Virginia Moore's English Comp. Blog

Final One

2010-04-26T17:49:00.000-07:00

I wish I had a better idea on where to start this blog post, and wish I was more confident so I could end the blog with a bang.

Chapter 8: Page 95, “What is curious about these definitions is that they treat technology as application, capability, manner of doing, and specialized aspect, but not as a thing” (Slack and Wise). I though this chapter was interesting and pushed my mind to thinking about what exactly technology is. When I hear the word technology my mind automatically thinks of a computer and it is hard for me to think about how technology is way more than a computer. After getting the computer out of my head I tried to come up with something that was not a technology, and found that even harder. I am sitting in the library and looking around me I see books and book shelves, both which were made by machines with technology. The pencil in front of me was put together by a machine as well and the bottle of water next to my laptop. Technology is everywhere, and is a constant part of my life. I would define it as a necessity to my life. I think that I would be able to survive without it if I had never been introduced by now that I have experienced technology I do not think there is a turning back.

Chapter 9: The assumption that technologies are autonomous of each other is something that I would disagree with. They say that autonomous means separate or independent, and so they say technologies are independent of each other. An iPod could not work without a Computer to sync it to. Therefore these computers are related and depend on each other.

Chapter 10: I found the telephone example to be very interesting and something I had not thought about in our discussion of technology. The idea that the telephone is part of your phone conversation is something I would never have thought of but something very true. In a conversation all the elements influence the quality of the conversation. How a technology acts can result to the quality and the attitudes of the humans using the phone. Therefore the technology plays a key role in a conversation. The phone is the middle-man, or the mediator, so how it behaves still affects the attitudes by the users on the other ends. When a phone is messing up, it leads to angry users, which can affect how a conversation goes, and what comes out of the conversation. What if you were talking to someone about what airport to pick you up and due to fuzziness on the phone and a dropped call, the person you are talking to does not come to the right airport to bring you your passport you left at home, and so you end up missing you flight. Who would ever have thought to blame such an event on technology?

Chapter 11: So first off, I was really creped out to know about how many cameras there are in New York City. I am confused about this chapter and I am looking forward to our discussion in class about this. The quote, “If you don’t like what you see, don’t blame technology or the culture; understand the assemblage that maps technological culture” (Slack and Wise 132). What I got from this is that it is not the technology to blame but the way we got there. The evolution that led to this desire to always have technology is to blame.

So What? Technology whatever the definition may be is something that is an active part of my lifestyle and something I cannot imagine my life without.

Blogging is this class was not awful, but a lot of times, I just did not understand what to write about until class and after class I got a better understanding. I think that I could have had better and deeper blog if we wrote them after class.

WC: 667

Slack, Jennifer Daryl., and J. Macgregor Wise. "Defining Technology, Causality, Agency, Articulation and Assemblage." Culture + Technology: a Primer. New York: Peter Lang, 2005. 93-133. Print.

Not My Cup of Tea...

2010-04-21T21:18:00.001-07:00

I had high hopes for this book but this last chapter on the Unabomber was just a bore, and I did not get it really. I had never heard about the Unabomber before and now I am kind of scared to check my mail tomorrow. What I do not get is how the Unabomber has anything to do with technology, or how we can blame technology for his actions. I would love for you to explain in more in your comments, because maybe I just did not get it through the reading.

On page 88 it says that the Unabomber’s violence is more likely the result of his despair at what he sees at the totalizing of technicism.

I looked up technicism, and it is: an over reliance or overconfidence in technology as a benefactor of society. So what it sounds like to me, is that Mr. Crazy over here just got fed up in all the technology being produced, and maybe he was even jealous that he couldn’t come up with a genius invention so he decided to go psycho and blame technology for all the world’s flaws. So to make his huge attention grabbing statement he resorts to using bombs, which are a form of technology. I think that seems kind of hypocritical to use. Also he makes the major newspapers publish his articles that end up getting him caught. The think that bugs me more though is that fact that the invention of the printing press allowed his essays to reach so many readers and therefore he is supporting technology. I may be totally off in this idea and vibe I am getting but I just think he is pretty hypocritical.

As far as Slack and Wise I think this is a poor chapter for them, and maybe they just needed it for filler or something in their book.

But now, back to the idea of the blog post, I do not think that our society is worst because of the introduction of technology. I LOVE technology and think it is so cool at what we can develop. I think that technology has allowed our world to make so many advanced for our own good. I know that the Unabomber is using his violence actions to stress his feelings about technology and in that blames the Industrial Revolution but I feel that the Industrial Revolution was a positive thing to our society.

So What? I think that the Unabomber is a foe. I Just do not see how violence and technology have anything to do with each other, but would love to be proven wrong. In all, I just think that the Unabomber’s actions were not due to technology, but just a crazy personality or jealousy he has. I am not going to stop using my laptop or cellphone because someone claims it has violence, an author is going to have to come up with a much better and more pervasive argument that this one.

