't fit that description. Well thank you ma'am that will be all. .......
Wait sorry...one more thing. The posters hanging around your stores. Are you really trying to sell those shorts or are you trying to sell that man?
3. "We do get a lot of complaints from parents but...lets face it sex does sell."
How bout that.
1. She described the poster in the stockroom that is hanging on the inside of the back door: "It describes the ideal customer." .....Well thats freaking great lady what did it say!?!?!? It was like pulling teeth I am telling you! She continued..."The ideal customer should like to party, needs to be athletic, should be sociable, and needs to look good in our clothes."
Now was that too hard? So,,,they need to look good in your clothes huh? Well,, what if they don't? We then discussed how small their clothing is in relation to other stores that are targeted to the same age group. Her reply....
2. "Our tops do run pretty small, but our clothing is geared towards twenty year olds. Sometimes moms will come in and try to shop but we try and push away that customer and concentrate mainly on our ideal customer."
I said...DID YOU JUST SAY YOU PUSH THEM AWAY...and she said,,,wait thats not what I meant. As you can see it was too late,,,I already wrote it down. Wait till I tell my mom! SO this is looking good! They have an ideal customer, who is athletic, aka firm and usually thin, sociable, aka popular, and will look good in their clothes, aka 110 pounds. Then they try and "PUSH AWAY" anything that doesn't fit that description. Well thank you ma'am that will be all. .......
Wait sorry...one more thing. The posters hanging around your stores. Are you really trying to sell those shorts or are you trying to sell that man?
3. "We do get a lot of complaints from parents but...lets face it sex does sell."
How bout that.
Monday, April 24, 2006
Hello everyone, how are those proposals going??? Well, I spent the majority of my weekend putting together a story board for Teaching Adolescent Literature. I felt like I was in elementary school. I had disgusting glue all over me. Anyway, I am slowly putting together my bibliography. Does anyone know how to do a works cited entry for a blog?? I am really stumped on this one. Please help!!
Emily, I agree that that would be a wonderful place to be right now!!
Emily, I agree that that would be a wonderful place to be right now!!
Yes, Well...
What better place to procrastinate than Blogger, where I can pretend to engage in class discourse on my progress with my research proposal. Aside from my writer's-cramped marginalia and growing dread of making an effort on the annotated bibliography, here is my progress:
I wish I was here.
I wish I was here.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Oh I hope these silly hyperlinks work for this paper
Because of the unpopularity of the Iraqi War, the Army faces a severe shortage of recruits. A survey done in 2001 showed that 70% of young adults said that they would definitely not join the army. Who could blame them? In fact the army was so unpopular in 2005 that it missed its recruiting by 7,000 people.
The military’s solution to this problem? Spend more money on marketing. Within five years the marketing budget for the army nearly doubled. While in 1998, the military spent $2.99 million dollars on recruiting; in 2003, the army spent $5.92 million. The branch with the most aggressive plan is the army. In 2004, the army spent 200 million---an amount that totals $4,000 dollars per recruit.
The new expensive marketing plan strives to reach potential recruits where they are most vulnerable: at school and in the home.
First it targets the schools. Because of a clause in the No Child left Behind Act, schools are required give the military access to the schools or else risk losing federal funding. The No Child Left Behind Act requires that schools give out their student’s addresses and phone numbers to military recruiters unless a parent requests not to give out that information. Unfortunately, not too many parents are aware of that option or their rights. As a result, places like high schools are an ideal place for a recruiter.
The No Child Left Behind Act left the door wide open for a recruiter to participate in the schools. A recruiter may volunteer or interact with students in any of the following ways.
*Assistant Coach
* Chaperone for a school dance
* Referee in a sporting event
* Timekeeper in a sporting event
* Eating in the school cafeteria
* Leading boy scouts
Generally, recruiters look for students of influence such as the student government leaders, or popular students.
Another means of reaching the students is through Junior Reserve Training Corps (JRTC) classes. Offered at 1,555 high schools, these classes focus on target practice and discipline. These JRTC classes are especially appealing for poorer high schools because the classes are a new elective offered a bargain rate since the government is paying for a large portion of it.
Desperate for loyal supporters, the army now offers a class for even younger kids. The Pre-(JRTC) offers after school classes for middle scholars. Now even kids as young as eleven can join in the fun of marching with wooden guns and singing loud chants.
The military also reaches the students through tests like the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB). Given as a career test for juniors and seniors, the army uses this information for smart advertising. With information about the student’s intelligence or interest, the army will have a better idea exactly how to market the army to each individual. Unfortunately, because the ASVAB is not spelled out, students and parents are completely unaware about how the test is connected with the army. For more information about how the army invades the public school systems see the article Who’s Next?
The second target of the military marketing brigade is the parents. Because many of the parents of today’s youth grew up during the Vietnam Era, many parents feel uneasy about war. Because of that, a new wave of army ads geared towards the parents is making their way to the television. In one ad a mother reads a letter about how the army changed her son into a man.
At at goarmy.com, an entire section of the website is devoted to the parents. The website acknowledges the parents fears, but boasts that with all the training from boot camp your child will be prepared for what’s ahead. The website uses testimonies from “everyday people.”
The military’s solution to this problem? Spend more money on marketing. Within five years the marketing budget for the army nearly doubled. While in 1998, the military spent $2.99 million dollars on recruiting; in 2003, the army spent $5.92 million. The branch with the most aggressive plan is the army. In 2004, the army spent 200 million---an amount that totals $4,000 dollars per recruit.
The new expensive marketing plan strives to reach potential recruits where they are most vulnerable: at school and in the home.
First it targets the schools. Because of a clause in the No Child left Behind Act, schools are required give the military access to the schools or else risk losing federal funding. The No Child Left Behind Act requires that schools give out their student’s addresses and phone numbers to military recruiters unless a parent requests not to give out that information. Unfortunately, not too many parents are aware of that option or their rights. As a result, places like high schools are an ideal place for a recruiter.
The No Child Left Behind Act left the door wide open for a recruiter to participate in the schools. A recruiter may volunteer or interact with students in any of the following ways.
*Assistant Coach
* Chaperone for a school dance
* Referee in a sporting event
* Timekeeper in a sporting event
* Eating in the school cafeteria
* Leading boy scouts
Generally, recruiters look for students of influence such as the student government leaders, or popular students.
Another means of reaching the students is through Junior Reserve Training Corps (JRTC) classes. Offered at 1,555 high schools, these classes focus on target practice and discipline. These JRTC classes are especially appealing for poorer high schools because the classes are a new elective offered a bargain rate since the government is paying for a large portion of it.
Desperate for loyal supporters, the army now offers a class for even younger kids. The Pre-(JRTC) offers after school classes for middle scholars. Now even kids as young as eleven can join in the fun of marching with wooden guns and singing loud chants.
The military also reaches the students through tests like the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB). Given as a career test for juniors and seniors, the army uses this information for smart advertising. With information about the student’s intelligence or interest, the army will have a better idea exactly how to market the army to each individual. Unfortunately, because the ASVAB is not spelled out, students and parents are completely unaware about how the test is connected with the army. For more information about how the army invades the public school systems see the article Who’s Next?
The second target of the military marketing brigade is the parents. Because many of the parents of today’s youth grew up during the Vietnam Era, many parents feel uneasy about war. Because of that, a new wave of army ads geared towards the parents is making their way to the television. In one ad a mother reads a letter about how the army changed her son into a man.
At at goarmy.com, an entire section of the website is devoted to the parents. The website acknowledges the parents fears, but boasts that with all the training from boot camp your child will be prepared for what’s ahead. The website uses testimonies from “everyday people.”
Monday, April 17, 2006
NIX_BRESSER is a Stupid American Pig
One day I realized - and came to terms with the fact - that I am a walking stereotype of my generation. If something isnt blaring techno music or covered in flashing neon lights, I'm probably not goi
ng to notice it - or care about it. I am one of those directionless twenty-somethings killing themselves in the name of a GPA. I am counted among those whose main concern is whether or not the printer in the library is going to print their report that’s due in an hour, or if their car has enough gas to actually make it to campus. The concept of sleeping and eating have now become circumstantial, as a result, I generally don't concern myself with global, economic or social issues; in fact, the only issues I’m actually aware of are the ones parodied on the Daily Show, or the Colbert Report. I consume what I am fed, and generally don’t concern myself over the ingredients.
I Don’t Care. And most of us don’t. That’s what it all essentially boils down to. I have my priorities, I arrange them as I see fit, and I focus on them. Isn’t that the model for success? If I don’t let other [little] things get in the way of my work, I’m seen as goal oriented or driven, no? By striving toward this ideal, we, as a society learn to accept this barrier between what there is to know, and what we let ourselves know. Think about it, media coverage of events is often the way we hear about them. Our attention spans have atrophied so badly, there better be footage of green explosions or at least some videos of things on fire if they have any plans of holding our attention.
So along comes this war in Iraq. We have all these cool bombs and jets and tanks and guns and missles - and we're using them!! SWEET!! (hey, at least we're stopping a madman from maybe ~ possibly ~ almost ~ using them - if he might have had them---right?). Show me a few clips of an emaciated terrorist televangelizing his ‘evil’ views from some obscure cave and - I’m Sold. You feed me explosion after gunshot after bombing, and you better bet I'm not changing that channel, at least until some boring old-timer in a suit comes on and starts rambling about some policies and…//. That's about the time that I realize I'm missing Family Guy, and change the channel.
Still, Americans felt better about themselves because the shallowness that plagued their hollywood discussions was more ignorable when they talked about politics, it was "cooler" to do. No one seemed to care anymore about it than they would care if Ross and Rachel got back together. The American flag was transformed from a symbol of national pride and unity, to a fashion accessory to people who want to look like they care.
Pulitzer Prize winner John Patrick Shanley said it best when he wrote, “We are living in a culture of extreme advocacy… Discussion has given way to debate.” And debate is fine, but Americans only debate the topics that the media deems “popular.” Everyone has a stance on the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but when was the last time you spoke with someone about the ones in North Korea? And I’m no better. I really don’t care about anything that doesn’t affect my priorities – I don’t read the newspaper – and I don’t watch CNN. I walk around all day listening to loud music on my iPod as I overpay for gas and get pissed about all the damn rubber bracelets everyone is wearing, as well as the ribbon and flag magnets every car.
But I don’t do anything about it – just like I’m doing now, I debate about it. As a culture, we all consume what we are fed and rarely question the source. We even rationalize it by complaining that “we can’t help it, it’s force fed to us everywhere we go.” Commercialization has rendered us as an entire generation of intellectually emaciated drones 'scratching on day to day, and all we’re waiting for is for something worth waiting for. We fear that pop culture is the only culture we’re ever gonna have. We are more than the sum of what we consume - desire is NOT an occupation' (*thanks KMFDM). This is bad America, our consumption is killing us --- change the channel --- or pull the damn plug.
- NIX_BRESSER
ng to notice it - or care about it. I am one of those directionless twenty-somethings killing themselves in the name of a GPA. I am counted among those whose main concern is whether or not the printer in the library is going to print their report that’s due in an hour, or if their car has enough gas to actually make it to campus. The concept of sleeping and eating have now become circumstantial, as a result, I generally don't concern myself with global, economic or social issues; in fact, the only issues I’m actually aware of are the ones parodied on the Daily Show, or the Colbert Report. I consume what I am fed, and generally don’t concern myself over the ingredients.I Don’t Care. And most of us don’t. That’s what it all essentially boils down to. I have my priorities, I arrange them as I see fit, and I focus on them. Isn’t that the model for success? If I don’t let other [little] things get in the way of my work, I’m seen as goal oriented or driven, no? By striving toward this ideal, we, as a society learn to accept this barrier between what there is to know, and what we let ourselves know. Think about it, media coverage of events is often the way we hear about them. Our attention spans have atrophied so badly, there better be footage of green explosions or at least some videos of things on fire if they have any plans of holding our attention.
