I want to take a brief moment here. I have gained insight and have been opened to a new way of life. I always imagined Africa as dirt roads and houses with grass roofs. Again, I know realize the power of media, as the media most often, (at least for me), portrayed Africa in the fashion of dirt roads and houses having grass roofs. Despite taking an anthropology class taken here at Whitewater, the video in class still lead to my amazement of seeing Africa having skyscrapers and a road system like we have in the US. I was surprised to see that Africa looks Westernized and indeed has buildings likewise to downtown Milwaukee. To me this was surprising. "Africa has cities that look like US cities?" I thought to myself.
The idea of representation and learning how to question was an aspect I will walk away with as new material.
The two concepts I struggle with, due to internal beliefs and personal philosophy on life are as follows: Born free die in chains. AND Give up our freedom. My faith tells me that we are born in chains and can die free. My faith seems to give a more optimistic view. As mentioned in an earlier post, I would rather say we Use our freedom. We use our freedom to vote and to accept being represented by members of congress.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
New Technologies Outsource Academic Work
Hone your writing skills. Learn how to conduct research. Become knowledgeable in your desired field. What do the following statements point towards? A college education, and perhaps more importantly the result of a college education. By writing papers a college student is able to learn and gain more knowledge about their field. Their writing skills will improve and they will understand, from the research paper at hand, how to conduct research for future papers.
I hope the tone of the beginning of this blog expresses the foolishness of having someone else write your paper. College students who pay others to write their papers are foolish. How will they learn ANYTHING? They simply won’t.
Upon reading research for a project at hand, the research and literature that doesn’t pertain to the project at hand is still valuable as students will know where to go to gain information on subjects in their major related field. By having someone else do your work you simply won’t know where to go when you graduate and have to write a paper or give a speech for your job. I suppose these students will have to pay someone else to do their work in the real world as well. Paying others to write your papers means you are losing on learning how to find research and where to get research from. Your writing skills certainly are not improving either, so then how do you plan to separate yourself, or be like the professionals in your field who did not cheat? My feedback to the article Cheating Goes Global as Essay Mills Multiply is foolishness. You simply are not learning anything new about your field or even getting to better understand and gain knowledgeable about your field by having other people do your work.
For those in the article, Cheating Goes Global as Essay Mills Multiply, that expresses paying someone to write your papers isn't unethical are foolish. Therefore, cheating must be ethical then. Another way of learning for smart and hardworking students? Why don’t those smart and hardworking students put hard work into finding articles already written about their subject for reference instead of foolishly throwing money away for a paper they “won’t even use?” Those students can save money by looking up articles in databases for reference.
I hope the tone of the beginning of this blog expresses the foolishness of having someone else write your paper. College students who pay others to write their papers are foolish. How will they learn ANYTHING? They simply won’t.
Upon reading research for a project at hand, the research and literature that doesn’t pertain to the project at hand is still valuable as students will know where to go to gain information on subjects in their major related field. By having someone else do your work you simply won’t know where to go when you graduate and have to write a paper or give a speech for your job. I suppose these students will have to pay someone else to do their work in the real world as well. Paying others to write your papers means you are losing on learning how to find research and where to get research from. Your writing skills certainly are not improving either, so then how do you plan to separate yourself, or be like the professionals in your field who did not cheat? My feedback to the article Cheating Goes Global as Essay Mills Multiply is foolishness. You simply are not learning anything new about your field or even getting to better understand and gain knowledgeable about your field by having other people do your work.
For those in the article, Cheating Goes Global as Essay Mills Multiply, that expresses paying someone to write your papers isn't unethical are foolish. Therefore, cheating must be ethical then. Another way of learning for smart and hardworking students? Why don’t those smart and hardworking students put hard work into finding articles already written about their subject for reference instead of foolishly throwing money away for a paper they “won’t even use?” Those students can save money by looking up articles in databases for reference.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Freedom
Throughout class it has been said we, Americans, give up our freedom to exist. I have been struggling to accept this way of viewing Americans. Instead I feel the phrase should be changed to we use our freedom to exist.