WC: 457

Slack, Jennifer Daryl., and J. Macgregor Wise. "The Unabomber." Culture + Technology: a Primer. New York: Peter Lang, 2005. 27-64. Print

Stepping on a Scale.

2010-04-19T22:13:00.000-07:00

As I have been reading about Progress and Technology in both English and History class I always find myself thinking that I feel that it makes us lazy. I was glad to see that on of the chapters focused in on that and convince. On page 27 “Furthermore, convenience has become a habit.” I think that is true and may become a defining part of our culture, as we discussed in a class in the past. I think this convince has made our society lazy and we have lost patience. I know I am extremely guilty of this, because just Sunday I was at restaurant and I became very frustrated when my food was not out in the time frame I wanted. Now this restaurant was making it inconvenient for me, and that is a principle that I think our culture focuses on. We like things to be handed to us and we do not like to go the extra mile. I think that this even makes us more apathetic, because if something is not explained easily or just handed to our generation, we are just not going to care. On page 28 it says. “However convenience becomes a problem when the value of convenience and the desire to achieve convenience come to dominate technological culture.” I think this statement summarizing my personal views on progress and convenience. I like the idea of aides to help ease our lives and such, but I do not think they should become such a crutch for our lives that we cannot function without them.

In the chapter about Determinism, I liked when it talked about how the automobile did not drop from the sky and force people to drive it (page 45). I think that our culture has to get to a place where we desires this crutch, or in other words convenience. The desire and market for a car had to slowly be developed and created. Luckily, Henry Ford did a good job because I do not think that we could imagine our life’s without a car to transport us from place to place.

The chapter about control seemed to link back to convenience for me. I think that we have allowed technology to control us because it was so much more convenient that way. I honestly do not see how it is possible to function without a airplane or automobile to transport me from place to place; although the world did go on and travel without cars. With the computer and cell phone, I cannot imagine my day without using these items of technology. I think I have falling in the flaw of my culture where I have allowed technology to control me and influence my life.

So What? Don’t get my wrong, I am not a Luddite or anything, but I do think that we need to find balance in what role technology has on us. I am doing my research paper on Facebook and online social networking and it is teaching me how much time and much of our thoughts and life we put on the internet. I am wondering how healthy that is and if it is a waste or not. In whole, I think that one of our cultures defining characteristics is that we let technology and the desire for progress to control us because it is so convenient.

WC: 562

Slack, Jennifer Daryl., and J. Macgregor Wise. "Introduction/Progress." Culture + Technology: a Primer. New York: Peter Lang, 2005. 27-64. Print.

Introduction

2010-04-08T08:04:00.000-07:00

It takes less than five seconds to find someone who participates in online social networking, and with that it would probably be harder to find someone who did not use the internet as a way of communicating. The online craze of Myspace, Facebook, Twitter, as well, as dating sites are revolutionizing the way humans go about communicating. The internet opens all kind of doors for ways to keep in touch with friends, or even strangers, at a level most people would have never have dreamed of in the years past. This always connected, and always in touch capability has allowed users to deepen relationships and reconnect with old friends, so that class reunions do not have to be the only time you remind yourself how thankful you are that you did not marry your high school sweet heart. Social networking, and specifically facebook has led to positive benefits in the well-being of its users by strengthening existing relationships, helping make new friends, and finding support from distance relationships.

(i bolded my thesis, I am struggling, so would appreciate any feedback!)

How Far is Too Far?

2010-04-05T16:03:00.000-07:00

I wish we had read this book at the beginning of the year, because my history class is Technology and Civilization, and we had to do an essay on progress, and I bet I would have done better on it if I had read this first. Anyways, I thought two things after reading chapter one. The first was, is progress making us lazy, and the second was, what are the trade offs of progress. I am going to focus on the trade offs and the idea that progress makes everything better.

In World War II there was a stalemate because all the countries all had the same technologies and therefore no one had an advantage over the other. To solve this problem the countries tried to develop new technologies. The technological solutions they came up with were: tanks, U-boats, airplanes, as well as new tactics of war. These solutions lead to the use of atomic bombs as a weapon and a change on view in the war. People now saw the war as total war and innocent civilizations were now targets of the atomic bomb. It was the obsession of progress that lead to this new idea, and that is what races the question I have for you, does progress, and advances in technology = a better life?

In the reading there is a quote that says, “ We also have to keep in mind that progress for some may mean a burden for others” (Slack 24). I think that when people get so obsesses with progress they will do anything to make an improvement or step in the future, that they sometimes overlook who it hurts. The example about the women who was fired because of the use of computers were more efficient than her is a good example. Is efficient more important than a person’s job? I think that is another question we have to ask ourselves.

So what? I find myself very convicted from these lessons because I am all for progress. The iPad came out Saturday, and to be honest I have no idea what all it really does, but it looks cool, so I want one. This desire for progress and convince is a driving force in Americans as well, as the world. I just feel that we need to examine our moral obligation, if we do have one, before we find ourselves only looking at progress.