So along comes this war in Iraq. We have all these cool bombs and jets and tanks and guns and missles - and we're using them!! SWEET!! (hey, at least we're stopping a madman from maybe ~ possibly ~ almost ~ using them - if he might have had them---right?). Show me a few clips of an emaciated terrorist televangelizing his ‘evil’ views from some obscure cave and - I’m Sold. You feed me explosion after gunshot after bombing, and you better bet I'm not changing that channel, at least until some boring old-timer in a suit comes on and starts rambling about some policies and…
Still, Americans felt better about themselves because the shallowness that plagued their hollywood discussions was more ignorable when they talked about politics, it was "cooler" to do. No one seemed to care anymore about it than they would care if Ross and Rachel got back together. The American flag was transformed from a symbol of national pride and unity, to a fashion accessory to people who want to look like they care.
Pulitzer Prize winner John Patrick Shanley said it best when he wrote, “We are living in a culture of extreme advocacy… Discussion has given way to debate.” And debate is fine, but Americans only debate the topics that the media deems “popular.” Everyone has a stance on the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but when was the last time you spoke with someone about the ones in North Korea? And I’m no better. I really don’t care about anything that doesn’t affect my priorities – I don’t read the newspaper – and I don’t watch CNN. I walk around all day listening to loud music on my iPod as I overpay for gas and get pissed about all the damn rubber bracelets everyone is wearing, as well as the ribbon and flag magnets every car.
But I don’t do anything about it – just like I’m doing now, I debate about it. As a culture, we all consume what we are fed and rarely question the source. We even rationalize it by complaining that “we can’t help it, it’s force fed to us everywhere we go.” Commercialization has rendered us as an entire generation of intellectually emaciated drones 'scratching on day to day, and all we’re waiting for is for something worth waiting for. We fear that pop culture is the only culture we’re ever gonna have. We are more than the sum of what we consume - desire is NOT an occupation' (*thanks KMFDM). This is bad America, our consumption is killing us --- change the channel --- or pull the damn plug.
- NIX_BRESSER
Public Apologies (a.k.a When Politicians Attack)
I really hope this linking thing works.
So, public apologies have been in fashion in politics and government for the last few decades. Some of the ones that Robin Lakoff lists in her book include apologies from former president Bush (for Japanese internment during WWII) and Pope John Paul II (for failure to act in the face of anti-Semitic Vichy laws, also during WWII), as well as the governments of South Africa (apartheid), Great Britain (potato famine), and Switzerland (evil Nazis).
It's nice to see that people are so sorry for everything that they should be sorry for. What's far more interesting, though, is looking at the motives that are behind these public apologies. This article by John Borneman states the public apologies are a form of "performative redress," that is, they acknowledge that the wrongdoer and the victim are equal. Borneman believes that public apologies are done for selfless reasons out of sheer altruism.
There is another theory, though, and one that gives far less credit to the wrongdoer. William L. Benoit wrote a book called Accounts, Excuses, and Apologies: A Theory of Image Restoration Strategies (I get excited just hearing the title). Benoit proposes that people (especially politicians) make public apologies in order to help themselves through "image restoration." By "shouldering the blame" for some heinous incident and being man enough to own up to it, the apologizers attempt to improve their image in the eyes of the public. Imagine, a politician who only wants to help himself. Ludicrous.
Which of these theories is more accurate? The paper will include in-depth analyses of several incidents, including the Scopes trial, Exxon-Valdez oil spill, and Wiesel v. Regan. The analyses will look at the incidents, the accusations (kategoria), and the apologies (apologia) that followed, if any did.
So, public apologies have been in fashion in politics and government for the last few decades. Some of the ones that Robin Lakoff lists in her book include apologies from former president Bush (for Japanese internment during WWII) and Pope John Paul II (for failure to act in the face of anti-Semitic Vichy laws, also during WWII), as well as the governments of South Africa (apartheid), Great Britain (potato famine), and Switzerland (evil Nazis).
It's nice to see that people are so sorry for everything that they should be sorry for. What's far more interesting, though, is looking at the motives that are behind these public apologies. This article by John Borneman states the public apologies are a form of "performative redress," that is, they acknowledge that the wrongdoer and the victim are equal. Borneman believes that public apologies are done for selfless reasons out of sheer altruism.
There is another theory, though, and one that gives far less credit to the wrongdoer. William L. Benoit wrote a book called Accounts, Excuses, and Apologies: A Theory of Image Restoration Strategies (I get excited just hearing the title). Benoit proposes that people (especially politicians) make public apologies in order to help themselves through "image restoration." By "shouldering the blame" for some heinous incident and being man enough to own up to it, the apologizers attempt to improve their image in the eyes of the public. Imagine, a politician who only wants to help himself. Ludicrous.
Which of these theories is more accurate? The paper will include in-depth analyses of several incidents, including the Scopes trial, Exxon-Valdez oil spill, and Wiesel v. Regan. The analyses will look at the incidents, the accusations (kategoria), and the apologies (apologia) that followed, if any did.
Myyyy Paper, not yours
I can honestly say I have been so confused on what exactly to write my paper about. I have gone back and forth quite a few times. I (unlike a majority of the class) am a George "Dubbya" Bush fan. I know I wanted to somehow incorpoate him into my paper somehow. I realized that I have been a pretty big fan of this president because of his conviction in his religion. So I figured thats a great place to start. I am going to write my paper on The presidency of Bush and his use of religious language. I am going to look at the positive aspects and negative aspects of having a president that uses religious language in a majority of his speeches. There are several comparisons made between Bush and Jimmy Carter and their similarities in religious belief's and differences in the way they incorporated it into their presidency. There is controversy over how Bush does not generalize with his refrences to relgion, but actually speaks very specifically on the topic and about his own personal beliefs. Bush is known to use this religious language not in just everyday talks/speeches, but in quite significant situations. He used several refrences to God in his state of the union address, when the space shuttle Columbia exploded, even in his presidential debates he has answered questions such as "what political philosopher could he most identify with" and he answers with Christ because "he changed his heart." He even begins cabinet meeting with a prayer. To help him with incorporating subtle religious language into his speeches he has gone even as far as to hire an evangelical christian, Gerson. People have gone as far to say that he sets us up for attack by using this language. So anyone who thinks that language may not be as powerful as most think, they should think again.
procrastination: a user's guide
The internet is the ultimate tool of procrastination. Besides utilizing its powers for instant messaging while writing papers, one can completely blow all their time facebooking or blogging.
Why?
Doing almost anything besides typing that paper seems better in the moment & you almost feel slightly less guilty because you are already at the computer & thus you technically could be doing work. Out of personal experience my blogging time increases exponentially when I have other work on the table as if I somehow have something more poignant to say or just simply warming up for a paper.
FAB (by ALEX MYERS)
Since I still retained some of the conversation from the Ramage days, the readymade identity keeps bursting into my mind like a pop up advertisement for car insurance, especially in regards to framing oneself in the blogsphere.
In examining Blogger.com & their profiling system of personal information broken down the frames for one sect of the blogoshpere are created. Here are the nifty categories of importance that Blogger.com has provided to tell the blogging community who you are:
Identity: Username, Email address, Display Name, First & Last Name
A space for Photograph & Audio clip is provided
General: Gender, Birthday, Homepage URL, Wishlist URL, & IM Username
Location: City/Town, Region/State, & Country/Territory
Work: Industry& Occupation
Extended Info: Interests, About Me, Favorite Movies, Favorite Music, Favorite Books, & Random Question
The essential feature that allows the creation of niche communities is the hyperlinking of the Industry, Location, Interests, Favorite Movies, Favorite Music & Favorite Books sections.
From this hyperlinking arises the waves to surf on boards of procrastination through the network of potential blogging buddies & niche communities.
So for Kutztown 40 persons from 15 year old Avery Oswald to Stephanie the Great appear.
But these are just people in the same area as me. They don't necesarily share the same interests. I can narrow frames within bloggers frames diving further into niche groupings.
For instance Railroading yeilds a dazzeling 18 people while
Battlestar Galactica yeilds 40 persons.
also Hottubs has 16 interested persons and even Cardigan Sweaters has 11 intrested parties.
It is almost a thing of magic not to have anyone catagorized with you.
Does a system of attempting to outdo other peoples in intrest listings occur?
How ecclectic, marginal, wierd, & unknown can it get?
It all really depends on how much time the procrastinator will give to filling out profiles, writing new entries & searching the networks, i.e. how long they will procrastinate through their paper.
Why?
Doing almost anything besides typing that paper seems better in the moment & you almost feel slightly less guilty because you are already at the computer & thus you technically could be doing work. Out of personal experience my blogging time increases exponentially when I have other work on the table as if I somehow have something more poignant to say or just simply warming up for a paper.
FAB (by ALEX MYERS)
Since I still retained some of the conversation from the Ramage days, the readymade identity keeps bursting into my mind like a pop up advertisement for car insurance, especially in regards to framing oneself in the blogsphere.
In examining Blogger.com & their profiling system of personal information broken down the frames for one sect of the blogoshpere are created. Here are the nifty categories of importance that Blogger.com has provided to tell the blogging community who you are:
Identity: Username, Email address, Display Name, First & Last Name
A space for Photograph & Audio clip is provided
General: Gender, Birthday, Homepage URL, Wishlist URL, & IM Username
Location: City/Town, Region/State, & Country/Territory
Work: Industry& Occupation
Extended Info: Interests, About Me, Favorite Movies, Favorite Music, Favorite Books, & Random Question
The essential feature that allows the creation of niche communities is the hyperlinking of the Industry, Location, Interests, Favorite Movies, Favorite Music & Favorite Books sections.
From this hyperlinking arises the waves to surf on boards of procrastination through the network of potential blogging buddies & niche communities.
So for Kutztown 40 persons from 15 year old Avery Oswald to Stephanie the Great appear.
But these are just people in the same area as me. They don't necesarily share the same interests. I can narrow frames within bloggers frames diving further into niche groupings.
For instance Railroading yeilds a dazzeling 18 people while
Battlestar Galactica yeilds 40 persons.
also Hottubs has 16 interested persons and even Cardigan Sweaters has 11 intrested parties.
It is almost a thing of magic not to have anyone catagorized with you.
This procrastinative surfing is ever enhanced becuase, as stated in Emily's Public Writing Paper, facebook & blogger are like a hybrid blog yearbook. The less reading you have to do the easier it is to click away & shut off your mind going from pretty picture to happy intrest so on & so forth.
As I work now in the SUB computor lab all the computors are filled & I can see at least 5 people facebooking while others wait for a computor.
It is not to say that there aren't academic blogs or blogs that discuss news in specific fields.
The filling of bloggers framed identity questions creates communities in niche containers that can group themselves with the ever weirder more quarky more hip & cool peoples.Does a system of attempting to outdo other peoples in intrest listings occur?
How ecclectic, marginal, wierd, & unknown can it get?
It all really depends on how much time the procrastinator will give to filling out profiles, writing new entries & searching the networks, i.e. how long they will procrastinate through their paper.
So, instead of going to work one day, this guy went to a volcano...
For the final paper, I’m taking my idea for the second paper and using this time to expand on it. Originally, I was going to examine the teachings and other published works of the Raelian Movement (sometimes referred to as "The Cult of Elohim") and make note of what it is in their language that’s designed to persuade people to dedicate their lived- and their wallets- to this movement.
With the knowledge I’d gain from this analysis, I would make my own "cult" and use the persuasive language of the Raelians to persuade people to devote their lives- and can’t forget those wallets- to me.