The phrase, using our freedom, can be say that people use their freedom to commit a crime or use their freedom to be a law abiding citizen of the United States of America. I would not say Americans give up freedom be a law abiding citizen but they are choosing to use their freedom to abide by the laws. Giving up freedom sounds depressing and sounds wrong, as if Americans are letting go of their freedom or surrendering their freedom. Surrendering to what, society? Is society that threatening Americans must surrender to their own society? Society is not battling Americans, if anything Americans are taking a stand against society and at times fighting society not surrendering.
I also find it contradicting to say Americans give up their freedom in a free society. Americans use their freedom in a free society. A person commits crimes because this is a free society and criminals aren’t subject to public humiliation that took place in Iraq when it was under control by a dictator. Criminals use their freedom to disobey the law. So I feel criminals are not giving up their freedom to disobey the law but using their freedom to disobey the law.
I am using my freedom to go to college, to fish, hunt, weight lift, drive where I please, when I please to. I am also using my freedom to submit to the authority of Barack Obama and his staff to represent me. I am not giving up my freedom. Someone who acts outside the normal way of society is using their freedom to do so. I am using my freedom to instead of being a nudist to wear clothes. I am not giving up freedom to fit society standards but using my freedom to do so.
The phrase, using our freedom, can be say that people use their freedom to commit a crime or use their freedom to be a law abiding citizen of the United States of America. I would not say Americans give up freedom be a law abiding citizen but they are choosing to use their freedom to abide by the laws. Giving up freedom sounds depressing and sounds wrong, as if Americans are letting go of their freedom or surrendering their freedom. Surrendering to what, society? Is society that threatening Americans must surrender to their own society? Society is not battling Americans, if anything Americans are taking a stand against society and at times fighting society not surrendering.
I also find it contradicting to say Americans give up their freedom in a free society. Americans use their freedom in a free society. A person commits crimes because this is a free society and criminals aren’t subject to public humiliation that took place in Iraq when it was under control by a dictator. Criminals use their freedom to disobey the law. So I feel criminals are not giving up their freedom to disobey the law but using their freedom to disobey the law.
I am using my freedom to go to college, to fish, hunt, weight lift, drive where I please, when I please to. I am also using my freedom to submit to the authority of Barack Obama and his staff to represent me. I am not giving up my freedom. Someone who acts outside the normal way of society is using their freedom to do so. I am using my freedom to instead of being a nudist to wear clothes. I am not giving up freedom to fit society standards but using my freedom to do so.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Chapter 11
In my opinion news is something people crave and want to know. I feel to know what is going on around in the world allows a person to feel at one with society or feel like they fit in with society since that person then is experiencing life and reading about life outside their own.
Different media may consume a person’s life during different time periods in history. It is astonishing how spoiled Americans are today when it come to the ease to accessing news. At one time the newspaper consumed and brought all news to the person. Now a shift is away from the newspaper and to the internet. With the internet news has become so abundant that people can be connected with news at any time, and at their own time. In the life of newspapers the audience had limited access to newspapers and newspapers had limited access to information. So the news source had drastically changed form the birth of newspapers to know.
With today’s news source, the internet, there seems to be unlimited access to news as opposed to limited access to news. The internet has much access to information. Reading news was expensive at one time now reading news is free granted a person has access to a computer and the internet.
Writing styles have changed as well from the past to now which is interesting. How a person writes news and explains events has changed. It used to be in first person and there was no only news as opinion was added.
Newspapers went from class medium to mass medium. The newspaper was more democratic, and I take this to mean it was more about the people’s voice, the American people’s voice. I say this because when newspapers went to a mass medium, newspapers become more oriented toward the popular. Becoming more oriented toward the popular caused the content to be focused more on human interest and the press geared itself to promote the ideology of democracy and interest of the common people. So because the newspaper was for the common people I would say it was more about the people’s voice.
I have found it simply astonishing how much information and news Americans in 2009 are exposed to. How readily available news is to Americans is unbelievable. To think it was not always like this is unbearable that news was once expensive and it was only local. Now newspapers have national sections and global sections that tell what is going on around the world. And there are daily editions of such sections. The part we/I may take for granted is that its free. Hop on to the internet and read what you like when you life for how long you like, then print it off and keep it for your records. Not by a computer? Use your cell phone or media players such as the iTouch. American has become addicted to news and checking news may have become compulsive.