WC: 403

Slack, Jennifer Daryl., and J. Macgregor Wise. "Progress." Culture + Technology: a Primer. New York: Peter Lang, 2005. 9-25. Print.

Reading: The solution?

2010-03-31T08:48:00.000-07:00

The more kids read out of school and in school, the higher their scores. (page 51)

This sentence really just getting my blood moving, because I feel like Bauerlein is saying is that, if I read enough I can score on my SAT or ACT and that way my life is set. It really bothers me when people think a test score defines you, or labels your intelligence. There is so much more that goes into what makes a person smart than if they score well on one test.

I think that because Bauerlein is an English Professor he is sick of his students not reading, and he is trying to make them feel like our world is falling to the ground because they are not reading as much as our elders, and by this guilt trip, maybe his students will somehow read. Reality check, students and kids, and kids would rather do things they enjoy than learning. Yes, sad I know, but learning about the anatomy of a cat, or the elements on the periodic table do not come high on my priority list, and because of that, does that make me dumb, or part of the “dumbest generation?” I do not think so.

I think that Bauerlein needs to understand that reading is not the only way to educate people and to make people smart. There are many other subjects in school that play a role in how intelligent we are. I feel that Bauerlein is just favoring English and that is why he writes these articles in this crazy book.

In high school I would read in school, and follow instructions from my teacher, but once I left school I wanted a break from it. I would go to dance class, or show choir practice, or watch tv, or spend time with my family because I felt that I had worked hard in school, so I could play hard. I feel like Bauerlein just wants me to be this girl with a book clued in front of my face, and from that I will become some genius and then all the world’s problems will be fixed. Sorry guy, but that is not going to happen.

I will give him some credit, because I agree that we do not read as much as our elders, and that does make me sad. I wish I loved to read like some people, and that I had the ability to curl up and just read all day, but my problem is that I find so many things more exciting and I become easily distracted. He acts like you can read anywhere and that it is the easiest activity on the planet. He says we can read anytime and instead we spend time on the computer or cellphones. Well, most of the time when I am on my phone or computer, it is in between classes, and there is not enough time to read and comprehend. Then when I am in my dorm room it is hard to read because my roommate has people to talk to and such. I just think Bauerlein is being too hard and extreme in this situation.

So What? I hope this post was not sloppy because I tried to go deep in my thoughts and explanation. I think that we need to be well-rounded students and members of society. I value myself as being a hard worker than being smart. I would rather be involved in activities and subjects I enjoy than spend time reading. I do not think we need to stop reading just because we do not like it, but I do think it is okay to spend time on other areas of your life.

WC: 621

Bauerlein, Mark. "The New Bibliophobes." The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (or, Don't Trust Anyone under 30). New York, NY: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin, 2008. 205-36. Print.

dumb or dumber?

2010-03-24T21:25:00.000-07:00

For some reason I did not find myself getting as angry with this article as I thought I would. Maybe that is because I found some truth in what he was saying, or there was fear inside me that we really are not as smart as we say we are. My issue with his argument, is how do you define what is smart or what dumb means?

I think that the author had a good amount of ethos to back his argument up since he was a professor at Emory, which is a highly ranked university. He realizes that our generation is loosing the large vocabularies and understanding of texts like our grandparents were able to be. I can use my own self as an example, that I feel that my choice of words to describe my emotions, is not as great as it could be, and I feel if I live fifty years ago I would have an advanced vocabulary.

I think the comparison on the brightness of the different generations is difficult because they have different types of education. Although our generation has more schooling, and more people attend college, they are not educated in life skills like past generations. My grandparents have much better social skills than me because they did not have text messaging and facebook to use, and therefore they are much more comfortable with face to face communication. I do not think that they are smarted because they can talk to someone better than me.

I feel our generation has made so many advanced in science and technology that we cannot be the dumbest generation, maybe the laziest, but not the smartest. I think that one thing we have lost is discipline and we have become apathetic to our world. In the years past, people have done what they were assigned or been told to do so and not think twice about it, and nowadays, students are going to find a way out of situations that they do not want to be involved in, or work they do not want to do.

Bauerlein attempts, and in my viewpoint, pretty much successes at making his argument. He has ethos from being a professor and dealing with students. Although he is not from our generation, he interacts a lot with them, and therefore seems to have a good grasp on what students are like these days. He also did a good job about using his argument to fire up is audience. I think that if I was angry after reading this piece I would defiantly be motivated to prove him wrong, and show how our generation is the SMARTEST yet!

So What? Although Bauerlein raises the drama over whether or not our generation is the dumbest to exist, he does raise enough anger through the article to motivate his readers, and therefore that encourages us to learn more. I do feel convicted from his writings, and feel that I am not as smart as I would have been if I had been born in a previous generation. I am sure this will upset some of you readers that I agree, but I got to be honest.