In transforming this idea from second paper material, to Final Research Paper material, the general idea of my paper will remain the same, but some of the formatting will change and I will increase the spread of my research. I’ll look up more cults and read their examples of public discourse, comparing them with the Raelian movement. I’ll see if I can find themes and trends in the language.
Originally, I was going to write my cult statements immediately after the analysis of the Raelian cult statements. However, I think I’m going to hold out and save the last page or two for my statements. Save the best for last, I think.
I have a bit more planned out regarding my "cult" and the various persuasive arguments, but I don’t want to give too much away now. As per usual, I plan to use humor in my piece. Mostly to lessen the creepy-factor of trying to write something in a similar style to materials that are used for brainwashing.
“The customer is always right!” This is a phrase that is heard often in the retail business, especially for those who work in the customer service departments. Although this notion is not extremely new, there seems to be a surge of companies that avidly train their employees to provide customer service that will make the customers want to return to their stores. This area is of particular interest to me because I worked for five years at Redners Warehouse Markets, three of them as a customer service representative. Everyday that I worked, I dealt with irate customers who “were always right,” and who stood there and repeatedly told me I was wrong even after I proved that I was right. This gets frustrating after an eight hour shift. However, throughout the whole thing, we were expected to remain calm and deal with the situation in a kind and patient manner. However, not all of the customers were hard to deal with. Many of them were polite and accepted the answer that I was able to give them. I am also able to view the situation from the customer perspective. We have all been the recipient of “bad” customer service at one time or another. These experiences stick in our minds and we always associate it with the store or company that provided the bad experience. Although customer service is a huge part of shopping or dealing with a company that provides a service, there seems to be a huge amount of time and effort spent training employees in these departments. When I Googled the words “customer service,” there were tons of hits about companies that provide training in customer service to other companies. These companies will help create what Ramage referred to as readymade workplace identities. The employees will be trained in what to say and how to treat customers.
I am also interested in exploring the language of customer service and its impact on a company as a whole. For instance, I now work at Target, and they refer to their customer as “guests.” To me, this is a little overboard. Just call them customers. During training, we spent at least an hour discussing how to treat customers and how Target prides itself on their excellent service in all areas. However, when I am shopping there, it is hard to find an employee to help when I need it. A website called, Language in the New Capitalism explores some of the issues related to language in capitalism today. This language could also be considered as part of the readymade identity. Employees, or “team members” as Target calls them, are instructed to look for people who look like they need help and ask to help them. Redners employees are given a list of questions and phrases they are instructed to say at the checkout lanes. Most of the time, from my perspective, this often annoys the customers instead of seeming to be helpful. Although I have focused on these two companies simply because I have first-hand experience with them, I plan to visit many different types of stores and see how I am treated as a customer and if I notice any more of these catch phrases. As I explore these areas, I hope to observe and see how customer service is provided in other areas, and if the customer is always right, and how our culture and economy support this area of customer service.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Johnny Rotten is the Anti-Christ (the Sex Pistols' First Single)
The British punk rock group the Sex Pistols was the epitome of rebellion. Consisting of singer Johnny Rotten, guitarist Steve Jones, drummer Paul Cook, and bass player Glen Matlock (and later Sid Vicious), the Sex Pistol hit England at a time of social instability and musical staleness with a new brand of stripped down, militant music destined to shake things up.
In November of 1976 EMI Records released the Sex Pistols’ first single, a song titled Anarchy in the U.K. The song came to be regarded as dangerous in England. The first line in the song, “I am an Anti-Christ,” is one of the most shattering opening lines in the history of rock music. At a time when the church still had major influence on government policies and before religion was regularly discussed, much less lampooned on television, the claim of being an anti-Christ was one of the most blatantly shocking and offensive things that could be said (though Johnny Rotten, in reality, was probably not the anti-christ).
The following line, “I am an anarchist” was almost as radical. Up until the 1940s and 50s, when surpassed by Communism and Fascism, Anarchy was seen as being the biggest threat to the stability of Western governments. The subject was still taboo, and to claim to be an anarchist in 1970s England was not something commonly done.
These two lines were the first song lyrics ever written by Johnny Rotten. They were designed to be as shocking as possible without being implicitly obscene or outrageous. Rotten purposely mispronounced “anarchist” to rhyme with “Anti-Christ,” a move clearly designed to defy traditional song rhyming techniques and go against mainstream music.
The song continues as Rotten announces that anarchy is coming to the U.K., and proclaiming that he himself wants to be anarchy. In one double-entendred line “I use the NME” or “I use the enemy,” one is unsure whether Rotten is name checking the New Musical Express (one of England’s music papers, somewhat like the American Rolling Stone) as a way to deliver his message, suggesting the exploitation of those with opposing views, or implying both. Rotten likely intended this ambiguity.
Anarchy in the U.K. brings up the issue of council tenancies (a type of government-subsidized housing predominately for the poor and working class). It then continues on to compare the British government to militant organizations like the IRA, and questions whether the government has any control over these organizations. Rotten calls the UK, a nation that continued to refer to itself as “Great” Britain “just another country.” It’s clear that Anarchy in the U.K. was planned as an all out assault on British society and government, with carefully thought out and worded lyrics that rise well above standard meaningless rock and roll verse.
Rather than proper singing, Rotten delivered the words to the song in a sneering growl complete with a British working class accent, which in the socially conscious UK was frowned upon. Rotten, himself (along with the rest of the band) from the working class, was attempting to reach the poorer sections of society as well as the youth with his anti-government message. In addition, he and the Sex Pistols were attempting to break as many conventions of music as they could, and Rotten’s snarled vocals are at the top of that list. Rotten’s non-singing over the rest of the band’s simple musical backing made it seem that anyone could be in a band that makes a difference.
Anarchy in the U.K, apart from being somewhat revolutionary in a musical sense, and an excellent debut single from a new band, was a culturally important and relevant to the times record. There is no profanity, there are no direct threats, and no individuals are named in the song, yet the song is imminently threatening, not just to the ineffective British government but to the whole British way of life. It was a shot across the bow of the old order, both in music and society.
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Here's My Public Writing Project Paper
Talk radio has been an important part of my life. I would spend hours as a kid listening to Howard Stern’s show. In my high school years, I would spend summers sprawled out on the front yard listening to talk radio on WYSP for 12 hours straight. I would wake up with Howard, move on to Don and Mike, and round out the afternoon with Opie and Anthony. As far as political talk radio, there was only one guy on, Rush Limbaugh. He was syndicated on Reading’s WEEU. I couldn’t get passed his staggered speech and nonsensical commentary. Of course I wasn’t into politics back then.
After I left my politically sterile high school and moved on to college, I decided that political commentary was important, so I started my very own political talk show on KUR. As I was balancing out our conservative college radio station with my liberal rants, real political talk shows (republican propaganda machines for the most part) were also being challenged by an opposing force, Air America Radio. That is what inspired me to write my final paper, so here’s a preview:
The changing voice of talk radio is becoming a new medium for political discourse. The idea of talk radio started in the 40’s when some guy named Barry Gray started to get bored playing the same music over and over again. Gray called up Woody Herman, a famous clarinetist and big band leader of the time, and he held the telephone up to his microphone. Eventually, Gray started taking callers and the talk format was born.
More and more station began adopting the talk radio format. Most talk shows found a home on the AM frequency because listeners turned to the clearer sound of FM for music. However, the most controversial talk shows were found on the FM band, like the Howard Stern Show.
Stern is probably the most famous on-air personality. His show has raised much controversy over public discourse and censorship. The FCC’s relentless effort to silence Stern has merely destroyed the commercial radio market. Stern now resides on satellite radio along with other “shock jocks” whose creativity was also regulated by the government. In their place are Stern clones that lack the originality and ratings of their forerunners.
While FM stations are tuning into automated jukeboxes, AM has revived an old format: politics. Political talk radio is starting to flourish as the new wave of neoconservatives and theocrats begin to stick their foot in the door of the dull world of American politics. Since the repeal of the “Fainess Doctrine” in 1987, Rush Limbaugh pioneered the political talk radio market. In his image, other conservative radio show hosts started to pop up like Ben Ferguson, Lars Larson, Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Larry Elder, Michael Reagan, and Ken Hamblin. A lot of these people are more than just radio hosts and have influenced their followers with publish books, newspaper columns, television appearances, and public lectures.
In response to a conservatively dominated market, a full-service radio network called Air America launched in 2004. Similar to the conservative radio hosts, Air America’s hosts are influencing public opinion beyond the airwaves by appearing on news networks, debating on C-Span, writing books, doing USO tours, writing for news papers, etc.
As the neoconservative assault on America gains new ground, the left has begun to fight back with equally radical discourse. With radio show hosts using television, newspapers, books, and blogs as their arsenal, the media wars are escalating to new levels.
After I left my politically sterile high school and moved on to college, I decided that political commentary was important, so I started my very own political talk show on KUR. As I was balancing out our conservative college radio station with my liberal rants, real political talk shows (republican propaganda machines for the most part) were also being challenged by an opposing force, Air America Radio. That is what inspired me to write my final paper, so here’s a preview:
The changing voice of talk radio is becoming a new medium for political discourse. The idea of talk radio started in the 40’s when some guy named Barry Gray started to get bored playing the same music over and over again. Gray called up Woody Herman, a famous clarinetist and big band leader of the time, and he held the telephone up to his microphone. Eventually, Gray started taking callers and the talk format was born.
More and more station began adopting the talk radio format. Most talk shows found a home on the AM frequency because listeners turned to the clearer sound of FM for music. However, the most controversial talk shows were found on the FM band, like the Howard Stern Show.
Stern is probably the most famous on-air personality. His show has raised much controversy over public discourse and censorship. The FCC’s relentless effort to silence Stern has merely destroyed the commercial radio market. Stern now resides on satellite radio along with other “shock jocks” whose creativity was also regulated by the government. In their place are Stern clones that lack the originality and ratings of their forerunners.
While FM stations are tuning into automated jukeboxes, AM has revived an old format: politics. Political talk radio is starting to flourish as the new wave of neoconservatives and theocrats begin to stick their foot in the door of the dull world of American politics. Since the repeal of the “Fainess Doctrine” in 1987, Rush Limbaugh pioneered the political talk radio market. In his image, other conservative radio show hosts started to pop up like Ben Ferguson, Lars Larson, Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Larry Elder, Michael Reagan, and Ken Hamblin. A lot of these people are more than just radio hosts and have influenced their followers with publish books, newspaper columns, television appearances, and public lectures.
In response to a conservatively dominated market, a full-service radio network called Air America launched in 2004. Similar to the conservative radio hosts, Air America’s hosts are influencing public opinion beyond the airwaves by appearing on news networks, debating on C-Span, writing books, doing USO tours, writing for news papers, etc.
As the neoconservative assault on America gains new ground, the left has begun to fight back with equally radical discourse. With radio show hosts using television, newspapers, books, and blogs as their arsenal, the media wars are escalating to new levels.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Paper on who you are
The focus of my paper is identity, or, rather, who we are and how we portray ourselves and then the truth of who we are. One of my main points of interest into he last few months has been the case of Patricia Hearst those of you who do not know, Patricia Hearst was the heiress of a billionaire magazine publisher. From what my understanding she was rather shleltered and, outside of her rich social circle from high school, she wasn't too much into the events from the world. This all changed, however, when she was 19 years old. In the 70's there was a guerilla group called the Symbionese Liberation Army who kidnapped Ms. Hearst and held her for $6 million dollars ransom and release of members of their group.
not getting anywhere which either the ransom or the release a while went past and suddenly Hearst shows up at a bank heist handling an assault rifle and dressed in the garb of the SLA. She was spouting out the same freedom fight jargon that the other members of the group spouted. She was a full fledged member of the SLA and as such, she was arrested and tried and sentenced as a member. After ward she has said that she was brainwashed and soon went to acting similarly the wasy she did before. I want to look into what makes her identity, what makes her go from innocent girl to gun-toting guerilla and then back again. I also am thinking of focusing a little bit on entertainment briefly with Wrestler Mick Foley (who went by four different Identities, each different drastically) and rapper Eminem, who has gone by three distinct Identities. One is himself(Marshall Mathers), who he plays during his interviews he gives on MTV and other sources, then he is Eminem. He's serious when he's this persona. He does the song 'Stan' and the various songs about his wife Kim form this persona. Then he's the Slim Shady, a sillier and almost comedic version of himself. alot of his hits are done through this persona.