Different media may consume a person’s life during different time periods in history. It is astonishing how spoiled Americans are today when it come to the ease to accessing news. At one time the newspaper consumed and brought all news to the person. Now a shift is away from the newspaper and to the internet. With the internet news has become so abundant that people can be connected with news at any time, and at their own time. In the life of newspapers the audience had limited access to newspapers and newspapers had limited access to information. So the news source had drastically changed form the birth of newspapers to know.
With today’s news source, the internet, there seems to be unlimited access to news as opposed to limited access to news. The internet has much access to information. Reading news was expensive at one time now reading news is free granted a person has access to a computer and the internet.
Writing styles have changed as well from the past to now which is interesting. How a person writes news and explains events has changed. It used to be in first person and there was no only news as opinion was added.
Newspapers went from class medium to mass medium. The newspaper was more democratic, and I take this to mean it was more about the people’s voice, the American people’s voice. I say this because when newspapers went to a mass medium, newspapers become more oriented toward the popular. Becoming more oriented toward the popular caused the content to be focused more on human interest and the press geared itself to promote the ideology of democracy and interest of the common people. So because the newspaper was for the common people I would say it was more about the people’s voice.
I have found it simply astonishing how much information and news Americans in 2009 are exposed to. How readily available news is to Americans is unbelievable. To think it was not always like this is unbearable that news was once expensive and it was only local. Now newspapers have national sections and global sections that tell what is going on around the world. And there are daily editions of such sections. The part we/I may take for granted is that its free. Hop on to the internet and read what you like when you life for how long you like, then print it off and keep it for your records. Not by a computer? Use your cell phone or media players such as the iTouch. American has become addicted to news and checking news may have become compulsive.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Media and Social structure
When I hear virtual realities I think of made up realties or realities not taking place in the real world. I don't feel that virtual realties are the same as the real world here and now.
Also, I do feel that "The media play a significant role in rewriting our cultural scripts, altering our perceptions, our social relationships and our relationships to the world." This is evident in the 80's or even in the 70's when there was a generational gap present. The generational gap occurred as parents did not care for the music their children listened to, and the kids did not care what the parents thought and this turned into a form of rebellion. During these decades the youth separated themselves from the norm, they rebelled from their parent’s rules and about the idea of sex. The media I feel had influence as musicians or media people helped push this idea of rebelling from the older way of living or the traditional way.
So in this way society was transformed cultural scripts. The culture wasn’t waiting until marriage to have sex and having sex before marriage was in the mainstream. Society started to stray away from the traditional setting of waiting until marriage to engage in intimate forms of connection.
Also, I do feel that "The media play a significant role in rewriting our cultural scripts, altering our perceptions, our social relationships and our relationships to the world." This is evident in the 80's or even in the 70's when there was a generational gap present. The generational gap occurred as parents did not care for the music their children listened to, and the kids did not care what the parents thought and this turned into a form of rebellion. During these decades the youth separated themselves from the norm, they rebelled from their parent’s rules and about the idea of sex. The media I feel had influence as musicians or media people helped push this idea of rebelling from the older way of living or the traditional way.
So in this way society was transformed cultural scripts. The culture wasn’t waiting until marriage to have sex and having sex before marriage was in the mainstream. Society started to stray away from the traditional setting of waiting until marriage to engage in intimate forms of connection.
Beauty and Perception
To a certain extent there is universal recognition of beauty, however each individual person has their own concept of beauty so the entire perception of beauty is not universal.For example some say girls with blonde hair and blue eyes are gorgeous, in other eyes brunette hair and blue eyes are gorgeous. Some girls may find a man’s beauty in his muscular structure, for example some girls may look at his abs; others may look at his arms.
What is beautiful to one may not be beautiful to another. The outside appearance may not have anything to do with beauty. Things such as personality and the hobbies liked may spark attraction and the physical appearance will not be a heavy factor. The way one speaks may be beauty to one beholder.
I feel the American culture places to much emphasis on physical looks, whereas in other cultures the physique of a person may not matter as much. This goes back to media, films and shows in the media show their definition of beauty. Americans seem to agree and incorportate this meaning to their individual definition of beatuy therefore confirming that to a certain extent there is universal recognition of beauty.