WC_520

Bauerlein, Mark. "No More Culture Warriors." The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (or, Don't Trust Anyone under 30). New York, NY: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin, 2008. 205-36. Print.

Did you know facebook gets more hits than google?

2010-03-22T21:06:00.000-07:00

Google has become a term that the world is all familiar with, and a clutch that we can use to answers are questions as fast as we can type them. I would say that Google is making us lazy, over making us stupid. I can type anything, in any order, including misspell words, and more than likely I will get the answer I am looking for.

“Bruce Friedman, who blogs regularly about the use of computers in medicine, also has described how the Internet has altered his mental habits. “I now have almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the web or in print,” he wrote earlier this year.”

I think this is one of the most important sentences of the article because I think that is the most relevant of the results Google is having on my life. If I am looking for an answer to a question, and the first result is too wordy, I am going to find another one that answers the question with fewer words. However if there is no other option, readers have gotten to the point where they are so lazy they cannot even read the whole article, or book or blog. Now with websites like sparknotes on the Internet, there is the ability to be familiar with a subject without ever reading the book.

I found myself, being a testament to the statement above, as I too, struggled to read this whole article word for word. I guess you can say I am a product of google. I was blown away when I started to realize how frequently I use google without even realizing it, and it blew my mind that it is free for me to use it. How neat is it that I get all the answers I could ever want, and I don’t have to pay a dime.

Another important thing that has come from the rise of google, and just the internet in general is how people judge sites.

“The Net’s influence doesn’t end at the edges of a computer screen, either. As people’s minds become attuned to the crazy quilt of Internet media, traditional media have to adapt to the audience’s new expectations. Television programs add text crawls and pop-up ads, and magazines and newspapers shorten their articles, introduce capsule summaries, and crowd their pages with easy-to-browse info-snippet.”

Since I was at one point in Graphic Design, I am the person who doesn’t use a website unless it looks good. Tacky clipart, and annoying colors are a major turnoff to me, and the website loses my business. The rise of the internet has opened doors for new forms of advertisements. Businesses who are not on the internet are looked down upon and looked to be out of touch. It raises the question about how defining the internet is to your success, and is it healthy to use the internet as a way for us to gain information? What do you think?

So what? I feel that the Internet is a great thing, and I cannot imagine my life without it. I have become so obsessed with the Internet that I freak out when it doesn’t work. I make puppychow as a snack very often, and use the recipe online. There are only 4 ingredients and so simple, but I never remember them exactly because I know that I can just google the recipe. The fact that google is affecting my memory, makes me worry about what potential I am missing out on and how the internet is really affecting my lifestyle.

WC: 600

Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making us Stupid?” Atlantic Magazine July/August 2008: 1-9. Html..

I do, do you?

2010-03-04T08:39:00.000-08:00

Today is a special day; in face today is one of my favorite days out of the entire year, and for some reason I have a feeling that tonight will be a very special night.

It all began twelve years ago, when H1N1 became a pandemic so severe that President Obama ordered every American to be divided into sections to help protect our country. The elderly were taken to Florida where they would be placed in large subdivisions where multiple families would share a home. Widows and Widowers were placed together by their eye color as a way to organize them all. People over 65 would not be given any treatment and vaccines because they were viewed as a lost cause and would be dying the future anyways.

Married couples that had already been struck with the disease or people over 21 with a strong immune system were taken to Wyoming where they could live together and attempt to carry out a normal life until the disease took their lives from them. Although they were not the target group, medicine that needed to be experimented with was given to them as a way to test.

Young children that were under the age of five were all taken into hospitals across the country and were monitored carefully by nurses and doctors who wore white space like suits so that they would not get any of the germs into their system. The children got no affection or love, and spent their time in hospital beds watching videos produced by the government instilling principals of Universal Health Care, and whatever other bills they were trying to push prior to this pandemic.

And then there was my group. Ages 6-21 that had not been affected yet were taken into an underground society where we tried to fight the disease. This cave was massive, and made out of hard cement, it had airtight doors, and scanners we had to walk through to get into. There were no windows, so no natural light shown through, all lighting was from light bulbs that hung from the ceiling. We spent hours and hours learning and researching to figure out how to fight this illness. After a leak in the walls of the cave, the Swine Flu began to take lives of the group that was suppose to be the strongest of everyone. The government ordered us to live in small cubicles so that we could not spread this disease any more. We had a bed, a bathroom, a desk, and a computer, and a full research lab to test out vaccines and medicines. Because I was sheltered from the outside world I began to get extremely lonely and missed my mom and dad very much so. After doing my 8 required research hours of the day I began to search the internet for ways of communication, and that was day that changed my life forever.