Ill work from some of the ideas based early in the Ramage book. This is a base of what I'd like to do. Ill post more into his idea later.
(PS: I tried to do some wikipedia stuff onto he SLA and Hearst but I could not get it to work)
not getting anywhere which either the ransom or the release a while went past and suddenly Hearst shows up at a bank heist handling an assault rifle and dressed in the garb of the SLA. She was spouting out the same freedom fight jargon that the other members of the group spouted. She was a full fledged member of the SLA and as such, she was arrested and tried and sentenced as a member. After ward she has said that she was brainwashed and soon went to acting similarly the wasy she did before. I want to look into what makes her identity, what makes her go from innocent girl to gun-toting guerilla and then back again. I also am thinking of focusing a little bit on entertainment briefly with Wrestler Mick Foley (who went by four different Identities, each different drastically) and rapper Eminem, who has gone by three distinct Identities. One is himself(Marshall Mathers), who he plays during his interviews he gives on MTV and other sources, then he is Eminem. He's serious when he's this persona. He does the song 'Stan' and the various songs about his wife Kim form this persona. Then he's the Slim Shady, a sillier and almost comedic version of himself. alot of his hits are done through this persona.
Ill work from some of the ideas based early in the Ramage book. This is a base of what I'd like to do. Ill post more into his idea later.
(PS: I tried to do some wikipedia stuff onto he SLA and Hearst but I could not get it to work)
overview of paper
Christina Figueroa
A little background on my final paper: I intend to write about the television show Black.White and its effect on society. I am planning on exploring typical stereotypes for both blacks and whites and question why those two races are predominant. I would also like to investigate the show’s role in re-affirming those stereotypes as opposed to breaking down barriers. By looking at the show’s intended purpose and the actual effect it is having on viewers, we will be able to discuss how and why stereotypes remain. I’d also like to talk about the innocent people in the show – the people that are befriended by the “undercover” races. Some questions I’d like to raise include – how will these people be affected by the knowledge that their friendship was sought out in an experiment – not because of their personality; rather their skin color. Also, how will these create a dislike for the opposite race – knowing that they were fooled into friendship and used for the sake of America’s entertainment? Also, how are the families that are participating in the experiment affected psychologically? Is race based on color of skin or is it more than that? How can these families experience different cultures based on skin color – wouldn’t they need the actual experience of growing up within a community?
By looking at how the innocent people are affected, I’d like to go into the show Joe Schmoe. This show was a set-up that tricked one man into believing it was a reality show. By looking at this show and how it affected the man who was the butt of the joke, we can explore Lakeoff’s definition of apologies. The people involved in the show apologized for hurting ‘Joe Schmoe’ but was it sincere? As well as the black.white families – are their apologies sincere to those they tricked or did they feel it was the proper thing to do. If they truly were sorry, would they have agreed to the experiment?
I’d like to attempt to conduct a similar experiment on Kutztown’s campus to see how people react towards difference races, based on those results, I’ll explore deeper into the way race plays into treatment and advancement. I do not want this paper to be a paper dealing with race issues; primarily, rather I’d like to see how society embraces “blacks” and “whites” based on their attitudes and behaviors. I’m interested to see if people react differently to someone who is black but acts white, as opposed to someone who is white but acts black.
Also, I’d like to attempt to define “blackness” and “whiteness,” if that is even possible.
ps. - sorry there are no fancy links. =-/
A little background on my final paper: I intend to write about the television show Black.White and its effect on society. I am planning on exploring typical stereotypes for both blacks and whites and question why those two races are predominant. I would also like to investigate the show’s role in re-affirming those stereotypes as opposed to breaking down barriers. By looking at the show’s intended purpose and the actual effect it is having on viewers, we will be able to discuss how and why stereotypes remain. I’d also like to talk about the innocent people in the show – the people that are befriended by the “undercover” races. Some questions I’d like to raise include – how will these people be affected by the knowledge that their friendship was sought out in an experiment – not because of their personality; rather their skin color. Also, how will these create a dislike for the opposite race – knowing that they were fooled into friendship and used for the sake of America’s entertainment? Also, how are the families that are participating in the experiment affected psychologically? Is race based on color of skin or is it more than that? How can these families experience different cultures based on skin color – wouldn’t they need the actual experience of growing up within a community?
By looking at how the innocent people are affected, I’d like to go into the show Joe Schmoe. This show was a set-up that tricked one man into believing it was a reality show. By looking at this show and how it affected the man who was the butt of the joke, we can explore Lakeoff’s definition of apologies. The people involved in the show apologized for hurting ‘Joe Schmoe’ but was it sincere? As well as the black.white families – are their apologies sincere to those they tricked or did they feel it was the proper thing to do. If they truly were sorry, would they have agreed to the experiment?
I’d like to attempt to conduct a similar experiment on Kutztown’s campus to see how people react towards difference races, based on those results, I’ll explore deeper into the way race plays into treatment and advancement. I do not want this paper to be a paper dealing with race issues; primarily, rather I’d like to see how society embraces “blacks” and “whites” based on their attitudes and behaviors. I’m interested to see if people react differently to someone who is black but acts white, as opposed to someone who is white but acts black.
Also, I’d like to attempt to define “blackness” and “whiteness,” if that is even possible.
ps. - sorry there are no fancy links. =-/
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Here it is
"Don’t let people kill your spirit. Don’t let this inferiority complex make you try to be accommodating or apologize for who you are."
Like others before him, Dave Chappelle is a comedian who not only tells jokes to make you laugh, but he tells jokes to make you think. His ability to wrap current social issues on racism, sexism, and other topics of the like seems to come to him rather naturally. He comfortably shifts between different atmospheres, and it would appear that he never loses his focus. He dresses up as Tyrone-the crack addict who speaks to elementary children on "drug awareness day", and on the flip side he can sit in an interviewee chair across from James Lipton answering questions on his childhood and on Africa!
In a day and age when a good laugh can be such an amazing form of relief, Dave Chappelle's talent shines. Whether he's on stage at a comedy club or performing a skit for his show on Comedy Central, his honesty is a thing of beauty to behold. Fierce and fearless, Chappelle tickles his audience like a feather...he strikes all the right keys-hits all the right notes...without a doubt, he has successfully created an audience who will remain dedicated and true to him. His tactics have people hooked. He knows no limits, he can do it all. He dresses up as a crack addict and goes to an elementary school for "drug awareness" day, he's a black president Bush... He needs his audience just as much as his audience needs him. The content of the jokes that he tells is sensitive to so many subjects that people of all ages struggle to understand today, and his sly approach comes as a comfort to many in his audience.
His most recent movie Dave Chappelle's Block Party is an awesome portrayal of just how humane he really is. Gathering people of all ages and races, he captivates his audience using one of the greatest communicators known to man today:MUSIC! Chappelle invites everyone from old white women to young dedicated fans to his celebration of hip hop music. It's a unifying experience that includes even the audience in the movie theatre. Lots of footage in this movie is of live musical performances, and I found myself just about clapping after each song. Inspiring.
He is a real, down-to-earth person who so many different individuals can connect to. His ability to draw in such a diverse crowd proves the importance of the subject matter he jokes (speaks) about.
Kate's Public Writing Paper
There’s drunk and then there’s dangerously drunk.
On Second Street in Harrisburg I have seen:
On Second Street in Harrisburg I have seen:
- girls puking in bar bathrooms
- hooking up with guys in restaurant coat closets
- older women dancing with 20-year-old men
But I never imagined that girls would be falling from buildings. Sometimes when I go out with my friends in downtown Harrisburg, I feel like I am in some parallel universe where girls think they can do anything after the perfectly mixed drink.
I remember the first time I saw one of the cages at Eclipse and thought “Aren’t those for strippers?” But no, they are for the average partying woman, even the occasional underage girl on special nights. But no men allowed in the cages. So even when I was in high school, women were already being told that it’s okay to be wild and crazy. Go ahead and jump up in that cage and dance up next to four other girls. The men will just sit back and watch.
For guys, the Hardware bar is like something out of a dream with the scantily clad girls serving you all night long, taking breaks to shake it on the bar, and then pulling you up to pour shots down your mouth just in case you weren’t drunk enough. One expects to see these exact images of the girls when you walk into that type of a bar, they are given ready-made identities as super sexy girls who only get super sexy by shaking it for the boys and consuming alcohol.
And the average girls on the floor watch these symbols of sex and confidence all rolled into one nice little package, and start to shake their hips a little faster, raise their voices a little louder, and drink a little faster. Then they stumble out onto the streets and look for some way to prove that they too can be wild and crazy. Just walk next door and into a new bar, and there’s a whole new crowd of young people to impress.
The frame that exists in the party scene of downtown Harrisburg is vastly different from the frame that exists in the safety of home. When my mom heard about the young girl who jumped from the building, her first intuition was to imagine that it was me. But she knows me and knew that I would never do something so dangerous. However, the parents of both of the girls reacted in a way that suggested they never believed that their daughters would engage in such risky behavior. Therefore, the way that the girls acted around their parents must have been more reserved, and the way they acted around their friends was influenced by peer pressure.
While most of us would never consider mixing tall buildings and alcohol, it’s a different world downtown than it is in the safety of home. Somehow girls need to find a way to be sexy, fun, and confident without the binge drinking induced stunts.
Emily's Public Writing Paper
Within the last ten years there’s been a huge influx of blog action. But that’s not the point. From teens sharing angsty poems with online communities that understand them, to political pundits pounding away at keyboards launching their voices into cyberspace, to journalists breaking stories on the printed page of computer screens, the blogosphere has risen from the seed of the Internet like a wild-growing vine, tangling its way into homes, politics, and pop culture with the voracity of something that won’t be satisfied until it’s entwined itself around our very fingertips, wrapping them around the keys of our keyboards.
One particularly interesting area of focus is the use of blogs by teens and young adults. Sites such as xanga.com and myspace.com provide a distinctly social purpose, and are generally used in at least one of two different ways. First, blogs link a user to a pre-existing group of friends. Seconds, blogs connect users to other, similarly minded people they don’t know. Basically, someone with a single blog (or several) is able to find and cultivate an online circle of friends that he/she may or may not already know.
Through providing an additional social outlet for users, blogs fulfill several needs within a social purpose. Perhaps the biggest attraction to blogs for this younger user set is the ability to create a personal identity Whether a blog is an extension of someone’s personality in real life, or not—a display of who the user believes they really are—blogs allow users to define and mold themselves into how they want to be seen. This happens in a number of ways, through online groups, lists of favorite movies, and the users’ posts of personal details.
As blogging develops as a genre, it continues to grow in different ways. Using Facebook.com as an example, the blog/yearbook hybrid, blogs aren’t just for writing anymore. In addition, blogs aren’t just for writers anymore. Facebook users in particular have run into new kinds of problems as the site struggles to exist as both a personal blog, yet operate within a semi-academic frame. Students posting pictures of underage drinking have caused legal problems, and employers may even try to gain access to a future employee’s blogs to discover how he/she behaves informally.