What is beautiful to one may not be beautiful to another. The outside appearance may not have anything to do with beauty. Things such as personality and the hobbies liked may spark attraction and the physical appearance will not be a heavy factor. The way one speaks may be beauty to one beholder.
I feel the American culture places to much emphasis on physical looks, whereas in other cultures the physique of a person may not matter as much. This goes back to media, films and shows in the media show their definition of beauty. Americans seem to agree and incorportate this meaning to their individual definition of beatuy therefore confirming that to a certain extent there is universal recognition of beauty.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
New York Post Cartoon
Cross out the above thought for a moment. I feel that the cartoon is offensive and is conveying the president in a negative manner. I also am aware of the fact of people not accepting the fact of having a non-white president. Pictures hold intangible concepts. Racism is an intangible concept. However, pictures also hold intangible concepts brought forth by metaphors, leading me to my next point.
To say the cartoon is racist is too easy. Perhaps it is not racist at all. It can be looked at as terrorists plotting against Obama. Maybe the cops represent terrorists and the monkey represents Obama. Although the monkey represents Obama, Obama represents America in the cartoon. So the terrorists are plotting against America. The cartoon can be understood in two or more ways. The cops and monkey are metaphors. And Obama is symbolizing not the black race, but America and democracy.
In the Webster’s Dictionary, a definition of monkey is as follows: a ludicrous figure. Here, there is no reference to an animal. To be a ludicrous figure is to be inconsistent and not conform. Perhaps the artist pictured the American people as seeing Obama’s plan as inconsistent with what he preached before becoming elected. So, the artist believes people to be unhappy with him and paints this message in a cartoon.
The fact that civil rights leaders and elected officials said it echoed racist stereotypes of blacks as monkey’s shows two things: a country who has been through tough prejudice and discrimination times, and that racism is still present in America today. I feel that if racism wasn't present today, such a cartoon wouldn’t automatically be described of as being racist or showing racism.
Misrepresentation means that facts are subject to numerous interpretations. The multiplicity of interpretations means multiple means of representation, which is the complex process of using data to represent a testable truth. With that said, let’s say that the civil rights leaders and elected officials are narrow minded for seeing this cartoon as racist.
Here’s an interesting thought: Evolution states we evolved from monkeys, apparently. Since this belief is widespread and enforced in schools, why the up-roar? Perhaps the monkey conveys Obama's immaturity and inexperience about the presidency. Therefore, a monkey was chosen to show immaturity because Obama has not evolved into an experienced president yet. Besides, Monkey’s are regarded as the closest animal to a human, and Evolution tells me that all humans are basically glorified monkeys.
To say the cartoon is racist is too easy. Perhaps it is not racist at all. It can be looked at as terrorists plotting against Obama. Maybe the cops represent terrorists and the monkey represents Obama. Although the monkey represents Obama, Obama represents America in the cartoon. So the terrorists are plotting against America. The cartoon can be understood in two or more ways. The cops and monkey are metaphors. And Obama is symbolizing not the black race, but America and democracy.
In the Webster’s Dictionary, a definition of monkey is as follows: a ludicrous figure. Here, there is no reference to an animal. To be a ludicrous figure is to be inconsistent and not conform. Perhaps the artist pictured the American people as seeing Obama’s plan as inconsistent with what he preached before becoming elected. So, the artist believes people to be unhappy with him and paints this message in a cartoon.
The fact that civil rights leaders and elected officials said it echoed racist stereotypes of blacks as monkey’s shows two things: a country who has been through tough prejudice and discrimination times, and that racism is still present in America today. I feel that if racism wasn't present today, such a cartoon wouldn’t automatically be described of as being racist or showing racism.
Misrepresentation means that facts are subject to numerous interpretations. The multiplicity of interpretations means multiple means of representation, which is the complex process of using data to represent a testable truth. With that said, let’s say that the civil rights leaders and elected officials are narrow minded for seeing this cartoon as racist.
Here’s an interesting thought: Evolution states we evolved from monkeys, apparently. Since this belief is widespread and enforced in schools, why the up-roar? Perhaps the monkey conveys Obama's immaturity and inexperience about the presidency. Therefore, a monkey was chosen to show immaturity because Obama has not evolved into an experienced president yet. Besides, Monkey’s are regarded as the closest animal to a human, and Evolution tells me that all humans are basically glorified monkeys.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