I came across this website called Facebook, and was very confused at what it was. It told me to enter my email, name, and location, and so I did because it told me to, and I was so use to following someone else’s directions. I began to search the website and it asked me to put a picture of myself up on my homepage. I realized I did not have a picture of my on the site and then began to think I had been in this cave for so long that I did not really know what I even looked like anymore. This website blew my mind, and each day I would do my work as fast as I could so that I could so that I could spend my day searching through this galaxy of people and finally be connected to a source of people. One day in my hours of searching and reading I came across, Benjamin Rectnor, he was twelve like me, and had joined the GC Network, (Government Cave), I was so excited to see someone in the same place I was and I clicked the “add friend” button. I was somewhat confused in how you could just someone add a friend to your life? Was it like buying friends, you just click who you want to be your friends, and they were?

Benjamin Rectnor did not confirm me on facebook for 17 days, and those days were the worst days of my life. I dreamt about him every night, and would check my Facebook hourly; waiting for an email saying we would be friends. It was the 18th day I got a email and Benjamin became my friend. After that day, I messaged him saying I too, was in the GC program and asked him about what he thought about it and how he was feeling. This conversation lasted hours and hours, and then it eventually turned into days. Word spread out this new site, and pretty soon the whole GC was on the site and we were all able to communicate with each other. With Facebook I has connections with my peers and my soul begin to fill back up and repair the holes I had before.

It was my 18th birthday that the H1N1 cure was released, and it took another six months to get the medicine out to the world, but once it was given out, we were allowed to return to our “normal” life. Most of our parents and grandparents died from the illness, so with a bunch of sheltered (literally) kids on the street we had no knowledge of what to do. I had forgotten how to speak because it had been so long. It was then found that everyone had forgotten this verbal language and therefore none of us could work in offices. I found an apartment and set up my new life in San Diego, California. Benjamin and I had continued to talk and he told me that he had a special surprise planned for me that night. He too lived in San Diego, although we had never met face to face. We both got online at 7:30 and ate a prepackaged hamburger at the same time, typing about what it was like and such. All of our food was now mailed to us weekly, and came in packages. We talked for hours and had a date like any other couple would, just all over the computer. At the end of the night he proposed to me and i said "YESS!!" We got married over the internet and have continued to be married for several years, although we still have no met one other face to face.
Tonight we have decided to have a baby, so it will be the first time we have ever met before. I am beyond nervous as I have not seen a real human in at least a decade and do not know how to communicate in person.....

The Secrets of Stalking

2010-02-24T20:08:00.000-08:00

I think it may scare you to know how often I use google. Since our classroom is a “safe space” I am going to confess one of my talents, of ‘stalking,’ but do not judge me too fast. I am not going to hunt you down and do that kind of stalking, I just like to know information about someone. I will admit that through the power of google I can show you Shaquille O’Neal’s house and his address. Crazy Right?

As I think about my actions I wonder if that is really appropriate and okay that all this information is available to whoever wishes to access it. I will admit that I facebooked Professor Campbell before our first class. The sentence in the article that stinks out to me the most is, “But this search engine that fields 150 million queries a day is of no use is helping us determine how much information we deserve to know about one another.” The word deserve is what hits home to me. Do I DESERVE to know your background, and your house address, and what you look like? I barely know you. But with google’s accessibility you really have no choice. I have googled my aunt once I found out a secret I had never known before. Now maybe I did deserve to know that, but is that fair to her? I personally do not think so. I think you could link google to the increase in children being raped and abducted because crazy men have the access to information to find them. Now think if medical records were online too, and somehow that was linked, think how much information could be available to the common person. I do not think that some stranger deserves to know about my health.

I am not here to offer a solution to solve this issue, but want to bring up the issue. If google has been around about ten years and already has progressed this much, in another 10 years I have no idea what it will be like. Somehow we are going to have to find a way to secure information so that our personal information does not end up in the wrong persons hand. To play Devil’s advocated, I do think that as a person I do deserve to know if my doctor has been sued before for medical malpractice, and by having google at my fingertips (literally, with a blackberry) I can find that information and make that choice. I just think that we need to find a common place on what information should be available to people, without turning America into a place of communism.

So What? I guess what I am saying, is I find google a great resource and love that I can sit at dinner and google the celebrity who plays Troy Bolton in High School Musical, but the fact that I can see what celebrities house looks like and where they live, as well as learn secrets about my roommate or teacher (just kidding!) is an issue that I feel needs to be limited. I am interested to see what you think about this though.

WC: 529

Swidey, Neil. "A Nation of Voyeurs."37-44. Print.

Technology, the root to all evil?

2010-02-15T20:38:00.000-08:00

Can technology really solve all problems?

“The 21st-centurey technologies are so powerful that they can spawn whole new classes of accidents and abuses” (Joy 4).

NO. I say that with a strong no. Although there are plenty of people who think that technology is a solution to every issue that ever arises, there is no way that technology will help me with every issue that arises. I think as a society we use technology as a fall back to help keep our country progressing. Which leads to my question, that is there a connection between technology and progress? I think that we can defiantly say yes in this situation. The next question I propose is does it lead to a better life? That question does not follow with a steady answer. Joy mentioned genetics in food several times and that involves my main focus in this blog post. Although the hybridization of new crops gave us new varieties, it led to severe consequences that I feel are overlooked.