While blogging continues to provide new texts to study, new frames to investigate, and new issues of identity to examine, the threat of following along is the risk of getting lost in the culture. The challenge is to watch objectively and critically as the genre develops while still participating in the growing world of the blogosphere.
One particularly interesting area of focus is the use of blogs by teens and young adults. Sites such as xanga.com and myspace.com provide a distinctly social purpose, and are generally used in at least one of two different ways. First, blogs link a user to a pre-existing group of friends. Seconds, blogs connect users to other, similarly minded people they don’t know. Basically, someone with a single blog (or several) is able to find and cultivate an online circle of friends that he/she may or may not already know.
Through providing an additional social outlet for users, blogs fulfill several needs within a social purpose. Perhaps the biggest attraction to blogs for this younger user set is the ability to create a personal identity Whether a blog is an extension of someone’s personality in real life, or not—a display of who the user believes they really are—blogs allow users to define and mold themselves into how they want to be seen. This happens in a number of ways, through online groups, lists of favorite movies, and the users’ posts of personal details.
As blogging develops as a genre, it continues to grow in different ways. Using Facebook.com as an example, the blog/yearbook hybrid, blogs aren’t just for writing anymore. In addition, blogs aren’t just for writers anymore. Facebook users in particular have run into new kinds of problems as the site struggles to exist as both a personal blog, yet operate within a semi-academic frame. Students posting pictures of underage drinking have caused legal problems, and employers may even try to gain access to a future employee’s blogs to discover how he/she behaves informally.
While blogging continues to provide new texts to study, new frames to investigate, and new issues of identity to examine, the threat of following along is the risk of getting lost in the culture. The challenge is to watch objectively and critically as the genre develops while still participating in the growing world of the blogosphere.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Wow! I am so slow on computers and never thought I could figure out how to post a picture! Here Emma Blackman-Harris is protesting the shirts made by Abercrombie and Fitch. She gathered a couple of classmates and friends and formed a "girlcott" against some of the offensive clothing. A few specific items they were offended by were t-shirts with different demeaning slogans. One t-shirt said "I make you look fat". This goes along with the "frame" set by Abercrombie and Fitch. The store gives off the appearance that girls must have no fat in order to wear their clothes and guys must have six pack abs to fill out their tops. After pushing with their girlcott Abercrombie responded by taking two different offensive t-shirts off the market. So we can be heard!
Abercrombie and Fitch has also been involved in many different lawsuits and has even lost quite a few times. In one lawsuit they had to pay $40 million to Black, Hispanic and Asian employees and job applicants. Minorities felt that they were being discriminated against by the store. Lets all be honest to ourselves...that looks nothing like the staff at Abercrombie and Fitch.
In another lawsuit against Abercrombie, they agreed to pay 50 million dollars to settle. They were accused of discriminating against minorities and women. Shoppers seem to agree with the lawsuits that Abercrombie and Fitch must face. Travis Jones, Abercrombie and Fitch shopper, said "It seems like they model the people more than the clothes in there". As soon as you walk into the store there is a huge poster of a man with a six pack, sexy eyes, all over the place hair, and the picture is in black and white. Along with all of this he might be wearing a pair of male Abercrombie and Fitch shorts. As the viewer, we barely see the shorts, because in reality they aren't what really matters.
Monday, April 10, 2006
Goebbels would love FOX News
Goebbels was known for his zealous and energetic oratory, virulent antisemitism and mastered the art of mass propaganda. Following Hitler's death he served as Chancellor for one day, approved the murder of his own six children and committed suicide. Woot! But this guy was a genius. He would have drooled over easily manipulated mediums such as FOX, or as Rutherford suggested on 191, "No doubt Goebbels would have envied such an instrument of persuasion."
Media is no doubt an extension of political propaganda. Rutherford defines a propaganda state as "a regime in which the governors, whether official or unofficial, employ a constant stream of messages to propel the population toward some desired condition of right thinking and right acting." (page 184)
Or as our dear president put it at the Athena Performing Arts Center at Greece Athena Middle and High School Tuesday, May 24, 2005 in Rochester, NY, "See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." the full transcript
And if I may... A quote from Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels: ""If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." Wow! American leaders are borrowing techniques from the Nazis. Woot!
Since I'm in a quote mood, let me keep going. On page 188 Geoff says "So there were lots of people I met who thought if we didn't get Saddam Hussein first there were going to be mushroom clouds in New York." I wonder where that Idea came from...
In Cincinnati Museum Center on October 7, 2002, Bush gave us this little gem: "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." Wonderful!
As for Phil Donahue, of course a critique of the war would be fired. However, there is good news. Bill O'Reilly has set up a petition to get him back. No, not because he likes Phil. More likely, Keith Olberman, the guy that replaced him, kicks O'Reily's ass on a regular bases. If you notice, Bill's comments on ratings, it is an absolute lie. I'm really far off topic...
So yes, throughout history, the media has been used by world leaders to muster support for a certain cause. Now, instead of individuals fighting eachother, world leaders have the ability to turn an entire country against an opposing view using the media.
Bye.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Amy's Public Writing Project
Who knew that such a well-known, highly renowned book such as Lady Chatterley’s Lover could create such havoc? Well, actually while the book is highly renowned now, it was not when it was first written by D.H. Lawrence.
Let’s start, by discussing the censorship of the arts, before the printing press was even invented. In ancient times, such as the times of Socrates and Plato, sexual references within plays and written works were not chastised. Rather, sexual acts were found entertaining as they are today. Instead, religion was the issue to be censored. Anything dealing with blasphemy against the gods or the Christian doctrine was taken very seriously. To the death serious! Even in 18th century England, sex was not the issue to be censored, it was religion and political issues. However, Gutenberg’s printing press was when regulations had to be put into effect.
Unfortunately, before the printing press the upper-class members of society were the ones attending the plays that were censored for religious and political issues. However, once the printing press came into use, all social classes had access to these materials and stricter regulations were put into effect. This is what started the censorship of sexual books, and Lady Chatterley’s Lover.
The most risque copy of Lawrence’s book was not distributed until 1960 by Penguin Publishers. Edited copies had previously been distributed around the world, including the United States. However, when Penguin published this work, scholars were not offended but rather the Post Master General. They refused to deliver the copies of the newly published novel to buyers and bookstores. Their reason: Obscenity. People began to question the American right to freedom of speech. Where is the freedom for Lawrence? Therefore the issue was brought to the Supreme Court.
After almost a month of courtroom banter, it was decided by the Supreme Court that the book was of distinguishable literary merit, and should not be banned. The Post Master simply resided their case on sexual quotes from the book, instead of looking at the book as a whole. It was decided in the court room that without those accused "obscene" parts of the book, the novel would not hold the same meaning or significance. It was not banned, and you can buy a copy off of bookshelves today.
Satanic Verses and Other Tales of the Blogosphere
What does one do with accusations? I am brought back to an incident last August that I wrote about on one of my "Comp/Rhet" blog...a blog that I have admittedly neglected for some time (the first post in the series is called Things that Make You Go Hmmmm). In that blog, I was anonymously accused of politically brainwashing my students. In that discussion with "DK," I wrote a little bit about the ethics of public engagement...in particular, accusations. So, I won't repeat all that here.
The accusation here is that I am responsible for removing one of Nix_Bresser's posts for being "racy" or "provocative," in effect, censoring him, being a hypocrite, and betraying the "foundation" of the blog. So, there are a couple of broad assumptions made: 1) that I am the one responsible for "removing" Nix_Bresser's blog post; 2) the reason for the post's alleged "removal" had to do with policing the boundaries of what is and what is not "appropriate" speech on the blog. The second assumption, of course, depends entirely upon the first being true. It also depends on the author's correct analysis of my intentions and the rhetorical context.
However, his accusation also opens a window to a broader rhetorical situation...one of free speech and censorship, a context that, I would argue, Nix_Bresser is close to...judging at least by the intensity of his accusations. That is, a "frame" is placed on the conversation, or action ("removal" of a blog post) that at once both moves the conversation into a much wider "public," and eliminates possible alternative or local explanations. Ramage might call this an aspect of "self-interference." Or, this might be a good example of a rhetorical analysis that connects the local and the global. Or, it could be both. Just thinking out-loud.
Yes, in the spirit of Ramage, I've digressed...or at least circled around the issue. So, let's get directly to the key issue here. Let me take the second issue first:
However, simply citing policy does not stand in for what is at stake in the issue. A policy only tells us what is "official" and what "has already been decided;" it does not always tell us what is right, just, or fair. As we know, policies can be both official and unjust. So, what is at stake in Nix_Bresser's accusations? As I see it, what is at stake is the limits and definitions of "free speech" and, by extension, the tension between individual liberty and the rights of the common--put another way, the right of the individual to do whatever he/she wants and the networks of commitment, responsibility, and rights of "others" as part of a social body. A good question to pose, and an important tension not to forget in the midst of these conversations.
Briefly, then, (finally) back to the issue. I would delete a message on our blog if it directly interfered with another member of our class's participation or met the criteria of harassment listed in the Student Handbook. Part of the "social contract" in a democracy, in my humble opinion, is to maximize participation and to agree not to try to eliminate other voices, opinions, and positions, even when one disagrees. Did Nix_Bresser's post of 3/9/2006 meet the criteria of harassment? In a word, NO.
That brings us to the first issue:
Now we need to get to the nitty gritty. Here's what I remember. On the day that Amy O'Brien was coming to observe class, I put the blog up on the screen. I remember Nix_Bresser (in his IRL form) saying, "you might not want to read mine, because it's a little risque" (or something to that affect). I said something like, "I don't care...You get what you get...I'm not going to worry about it." But I also remember saying "which blog entry are you talking about?" I didn't remember a blog entry that would be so problematic.
Now comes the key issue that maybe other people can help out with. I do not remember ever accessing Nix_Bresser's post and changing it to a "draft." Frankly, that's not my style...I tend to think that when writing for the public, a writer needs to feel even more of the weight of her/his words. That is, a writer has to be responsible for her/his choices. The only time I can remember looking specifically for Nix_Bresser's post was in that few minutes before class on that day. But I seem to remember not being concerned. Again, I may be just remembering this wrong. But I can say without hesitation that I had not intention of censoring or "removing" the post in question.
The only people who can change the status of a blog post, as I understand it, are the author of the post and myself (although I do know that blogger accepts complaints about blogs that violate blogger's terms of use, but in that case, I should have been notified). So, Nix, is there any possibility that you saved the post as a draft? Perhaps we could develop a timeline to determine when, and if, the post appeared on the blog and when it was changed to the status of draft?
In any case, I hope some of my above discussion speaks to the accusations and that we can figure out the specific problem. In the short term, Nix_Bresser can simply go to edit his posts, click on the message in question, and hit the orange "Publish Post" button at the bottom of the page and his post will return to the blogosphere.
The accusation here is that I am responsible for removing one of Nix_Bresser's posts for being "racy" or "provocative," in effect, censoring him, being a hypocrite, and betraying the "foundation" of the blog. So, there are a couple of broad assumptions made: 1) that I am the one responsible for "removing" Nix_Bresser's blog post; 2) the reason for the post's alleged "removal" had to do with policing the boundaries of what is and what is not "appropriate" speech on the blog. The second assumption, of course, depends entirely upon the first being true. It also depends on the author's correct analysis of my intentions and the rhetorical context.
However, his accusation also opens a window to a broader rhetorical situation...one of free speech and censorship, a context that, I would argue, Nix_Bresser is close to...judging at least by the intensity of his accusations. That is, a "frame" is placed on the conversation, or action ("removal" of a blog post) that at once both moves the conversation into a much wider "public," and eliminates possible alternative or local explanations. Ramage might call this an aspect of "self-interference." Or, this might be a good example of a rhetorical analysis that connects the local and the global. Or, it could be both. Just thinking out-loud.
Yes, in the spirit of Ramage, I've digressed...or at least circled around the issue. So, let's get directly to the key issue here. Let me take the second issue first:
- Would I remove a blog posting for "racy" or "provocative" content?
Blatantly offensive, vulgar, or harassing language will not be permitted. I will delete any such postings and you will be given a zero(0) for that week. Persistent harassment will be treated as a violation of the Student Code of Conduct (see your student handbook, The Key) and dealt with accordingly (Mahoney's ENG 230 Course Syllabus, Spring 2006, 3).Based on the syllabus, I do reserve the right to delete posts if the post is "blatantly offensive, vulgar, or harassing." The Student Code of Conduct is cited to provide more of a resource for what constitutes "harassment." It's a document that all students have signed (and presumably read), making it seems like a useful point of reference.
However, simply citing policy does not stand in for what is at stake in the issue. A policy only tells us what is "official" and what "has already been decided;" it does not always tell us what is right, just, or fair. As we know, policies can be both official and unjust. So, what is at stake in Nix_Bresser's accusations? As I see it, what is at stake is the limits and definitions of "free speech" and, by extension, the tension between individual liberty and the rights of the common--put another way, the right of the individual to do whatever he/she wants and the networks of commitment, responsibility, and rights of "others" as part of a social body. A good question to pose, and an important tension not to forget in the midst of these conversations.
Briefly, then, (finally) back to the issue. I would delete a message on our blog if it directly interfered with another member of our class's participation or met the criteria of harassment listed in the Student Handbook. Part of the "social contract" in a democracy, in my humble opinion, is to maximize participation and to agree not to try to eliminate other voices, opinions, and positions, even when one disagrees. Did Nix_Bresser's post of 3/9/2006 meet the criteria of harassment? In a word, NO.
That brings us to the first issue:
- Did I remove Nix_Bresser's post from the blog?
Now we need to get to the nitty gritty. Here's what I remember. On the day that Amy O'Brien was coming to observe class, I put the blog up on the screen. I remember Nix_Bresser (in his IRL form) saying, "you might not want to read mine, because it's a little risque" (or something to that affect). I said something like, "I don't care...You get what you get...I'm not going to worry about it." But I also remember saying "which blog entry are you talking about?" I didn't remember a blog entry that would be so problematic.
Now comes the key issue that maybe other people can help out with. I do not remember ever accessing Nix_Bresser's post and changing it to a "draft." Frankly, that's not my style...I tend to think that when writing for the public, a writer needs to feel even more of the weight of her/his words. That is, a writer has to be responsible for her/his choices. The only time I can remember looking specifically for Nix_Bresser's post was in that few minutes before class on that day. But I seem to remember not being concerned. Again, I may be just remembering this wrong. But I can say without hesitation that I had not intention of censoring or "removing" the post in question.
The only people who can change the status of a blog post, as I understand it, are the author of the post and myself (although I do know that blogger accepts complaints about blogs that violate blogger's terms of use, but in that case, I should have been notified). So, Nix, is there any possibility that you saved the post as a draft? Perhaps we could develop a timeline to determine when, and if, the post appeared on the blog and when it was changed to the status of draft?
In any case, I hope some of my above discussion speaks to the accusations and that we can figure out the specific problem. In the short term, Nix_Bresser can simply go to edit his posts, click on the message in question, and hit the orange "Publish Post" button at the bottom of the page and his post will return to the blogosphere.
Friday, April 07, 2006
****MAHONEY IS THE DEVIL********
I was hoping that would get your attention. Let me bring to everyone's attention that our teacher, Mr. Mahoney- Teacher of rhetorical analysis, and anti-censorship guru has removed my blog "Your Mother should have swallowed." I know that it was a racy and provokative title---Thats why i used it in the first place. In that blog, i made alot of very well founded and well supplicated arguments for and against lakoff. I don't know when it was removed, but i was going over my old blogs today to see what i want my paper to look like, and that was honestly one of my favorite blogs. This completely discredits the foundatoin of why i liked using blogs in the first place-- it wasnt academic. (you see that right there, i improperly used hyphens and no one cares) I thought that it was close to an open forum where anyone can express any argument they want, as freely as they want. And now my blog is erased and gone forever because it had a connotative title (it didn't actually say what she was supposed to swallow). I thought that these blogs were supposed to be open-- hell we're posting them on the internet!!! As of right now it is easier for me to try to find a streaming video of Micheal Jackson and Mculay Culkin playing hide the soap at neverland ranch. So STAY VIGILANT!!!!!!!!!! Censorship... C'mon Mahoney, I thought you were cool
Thursday, April 06, 2006
From my bed to your classroom
with trashcan at side! I no longer recommend Micheal's scrapple! YUM....So here is my idea. I am sticking with the whole Abercrombie and Fitch idea. I think there is plenty of information for it and I think it will be really fun to explore. I was researching for it yesterday and so many topics popped up. Different court cases and information about the store. I think I will even interview someone who works there to help my idea. I can also take different topics we have learned in class and apply them. I can do ready-made identitys, frames, and Rutherford. With all of these angles and topics it should be enough.
Also, Beth, if you would like some info about American Eage and our customer policy just let me know. It might help to get different stores like you said.
Also, Beth, if you would like some info about American Eage and our customer policy just let me know. It might help to get different stores like you said.
Paper Idea
I will be writing my paper on the world of political talk radio. Since the beginning of time, God reserved political talk radio for the God-fearing Christians. Within the talk radio world there were religious shows and conservative political shows. Sure, there were pirate radio stations, web streams, and some local liberal shows scattered throughout the country, but there was never a strong, united company with syndicated programming. Then came Air America.
As “shock jock” radio goes extinct from the asteroid known as the FCC, and DJs are replaced by automation, the realm of political talk radio has gained some momentum. Now, there is an all out ratings war between the Rush Limbaughs and the Al Frankens. Radio show hosts are becoming more and more influential in political circles and I figured it would make a great paper. (In fact, Air America has an essay contest every year, so if I win I’ll throw a party for yall.)
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Paper Ideas
In the past month two accidents have happened in my hometown of Harrisburg, PA involving two different girls who got extremely drunk downtown and ended up falling off buildings to their deaths. In the first accident, the girl's boyfriend was holding her by her wrists from the window of an apartment building, and she slipped and fell. The second girl was attempting to jump from the top of a parking garage to a bank building with her friends, when she fell ten stories in a gap inbetween. The governor responded to both accidents citing them basically as daredevil, drunk behaviors, but I think there's more to it than that. I want to examine the parent's reactions... from what I've read they've said things like, "My daughter wouldn't do something like this, she was responsible and too smart for this." and the reactions of the governor. I think it has a lot to do with moving from the frame of home and how the girls acted there as opposed to how they acted in the frame of downtown with their friends. I want to find out if these occurances are going to keep repeating, I also think it's interesting that they are both female, and I possibly want to look at how gender plays a role in these situations.
My tenative topic
I’m thinking about writing my paper on the army recruitment process. I have to admit that Michael Moore’s movie Farenheight911 inspired me on this idea. I found it intriguing how the recruits in the movie went to a shopping mall to find army recruits. It was highly evangelical---they even went two by two. If I don’t find enough information about the recruitment process, I might also focus on what other techniques the army uses like how government funded schools are forced to have recruiters on their campus, the video games, or I might just complain about how we live in a country with all the resources in the world, and yet we choose to use those resources to make machines of destruction meant to kill people. Then again, I might get so angry, that I’ll just change topics.
dave chappelle
I plan on doing my research paper on Dave Chappelle as an activist-not just a comedian. From doing stand-up to being an actor in his own show...he is not just funny-he's incredibly intelligent. He finds a way to tie important social issues into his skits and jokes. I recently saw him on the "Inside the Actors Studio", and it was really inspiring. He never forgets who he is, and he's always an effective communicator. So, I don't know why this is relevant to any of you... I guess that's the part that I need to work on...that whole...Why should anyone care about this? thing... I guess it's meaningful to me because...in the real world we are constantly shuffling between different situations...different audiences...going through different frames.. and it's important to always stay true to what you believe. When you have an...influential idea to share with the world, it's useful to know how to adapt to different circumstances..
Paper Idea
Hey everyone. Well, I am not sure how far I will get with this topic, but hopefully it will work out. I am thinking about doing something about customer service departments in stores and expand it a little into the language and different aspects of this issue. The reason I thought of this is becuase I have worked as a Cust service rep in a grocery store and I now work at Target. Target has created it's own type of language that they believe helps their image. They refer to customers as "guests" and employees as "team members." They even actually have their own dictionary with all the other words and acronyms they use within their stores. To me, this is going a little overboard. I want to investigate other stores policies and research when the whoe "the customer is always right" craze began. Again, hopefully this will work out. I need to think of ways to expand I think, but I will continue to work on that.
The Propaganda State
There isn't much in this chapter that I haven't written about or that we've spoken about in class, so I guess I will comment on the subject of 'tracking public attitudes' on pages 190-191. I think that this new-wave technology, while helpful for politicians and government officials, is proving evasive and is limiting our freedom of privacy. We can no longer voice inner opinions about government proceedings and decisions without having our opinions and thoughts turned into a manipulative web created to get the vote, to make one heated or enthusiastic, and to tear into our emotions allowing them to take advantage.
I remember when watching the movie in class when the people tracked which party one was for, what issues one supported or disagreed with, and then created videos, ads and speeches to coerce to one on their front porch. That totally disgusted me. If anyone would show up on my front porch claiming to know what issues I supported and then to produce videos right there on the spot that supported or disagreed with my stance; utterly ridiculous. I cannot believe people actually allowed the person to show them the clips, how they could allow themselves to listen and watch the videos. I would have shut the door in their face or told them I'm not interested. It's almost like a Jehovah's Witness; who actually sits and listens to those people? I guess that's what our government is turning into. This fact is sad and disappointing to the mantra of the America society and our government. Blah.
I remember when watching the movie in class when the people tracked which party one was for, what issues one supported or disagreed with, and then created videos, ads and speeches to coerce to one on their front porch. That totally disgusted me. If anyone would show up on my front porch claiming to know what issues I supported and then to produce videos right there on the spot that supported or disagreed with my stance; utterly ridiculous. I cannot believe people actually allowed the person to show them the clips, how they could allow themselves to listen and watch the videos. I would have shut the door in their face or told them I'm not interested. It's almost like a Jehovah's Witness; who actually sits and listens to those people? I guess that's what our government is turning into. This fact is sad and disappointing to the mantra of the America society and our government. Blah.
Paper Idea
I think I might do my paper on Ramage's ready-made identity and tie it in with the modeling profession. I have watched the making of America's Next Top Model on E! just recently and there is a lot of information and interesting facts I found out about the show and the corruption of it. I watched the behind-the-scenes and I also heard negative news bits on E! News about recent scandals with Heidi Klum turning a girl down who was 5'11'' and weighed 110 pounds because Heidi deemed her as being 'too fat;' I think this would be a great topic to do my paper on.
But then again, maybe I won't; I'm still deciding.
But then again, maybe I won't; I'm still deciding.
The Beginnings
I started my research this past weekend for our paper. I am researching the banning of the novel Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence. As I read through books on the trial I found ideas for my paper coming to me. I am finding comments by Lawrence himself, government officials, and witnesses who spoke in court. Each of these quotes consist of different forms of language and persuasion. Each attempting to use their words to manipulate either the public to like or dislike the book. Basically everything we have learned in class is showing up as I research the different comments of the author, the public, and those prosecuting.