Joy quotes, “ Genetic engineering promises to revolutionize agriculture by increasing crop yields while reducing the use of pesticide” (7).

Although this idea seems to be all good, I find it necessary to look at the trade offs in this situation. By having hybrid crops, the developing world can no longer compete with developed nations. Small farms also began to disappear because they could not compete. Maybe, it is because I my dad works for a small business, but this idea scares me and makes me rethink my opinion about technology. In the past, I have been almost for all technology advances, but after developing my own personal opinion I am finding myself standing up for the less heard. Although it sounds backwards, the changes in agriculture, ultimately led to hunger and malnutrition across the global. Now, that does not sound like a positives trade off of technology.

In concluding, I leave you with a So What? that ask you what is progress and where does it come from? I would say progress comes from competition, as producers want to have an edge of a product, and therefore they evolve a product to have the latest technology. I do want to make sure you understand, that I am all for technology and that I think it helps us function better many times, but I am not for technology when it hurts our society and leaves a greater window between the rich and the poor.

Word count: 413

Joy, Bill. “Why The Future Doesn’t Need Us.” Wired News. August 2004. HTML. 9 February 2010.

(sorry for the bold, it just will not go away!)

Adler's Mistake

2010-02-01T16:26:00.000-08:00

I think that Jerry Adler, who happens to be the senior writer of Newsweek, a magazine read by people who make on average over $70,000, could easily be talking about himself in the article “The Rise of the Overclass: How the New Elite Scrambled up the Merit Ladder” (The State of News Media). By beginning the article by telling me that I have probably never heard of the term, overclass, which he argues the whole article, makes me think he is very cocky, and writing this article to gain publicity through drama he is about to stir up. Therefore, I think that Adler is trying to humiliate and reveal the frivolous lifestyle of the “overclass” men and women because he knows that will stir up drama and bring about ratings, ultimately providing Alder with more money in his pocket.

The medium Alder uses is a newspaper, but not just any newspaper. The same website that I mentioned above stated, “A typical Newsweek reader is a bit older and richer still: 46.8 with a median income of $73,204 a year, the highest among the traditional newsweeklies” (The State of News Media). I find it pretty funny that Adler writes about this overclass group in his newspaper, when a lot of his readers would clearly fit in this group. Yes, it is possible that he wanted to bring awareness of this issue and educate his readers about this reputation they were creating, but that seems pretty unlikely. I do not think that Adler chose the right audience to present his argument to.

“Fortune magazine recently proclaimed on its cover the alarming news that the new standard for executive pay is ‘four times your age’, in other words, $120,000 at the age of 30” (Adler 28). Here is an example of Adler’s use of logos to convince his readers that the overclass group of people are living unfair lifestyles than the rest of us, and that they should in return change their ways to please the underclass, and middle class. What is so strange to me is he is a senior editor, and I imagine that is similar to an executive.
I like the quote, “ Can anyone doubt that arugula would quickly be seen for the bitter, stringy vegetable it actually is if Burger King began offering it on sandwiches?” (Adler 30). Here he goes again, making the reader feel inferior to him. I say this because, I imagine many of you (my classmates) have no idea what arugula even is. I did not until last year when I asked what the disgusting green stuff was on my salad. This is in fact, another appeal to his authority (like the opening sentence), because as a reader, I am feeling inferior to the author.

In the concluding paragraph Adler makes an attempt to pull the sympathy card by saying, “ And let’s wish the future resident long and happy lives, in contented ignorance of people like Michael Brennan” (Adler 30). I feel that this is his best attempt with rhetoric throughout the entire article. By using pathos, the readers can appreciate what all they have been given and realize that others do not have as much.

So What? I think that although Jerry Adler may make a fair attempt at making an argument about the overclass and the issues that come from their wealth, he missed his target audience to get his argument moving. By presenting his argument to the so-called “overclass” he describes, I feel that nothing will ever come from it. If he truly wanted to begin a change, he should have brought his ego down a bit and presented a similar version of this article to the lower classes. I feel that by getting them railed up, he would do more good. Although there may be some member of the overclass who will feel the pathos he used, most are satisfied with their way of life, so after they read his article, they will probably just recycle the newspaper. So in conclusion, Adler may have had a good article and idea, but he missed the right audience, so we may never know.

Word Count: 705

Adler, Jerry. "The Rise of the Overclass: How the New Elite Scrambled Up the Merit Ladder- and Wants to Stay There Any Way It Can." Science and Technology. (1995): 26-30. Print.

"Audience." State of News Media n. pag. Web. 1 Feb 2010. .

can duct tape mend this hole?

2010-01-27T22:18:00.000-08:00

I sit here beginning my blog at 11:41, not by choice, but because I could not decide where to begin my blog. Maybe I will pull a Consigny and just jump right into a conversation. But before I start my argument, I wanted to point this out:
“We want results, not rhetoric. We want cooperation, not partisanship.”
That quote came from Bob McDonnell's response to the State of the Union and thought it was funny since it mentioned rhetoric and that has been the focus of our class discussion so far.