I intend to not only research the language used for and against the novel, but also how the public responded to the books banning, and discuss the public opinion of the book in present day.
I intend to not only research the language used for and against the novel, but also how the public responded to the books banning, and discuss the public opinion of the book in present day.
class yesterday
what happened in class yesterday. the lat few classes i had been sick and could not mke it and now im hearing that the second and final paper ar being combined into 1 thing. could someone please give me some information on as to what the heck is going on. thank you.
Research Project Idea
I think I'm going to stick with my Facebook (the no-more paper 2) topic, but expand it to blog culture in general, using Facebook as just one of my frames of reference. Back when I was brainstorming on what to write my second paper about, I thought it would be interesting to investigate the different frames Facebook operates in(academic, informal, social) and the types of discourse that are associated with each.
Since I need to expand my topic, I want to look at other kinds of blogs (like xanga and MySpace) to see what sort of needs these fulfill (like identity creation). Also, I want to see what happens when blog frames clash (Facebook bashing professors, or the police searching for incriminating pictures on online profiles). Overall, I want to find out why people get so obsessed with this online world.
I have several articles written on Facebook, but I haven't started researching on other blogs, yet. I wrote a paper on Internet Addiction last semester, so maybe some of that research will be useful to me, as well.
Hi ho Silver away!
Since I need to expand my topic, I want to look at other kinds of blogs (like xanga and MySpace) to see what sort of needs these fulfill (like identity creation). Also, I want to see what happens when blog frames clash (Facebook bashing professors, or the police searching for incriminating pictures on online profiles). Overall, I want to find out why people get so obsessed with this online world.
I have several articles written on Facebook, but I haven't started researching on other blogs, yet. I wrote a paper on Internet Addiction last semester, so maybe some of that research will be useful to me, as well.
Hi ho Silver away!
paper idea
im considering doing it on teleevangelists and how evil they are despite their so called mission of God and god. thats kinda where i am, ill figure out more. uh yeh. seeya.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Paper Idea
The digital weblog posting profile systems as new readymade identities & spaces of created communities ever working to defining themselves in cooler & more hip niche frames based on image, form & content.
places such as blogger: http://treefull.blogspot.com/
or http://www.facebook.com/
or http://www.myspace.com/
this is my favorite video commentary on myspace:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AAh6WwKILfk
places such as blogger: http://treefull.blogspot.com/
or http://www.facebook.com/
or http://www.myspace.com/
this is my favorite video commentary on myspace:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AAh6WwKILfk
Paper Idea
I plan to write about the language usage of the 70s British punk band The Sex Pistols and their detractors in the context of 1970s England.
Unless I don't.
Hey, that didn't take long at all.
Unless I don't.
Hey, that didn't take long at all.
Real-Time War
"It all had the flavour of an Indiana Jones story, where a professional (recall Jones was an archaeologist) was thrust by circumstances into a world of excitement and peril," (Rutherford, 85). Enter the crazy American freelance journalists who fly out to Iraq, place themselves in the center of a hellish war, risk their lives; all for what? To be the first one to get the story, a better story, one that could set their careers or name off. We talked about this same topic in my Writing for the Workplace class about a month ago. My teacher said freelance journalists find that placing themselves in the middle of a war is exciting, riveting. It's almost like their own video game and they're actually in it. It is a highly competitive job and to be the one to get the news first, or see something wild happen that no other journalist saw, that's the pull that intrigues freelancers to almost take part in a suicide mission.
I loved this quote on page 86 "Goldstein concluded by stigmatizing live war as a more sinister version of 'Reality TV,' presumably like the hit Survivor series, boasting 'the same voyeuristic kick, the same aura of faintly forbidden intrusion,' that offered viewers a 'safe and secret' stimulation." This is completely true. War coverage is just as titilating as watching an episode of Survivor. One is held in suspense, horrified, disgusted...all of the ingredients to make for a secretly entertaining watch (but don't let anyone know you really think it is entertaining). Americans like to watch shows with violence, death and destruction. It secretly holds attention and people want to keep watching, making sure they don't miss the next day's episode or report. Everyone knows this: journalists, government, army seargents, etc. and they play it up as much as possible because this is how to get ratings, gain the desired emotions/attitudes they want, and create a designated mindset. This is a sick process but it's working and maybe this is why America is so wealthy; we trick, bribe and play to people's emotions and actions in such a way as to corrupt thoughts and make everyone become zombies to government's control.
I loved this quote on page 86 "Goldstein concluded by stigmatizing live war as a more sinister version of 'Reality TV,' presumably like the hit Survivor series, boasting 'the same voyeuristic kick, the same aura of faintly forbidden intrusion,' that offered viewers a 'safe and secret' stimulation." This is completely true. War coverage is just as titilating as watching an episode of Survivor. One is held in suspense, horrified, disgusted...all of the ingredients to make for a secretly entertaining watch (but don't let anyone know you really think it is entertaining). Americans like to watch shows with violence, death and destruction. It secretly holds attention and people want to keep watching, making sure they don't miss the next day's episode or report. Everyone knows this: journalists, government, army seargents, etc. and they play it up as much as possible because this is how to get ratings, gain the desired emotions/attitudes they want, and create a designated mindset. This is a sick process but it's working and maybe this is why America is so wealthy; we trick, bribe and play to people's emotions and actions in such a way as to corrupt thoughts and make everyone become zombies to government's control.
What the hell am I doing?
OK, here's the deal. I worte this essay that was supposed to be 3 pages long, but by the time I was done, I had almost 9. So the stuff i took out, i saved, and im using it for this final paper. I thought it was interesting, in my history class, when we covered the consequences of the cold war in latin america. I also found out- what i said in my last blog- was that the US was so obsessed with keeping out communism, that they never took the time to support democracy. In the end- the US backed a whole shitload of dictatorships where the dictator made sadaam look harmless- and still not even 40 years ago, we were sending troops over there to "crush the rebel insurgency," in effect, we may have shot their 'Paulo Revere' or 'Jorge Washington.' my paper will most likely take on a tone similar to Rutherford's or Lakoff's in respect to the anti-dictatorial and anti-imperialist movements in some of these countries. I have a bunch of good shit to go on too (hence the reason i typed an extra six pages) We watched the movie "four days in September" about Argentine rebels who kidnap an american ambassador because they know it will gain ALOT of media attention, and because the government won't allow the press to cover and report on the bank heists they've pulled. it gets better... The one book we read was written BY the rebel assasins who tracked down a Nicaraguan dictator to perforate his limo with M-16s and then fire an RPG through the back window. This topic was inevitable to be the last paper I write for this class. So now you know what the hell I'm doing.
the book for today
resding the chapter, real time war, I thought to myself- whats the fucking point? the chaoter seemed to be about how inendated with the news and coverage we are with the war. It is not something i consider important and I already know that theres millions and millions of hours of TV footage of the war. I know where i can get it. the author's opinion on it is nothing to me and frankly i dont care.l theres more important things to talk about than the wide world of news. peace.
-s
-s
a week behind
on pg 61 Rutherford states: “Early in 2002 rumors hit the press that the Pentagon was playing with the notion of 'black propaganda,' the planting of false stories in the press, not in the United States but elsewhere in the world”
they did.
An organization called the Lincoln Group was independently contracted by the government for $5 million to “help inform Iraqis about the American-led effort to defeat insurgency and form a new government. One contract requirement was to get Iraqi publications to run articles written by the military”
“Early last summer, military commanders made Lincoln Group the main civilian contractor for carrying out an aggressive propaganda campaign in Anbar Province, known as the Western Mission project. Over the next several months, the military transferred tens of millions of dollars to Lincoln for the project, records show.”
(From NY TIMES: Quick Rise for Purveyors of Propaganda in Iraq 15 February 2006)
the interesting thing about the story is that the fellows running the company really knew nothing about what they were doing & actually profiteered greatly from the multi-million dollar contracts that they were getting.
A whole other wonderful side to managing the war.
they did.
An organization called the Lincoln Group was independently contracted by the government for $5 million to “help inform Iraqis about the American-led effort to defeat insurgency and form a new government. One contract requirement was to get Iraqi publications to run articles written by the military”
“Early last summer, military commanders made Lincoln Group the main civilian contractor for carrying out an aggressive propaganda campaign in Anbar Province, known as the Western Mission project. Over the next several months, the military transferred tens of millions of dollars to Lincoln for the project, records show.”
(From NY TIMES: Quick Rise for Purveyors of Propaganda in Iraq 15 February 2006)
the interesting thing about the story is that the fellows running the company really knew nothing about what they were doing & actually profiteered greatly from the multi-million dollar contracts that they were getting.
A whole other wonderful side to managing the war.
Chapter 4, Real Time War
I was more hooked to the tv when September 11th happened versus the beginning of the Iraq war, but I can understand why news addicts can't pull themselves away. It's much easier to sit down and soak in a slideshow of images instead of reading a newspaper or searching online, and once you see some aspect of the war or human interest story that is fascinating, you want to hear more and more and more. Although after a while, the amount of information can become overwhelming. After a couple days of being hooked to the tv after September 11th, I realized that I was seeing the same images over and over again, and perhaps they started to lose meaning... It wasn't real enough for me anymore.
In October I went to visit a school outside of New York City and we went to Ground Zero where there were still remains of the building, cars covered in ash, and signs up looking for lost relatives. Even though I saw some of these images on tv, actually being there was a more genuine experience. When television attempts to re-create reality, such as with reality tv shows, and with the Iraq war, it's never going to be as good as the real experience, so why even try? Reality TV shows are edited to show only the most dramatic and interesting scenes, and the coverage of the war is edited to not show the more gruesome details, and to center around the action shots and the strength of our troops. If we are going to watch the news, and accept it for what it is, then that's reasonable, but if it's going to be a replacement for our own realities, then that's a problem.
In October I went to visit a school outside of New York City and we went to Ground Zero where there were still remains of the building, cars covered in ash, and signs up looking for lost relatives. Even though I saw some of these images on tv, actually being there was a more genuine experience. When television attempts to re-create reality, such as with reality tv shows, and with the Iraq war, it's never going to be as good as the real experience, so why even try? Reality TV shows are edited to show only the most dramatic and interesting scenes, and the coverage of the war is edited to not show the more gruesome details, and to center around the action shots and the strength of our troops. If we are going to watch the news, and accept it for what it is, then that's reasonable, but if it's going to be a replacement for our own realities, then that's a problem.
I don't give a f***
One thing I've noticed, especially over the last few days, is a rise in apathy afflicting almost everyone i know. I read the chapter for today, and i thought to my self, what the hell am i going to write about? most of the time, there is asomething in the chapter that triggers at least something i can write about, but i just read and highlighted and didn't care. I read Rob's blog, and thought, cool, it's not just me. I'm not blaming Rutherford, the chapter did its thing the same way they all do, but i just don't give a damn.
I've realized and come to grips that I am the walking stereotype of my generation. If something isnt blaring techno music, covered in flashing neon lights, or fed directly to me, i'm not going to notice or care about it. I generally don't concern myself with global issues or anything, so - i dont care, but think about it, media coverage of events is the only way we hear about it. I think that as a society, we rely entirely on the media (news shows, internet, newspaper, magazines) to give us all of the information we would want to know - and it better have a picture of a sweet explosion or at least something to hook me. So along comes this war in Iraq. We have all these cool bombs and jets and tanks and guns and missles- and we're using them (hey, these are ok because at least we're stopping a madman from maybe possibly almost using them if he might have had them---right?). Im sold. You feed me explosion after gunshot after explosion you better bet I'm not changing the channel, at least until some boring suit comes on and starts rambling about policy. That's about the time that i realize I'm missing the Daily Show, and turn the channel.