Anyways, back to technology. I had never heard of the digital divide until now, but I googled it and it apparently is a big topic (shows how much I know!). Honestly, I may sound like a spoiled brat (which is totally not me, I promise!), but I feel most people in Auburn may feel the same way as me, and that is they cannot imagine a person without access to technology such as a computer or Internet. Last year when they were advertising the upcoming switch to digital cable, i quickly became annoyed with the frequent ads explaining the switchover that was about to occur. Our local news station then went out into the the community and interviewed people, and opened my eyes that there are plenty of people who do not have access to the Internet, television, or computers still.

“Social inequality was redefined as a problem of access to technology” (Light 12). So I have a new question. Are we choosing to segregate and create minorities not based on skin color, but on access to technology, because it sure sounds like it to me? It is almost impossible to go to college without having a laptop. So if the price of a regular laptop was not a burden in itself, you then have Dell, and Mac, and whatever other brands are out there and therefore you have another opportunity to judge your peers on where they stand just based off of the laptop they use. Wow. What a world. My point, I fee,l is backed up in this quote as well, “ However, a careful reading of our history suggests that we should pause before assuming that educational, economic, and social inequalities will be eliminated, or even significantly mitigated, by simply increasing the availability and use of computers” (Light 11). From what I took away from that, is that even if we all owned or had access to a computer, someone, somewhere will come up with a way to judge or create classes based on your type, brand, or maybe even color.

I am jumping to another issue in this “divided gap” controversy that I think is very interesting. “Almost 40% of the population has lower literacy skills, and yet few websites follow the guidelines for writing for low-literacy users. Even government sites that target poorer citizens are usually written at a level that requires a university degree to comprehend” (Nielsen 1). Nielsen says on that same page, “Lower literacy is the Web's biggest accessibility problem, but nobody cares about this massive user group.” It appears that the literacy is the main root for this technology gap, and therefore I believe that the real root of this problem may just need to be solved in teaching people to read. It seems pretty evident that education is the compass that points the way to life’s road, and therefore by having educated people, our world will understand technology and therefore we will no longer have this divided gap.

Lastly, I know we all think we should close the gap. But really, why should we? Maybe some people like to be in that old timey life style, without technology to worry about. My thoughts are we need to have technology to progress and became a better country. When we think about all the good that comes with technology it out weighs the bad. I feel it is important for citizens to be given the opportunity to have knowledge about what is going on in the world. Now, I do understand, that because of technology we have more ways the government can control what we hear and how we hear it, but that is another issue. I just feel that for this to be the land of opportunity, we need to give everyone a chance to learn and experience the great things technology has to offer.

So What? Now you read all those words or you are cheating and trying to just read this part to get the main point of my blog post. Well here it goes, prejudice is going to be everywhere we allow it to be and secondly, the root of the divided gap is in literacy, so if we educate the public we can diminish this gap. And in closing, after we educate the people, we need to give them a way to learn and grow through using technology.

Word count: 641
Nielsen, Jakob. “Digital Divide: The Three Stages.” Alertbox. 27 Jan 2010. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/digital-divide.html

Light, Jennifer S. “The Digital Divide.” Science and Technology Reader. Cengage Learning. USA. 2009.10-17

Monkey in the Middle

2010-01-25T20:12:00.001-08:00

I thought about the weekend and a situation where I used rhetoric and where it played a key role in my behavior. I babysit for a family regularly and they currently have two children, and a baby boy was on his way. Last Wednesday, I got a text from her older sister saying the baby’s heartbeat has stopped and that the baby had died. So here it is, the time for rhetoric to come in and score the winning touchdown of the football game. I am going to use a football analogy to take you through this, so just hold on and go with it. Lets just say this is like a first down, and the coach chooses to use pathos. After I heard the news I sent the families a note with my condolences and telling them how sympathetic I felt. The tug on their emotions worked and appealed to pathos and therefore the ball moved down the field about seven yards. It is now second down, and the coach chooses to use logos, although he does not understand that it is not the correct time for logos. Logos in this instance would be sending the mom facts of how often this occurs and that she is not the only one. If only the coach listened to Bitzer, he would understand that the correct situation most be present to use rhetoric, and this situation was not appropriate to pull logos out of the old playbook. It is now down to the vital third down, and the coach goes in for ethos. Luckily, he makes a better decision. Ethos involves me telling the family how I have had two cousins die prematurely so I know somewhat how they are feeling. Thankfully, the rhetoric pulls through, and the team wins the game. I know that was pretty silly, but I thought it was a good situation presented that contained an exigence and therefore I had to react.