If you're reading this, and you can't at least relate to it, you're either not being honest with yourself, or you can probably name a few people like this.
Like i said, i know what grabs my attention, thats not to say that i'm happy or proud of what does, but at least i'm honest. So, given what i just said, consider the guy in the book who would watch hours of war coverage on tv, of course news networks are going to try to cram more explosions and riots into their programs than their competitors. Duh, right? Well, if these news networks (keep in mind their lust for ratings) are spending so much time covering the war, and showing things on fire-----what are they not covering. Like i said before the media tells us what to care about, and if it becomes so centered on one thing, its gonna cut the other things out. think about it- with all the bullshit going on in the world right now, and all the problems that deserve our attention - America responds by getting into heated debate over...if it's wrong to pull the life support from a complete stranger. Well, the painful debate over right and wrong continued forever. and the media forced us to care. whether its right or wrong, we don't know, but you know what i think is wrong? The fact that we spent so much time, effort and money over this, when there are so many other things happening. Example: during the cold war, America, not only financially, but militarily too, supported dictatorships throughout latin america. The US was so concerned with keeping the Reds out, that they forgot to put Democracy in. This is a very true thing that happened, and we all paid for it with our tax dollars, and most of these dictators made Saddam look like a stand up chap. Meanwhile in the states we glance over the headline about "dscrepancies with foriegn realtions" to read the one that says "our bombs are bigger than Russia's." This is bad, pull the damn plug, america.
I've realized and come to grips that I am the walking stereotype of my generation. If something isnt blaring techno music, covered in flashing neon lights, or fed directly to me, i'm not going to notice or care about it. I generally don't concern myself with global issues or anything, so - i dont care, but think about it, media coverage of events is the only way we hear about it. I think that as a society, we rely entirely on the media (news shows, internet, newspaper, magazines) to give us all of the information we would want to know - and it better have a picture of a sweet explosion or at least something to hook me. So along comes this war in Iraq. We have all these cool bombs and jets and tanks and guns and missles- and we're using them (hey, these are ok because at least we're stopping a madman from maybe possibly almost using them if he might have had them---right?). Im sold. You feed me explosion after gunshot after explosion you better bet I'm not changing the channel, at least until some boring suit comes on and starts rambling about policy. That's about the time that i realize I'm missing the Daily Show, and turn the channel.
If you're reading this, and you can't at least relate to it, you're either not being honest with yourself, or you can probably name a few people like this.
Like i said, i know what grabs my attention, thats not to say that i'm happy or proud of what does, but at least i'm honest. So, given what i just said, consider the guy in the book who would watch hours of war coverage on tv, of course news networks are going to try to cram more explosions and riots into their programs than their competitors. Duh, right? Well, if these news networks (keep in mind their lust for ratings) are spending so much time covering the war, and showing things on fire-----what are they not covering. Like i said before the media tells us what to care about, and if it becomes so centered on one thing, its gonna cut the other things out. think about it- with all the bullshit going on in the world right now, and all the problems that deserve our attention - America responds by getting into heated debate over...if it's wrong to pull the life support from a complete stranger. Well, the painful debate over right and wrong continued forever. and the media forced us to care. whether its right or wrong, we don't know, but you know what i think is wrong? The fact that we spent so much time, effort and money over this, when there are so many other things happening. Example: during the cold war, America, not only financially, but militarily too, supported dictatorships throughout latin america. The US was so concerned with keeping the Reds out, that they forgot to put Democracy in. This is a very true thing that happened, and we all paid for it with our tax dollars, and most of these dictators made Saddam look like a stand up chap. Meanwhile in the states we glance over the headline about "dscrepancies with foriegn realtions" to read the one that says "our bombs are bigger than Russia's." This is bad, pull the damn plug, america.
Monday, April 03, 2006
From the dingy depths of my friend's basement (with beer in hand)
This book is pretty damn slanted. Rutherford approached the subject of the war and the Bush administration with the same bias that he rips on the news networks for possessing. I suppose that's neither here nor there, and anyway, since I don't like George W. Bush, I guess I don't care about that (plus, the book is for college, which I also don't care about).
The so-called "total coverage" of the war is, I suppose, a mixed blessing. It's good that the general public is at least somewhat informed of what's going on, and it's good that the armed forces have monitoring from a third party, no matter how sympathetic that third party might be. Nevertheless, when the media that feeds the public the information is inaccurate (much like my attempt at playing Led Zeppelin on my guitar), it's tough to make a case for round the clock war coverage.
I remember the surge of post 9/11 patriotism and I found it to be a bit trite. All of the sudden, people who couldn't tell you the name of the vice president and who bitched about high taxes and marijuana illegality hung flags from their cars and tied ribbons around the proverbial old oak tree. Everyone was fired up for the war on terror (which actually strikes me as a malapropism: isn't war terrifying, and doesn't it strike terror, so therefore, how can you fight terror with terror? You don't fight fire with fire, do you?)
In the same way, I remember how the media became enamored with the American serviceman. Not to knock the American Soldier (far from it; in fact, the friend who so generously gave me the beer(s) and let me write this nonsense on his computer served a year in Iraq), but he did become something of a larger than life character on the news. Embedded reporters rode in tanks, professing how professional and invincible and highly-skilled all the soldiers were. They were noble, too; here they were, fighting for both another country's freedom and to protect all us average slobs. The fact that all these servicemen were guys my age and who were more or less just like me (well, maybe their hair wasn't as cool as mine, but otherwise...) did nothing to damage their mythos. Toby Keith (he's a country singer) wrote songs about them, Hollywood made movies about them, and newscasters cheered them on. With retrospect it's easy to see that it's not objective journalism when the journalist is rooting for one side over the other. Can you imagine the outcry if ESPN SportsCenter said flat out "I want to see the Pittsburgh Steelers destroy the Seattle Seahawks in the Super Bowl?" That's the equivalent of what the US media did.
The other thing I remember about round-the-clock war coverage is that sometimes I lost interest. Oh, the first couple days with the explosions and the (carefully censored) carnage caught my attention, but after awhile, I found myself thinking more about my car or how I could get out of going to class the next day than Wolf Blitzter Reports. Once in awhile I'd find myself weighing the attractiveness quotient of the female reporter and not listening to her message. Eventually all the grainy green footage where I didn't know what was happening became an affront to my ADD, and I put on The Simpsons instead. CNN had a lot of time to fill between Exxon and BSFS commercials, and what they filled that time with, while war related, wasn't enough to hold my concentration. The truth became clear: war was very often boring.
In closing, that's gotta be 500 words, which is plenty, especially when my beer is empty. Rock on.
The so-called "total coverage" of the war is, I suppose, a mixed blessing. It's good that the general public is at least somewhat informed of what's going on, and it's good that the armed forces have monitoring from a third party, no matter how sympathetic that third party might be. Nevertheless, when the media that feeds the public the information is inaccurate (much like my attempt at playing Led Zeppelin on my guitar), it's tough to make a case for round the clock war coverage.
I remember the surge of post 9/11 patriotism and I found it to be a bit trite. All of the sudden, people who couldn't tell you the name of the vice president and who bitched about high taxes and marijuana illegality hung flags from their cars and tied ribbons around the proverbial old oak tree. Everyone was fired up for the war on terror (which actually strikes me as a malapropism: isn't war terrifying, and doesn't it strike terror, so therefore, how can you fight terror with terror? You don't fight fire with fire, do you?)
In the same way, I remember how the media became enamored with the American serviceman. Not to knock the American Soldier (far from it; in fact, the friend who so generously gave me the beer(s) and let me write this nonsense on his computer served a year in Iraq), but he did become something of a larger than life character on the news. Embedded reporters rode in tanks, professing how professional and invincible and highly-skilled all the soldiers were. They were noble, too; here they were, fighting for both another country's freedom and to protect all us average slobs. The fact that all these servicemen were guys my age and who were more or less just like me (well, maybe their hair wasn't as cool as mine, but otherwise...) did nothing to damage their mythos. Toby Keith (he's a country singer) wrote songs about them, Hollywood made movies about them, and newscasters cheered them on. With retrospect it's easy to see that it's not objective journalism when the journalist is rooting for one side over the other. Can you imagine the outcry if ESPN SportsCenter said flat out "I want to see the Pittsburgh Steelers destroy the Seattle Seahawks in the Super Bowl?" That's the equivalent of what the US media did.
The other thing I remember about round-the-clock war coverage is that sometimes I lost interest. Oh, the first couple days with the explosions and the (carefully censored) carnage caught my attention, but after awhile, I found myself thinking more about my car or how I could get out of going to class the next day than Wolf Blitzter Reports. Once in awhile I'd find myself weighing the attractiveness quotient of the female reporter and not listening to her message. Eventually all the grainy green footage where I didn't know what was happening became an affront to my ADD, and I put on The Simpsons instead. CNN had a lot of time to fill between Exxon and BSFS commercials, and what they filled that time with, while war related, wasn't enough to hold my concentration. The truth became clear: war was very often boring.
In closing, that's gotta be 500 words, which is plenty, especially when my beer is empty. Rock on.
Can't...Think...of...Title...
Ack, who is this person and what is wrong with him that he watches news from the time he gets home from work until midnight…who admits he’s watching the same thing over and over again? This is so the opposite of me that I can’t even fathom it. I feel compelled to ask questions in the manner of a bad essay introduction: Is he addicted to the flow of information? the experience of being imbedded by media in real-time war? just reality TV?
We all know that news is a lot more immediate since the inception of satellites and such, so that’s not it. Mr. Watch-TV-from-6-to-Midnight could get the same info online that he spends hours watching on TV.
I don’t get it; TV News drives me crazy. Yes, because it’s depressing; yes, because I’d rather be watching Scrubs. But also because all the war coverage is like watching a violent and badly-filmed home video, a “‘peek-a-boo’ world of disconnected images…featuring a type of discourse that abandons logic, reason, sequence and rules of contradiction” (81).
And because we get this home-video effect, we get “the illusion of being there, right when something was happening” (85). I really liked the passage comparing war coverage to cubism, because it reveals something a little deeper about this type of news. It forces us (viewers) to fill in the blanks, to find meanings between the lines and symbols, bringing us even closer mentally to what’s going on…giving us that creepy “voyeuristic kick” while still providing “a ‘safe and secret’ stimulation” from the “faintly forbidden intrusion” (86).
If that’s really what’s going on, I think Mr. Watch-TV-from-6-to-Midnight’s wife has a lot more to worry about than her husband’s news-watching hobby.
Ew, and can someone tell me what “war porn” is?
We all know that news is a lot more immediate since the inception of satellites and such, so that’s not it. Mr. Watch-TV-from-6-to-Midnight could get the same info online that he spends hours watching on TV.
I don’t get it; TV News drives me crazy. Yes, because it’s depressing; yes, because I’d rather be watching Scrubs. But also because all the war coverage is like watching a violent and badly-filmed home video, a “‘peek-a-boo’ world of disconnected images…featuring a type of discourse that abandons logic, reason, sequence and rules of contradiction” (81).
And because we get this home-video effect, we get “the illusion of being there, right when something was happening” (85). I really liked the passage comparing war coverage to cubism, because it reveals something a little deeper about this type of news. It forces us (viewers) to fill in the blanks, to find meanings between the lines and symbols, bringing us even closer mentally to what’s going on…giving us that creepy “voyeuristic kick” while still providing “a ‘safe and secret’ stimulation” from the “faintly forbidden intrusion” (86).
If that’s really what’s going on, I think Mr. Watch-TV-from-6-to-Midnight’s wife has a lot more to worry about than her husband’s news-watching hobby.
Ew, and can someone tell me what “war porn” is?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)