I thought it was interesting that Consigny would compare rhetoric with art. We think of paintings, music, and poetry all as art, so I think it does make sense to call our words art. Consigny states “ The art of rhetoric must meet the condition of receptivity, allowing the rhetor to become engaged in individual situations without simply inventing and thereby predeterming which problems he is going to find in them” (181). I believe that Consigny is leaning to Bitzer’s side by saying that you must be completely removed from the situation but I would disagree and say that it is near impossible not to by biased in a situation you are involved in.

My main take home point is this: I believe that a situation is created, and as rhetors we respond, and we respond being mindful of our own thoughts, and therefore use our opinions and beliefs to influence the word choices, and response to the situation.

*I am still struggling with this idea to go “deeper.” I do not feel I am a good enough rhetoric, and English person, or philosopher to find these key topics we discuss in class. It worries me because I want to get a good grade, but I feel that this stuff is over my head!*

(word count: 540)

Consigny, Scott. “Rhetoric and Its Situations.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 7.3 (1974): 175-186.
Bitzer, Llyod E. "The Rhetorical Situation". Philosophy and Rhetoric. 1968: 300-310.

Vatz wins the gold

2010-01-18T20:41:00.001-08:00

I liked the article by Vatz a lot better right of the start. I am not sure if I would like anyone who argues with Bitzer or if this really was closer to how I view rhetoric. I found this article confusing at well, but it was still more clear, and I felt Vatz was less pompous in his writing. On the first page Vatz says, “No situation can have a nature independent of the perception of its interpreter or independent of the rhetoric with which he chooses to characterize it.” I like this statement because we view an event or situation through our own eyes and describe it the way we choose to describe it. I agree with Madison’s statements. “Vatz believes that the world is full of many ambiguous events and the way people learn from them is from other people. So it's hard to come across the real truth when people choose certain parts of the events to tell or to place significance on.” I think that was nicely put and a lot easier to understand then Vatz’s statement. When we are telling the story of how our car was totaled we are going to tell it differently. The girl whose car was totaled is going to plea that she was doing nothing wrong, although she was texting and not paying attention to the road and had to slam on her breaks when the light suddenly turned red. The guy behind her who hit her, will say that he had no options because of the women’s quick reaction of a situation she should have seen coming. This biased and two-sided incident shows the ambiguousness (is that a word?) of rhetoric and how rhetoric does not purely lie in the situation but how the situation is presented. In the CNN story we read in class, we read about how the reporter was fired for blogging. Well, the writer acts like he was innocent and that CNN was the big bad wolf in the setting because he wants the readers to feel empathy for him, and then of course, go check out his blog. Well, if I was CNN, I too would confront this guy who is blogging and in some ways, hurting and bashing his company. All of this is just ways that perception hold a great weight in rhetoric. All of this goes with another sentence from Vatz that I believe is a continuation of the quote from Richard Weaver, “ Clearly the adjectives into which a situation are communicated cannot be the real situation; they must be translation.” That relates back to the car accident, because since the police office was not there to witness the wreck, the stories he hear are just translations of the situations. I am eager to continue discussing this concept of rhetoric, because I feel I learned a lot from others viewpoints and ideas last class.

Vatz, Richard E. "The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation." Rhetoric and Philosophy. 1992: 461-467
Barnes, Madison. "Vatz." http://bitzerbcrazy.blogspot.com/

All about Bitzer

2010-01-13T13:46:00.000-08:00

Being a novice with rhetoric I found this article very confusing and hard to understand. One paragraph that stuck out to me was on page 308 when they explained the complex situation of a courtroom. In the article Bitzer explains how the jury is not random and that their relationship to each participant is known. The judge is prepared and the counsel knows the ultimate objective. In class we talked about how nothing Professor Campbell does is on accident and specifically went through her outfit choice. That same concept fits to the courtroom situation as every word, movement, person is chosen for a specific reason. What confused me if that there was no mentioning of pathos, ethos, or logos in these examples. I learned rhetoric by evaluating a “thing” and listing the ways that “thing” appeals to each kind of rhetoric. I guess it is just a new level I need to reach to understand and hopefully through practice I will reach a greater understanding.

Another part of the essay I liked was how a situation will either mature or decay. For example, I like to buy my clothing from places that people may not have ever heard of. I like them to be unique and do not really care for others to have them. If can be expensive for me to continue buying my clothes like this because to dress in this way, I normally have to buy my clothes for boutiques which tend to have higher prices. As I begin to support myself and buy my clothes I will either, make it part a priority to have my clothes be special and arrange my budget accordingly, or I will just decide to go with the flow, and sacrifice my style for my budget. My desire is going to persist, or decay, and I have not decided which will take place. I guess in my decision I am sending another rhetoric message out there, and that is if I care about my clothes and worldly things or if I am more focused on the inside.

I guess the biggest part of rhetoric is to understand that is it everywhere. In music, books, advertisement, hair color, types of coffee, and what kind of computer you have. It comes at no surprise that f rhetoric is found everyone no wonder we live in a world that places labels and stereotypes on everyone.

Bitzer, Lloyd. "The Rhetorical Situation."