Hello.
The topic that I have read about for this “Jigsaw Activity” is on the issue of censorship (rather obviously). This censorship, however, is more centered around 9/11 and terrorism related omissions. More specifically, The Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is an act that was passed to allow the government to look at the books that you buy, check out from the library or look for while you are at a public library. This was implemented, they say, because one of the suspected terrorists of the 9/11 crisis did research in a public library. If this was a debate topic, I would suggest that the resolution be as follows: The Patriot Act goes directly against our First Amendment rights.
This is really important. Think about it this way, the government could go back and looking through records of any book that you ever checked out or bought. While you are in a public library, a free space to use a computer, the government can legally ask the library for records of everything that you did while you were there. Now, most of you probably never pick up a book unless directly asked (and even then…), but you DO use the computer and you wouldn’t want the government looking through your history and accusing you of terrorism based on those accounts. Because of recent changes in the legislation, the FBI can now look at these files without a reason (if they have one) and they certainly don’t have to give a reason to the library staff. I have a right to what I read. That is NONE of the government’s business. This is a direct breach of our privacy and shouldn’t even be legal.
The reasons against this, I have given above, but to recap, this is a violation of our privacy; we have a right to do whatever we want. The government should have very good reasons and evidence before going into this stuff. As Nancy Chang put it, “The act grants the executive branch unprecedented, and largely unchecked, surveillance powers.”
On the other hand, we have John Ashcroft, ex-attorney general, who advocated for The Patriot Act, perhaps because he was the one who wrote it. He says that the government doesn’t care what types of books we read and that there are only 11,000 FBI agents in the USA and they are not going to waste their time looking over our shoulders at the books we read. The administration, he says, believes in the First Amendment.
Now, that might be true, but I don’t believe what he said about the FBI. Why have a Patriot Act if they really don’t care what we are buying? Why even allow that option if they honestly don’t care? Therefore, I think that he must be lying. What other purpose would the act serve?
Goodbye.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Monday, April 23, 2007
We Need The Press
Hello.
We are doing more on censorship, but this is in a different area, one I am not going to support: censorship of the press. I believe that there are some things that need to be censored (see the last post I wrote), but I think that the American people have a right to know what is happening in the world, we can’t and the government can’t keep what is happening from the people. The piece I read agreed with this position.
The first thing that this piece brings to my attention is a case involving a man named Maher Hawash, who was (and still is, perhaps) in jail for a reason that was not explained to him. He had been “caught” by ex-attorney general, John Ashcroft who had been proven in the past to detain these people without reason as HE (not a jury) suspects them of terrorism. These people were generally detained without warning or reason.
The second thing was the case of a man named Jose Padilla, who, like Mr. Hawash, was kept without reason and without a trial. He was unable to see a lawyer or his family and has not been told why he was detained in the first place. And, this is the worst part, he is not the only one. This has happened to lots of people and the government has been trying to keep it under a “blanket of secrecy”.
And last, it is the press’ job to protect our rights and keep us informed. Without them, the American public would be unable to make informed decisions. If they don’t know what’s happening, they can’t do things like vote and our rights would crumble, without anyone knowing anything about it.
Even though I advocated censorship in the last piece that I wrote, I don’t believe in all censorship. I don’t believe that you should be able to show porn on a family channel on Saturday mornings. I do, however, believe that things like the press (and books) should not be censored. We need to know what’s going on. If the government doesn’t want us to know something, we should be worried about what they are trying to hide as they probably shouldn’t be doing it.
Goodbye.
We are doing more on censorship, but this is in a different area, one I am not going to support: censorship of the press. I believe that there are some things that need to be censored (see the last post I wrote), but I think that the American people have a right to know what is happening in the world, we can’t and the government can’t keep what is happening from the people. The piece I read agreed with this position.
The first thing that this piece brings to my attention is a case involving a man named Maher Hawash, who was (and still is, perhaps) in jail for a reason that was not explained to him. He had been “caught” by ex-attorney general, John Ashcroft who had been proven in the past to detain these people without reason as HE (not a jury) suspects them of terrorism. These people were generally detained without warning or reason.
The second thing was the case of a man named Jose Padilla, who, like Mr. Hawash, was kept without reason and without a trial. He was unable to see a lawyer or his family and has not been told why he was detained in the first place. And, this is the worst part, he is not the only one. This has happened to lots of people and the government has been trying to keep it under a “blanket of secrecy”.
And last, it is the press’ job to protect our rights and keep us informed. Without them, the American public would be unable to make informed decisions. If they don’t know what’s happening, they can’t do things like vote and our rights would crumble, without anyone knowing anything about it.
Even though I advocated censorship in the last piece that I wrote, I don’t believe in all censorship. I don’t believe that you should be able to show porn on a family channel on Saturday mornings. I do, however, believe that things like the press (and books) should not be censored. We need to know what’s going on. If the government doesn’t want us to know something, we should be worried about what they are trying to hide as they probably shouldn’t be doing it.
Goodbye.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
You Beleive in Censorship Too
Hello.
Censorship is a really interesting issue, because the more I read about it and the more that I learn about how it effects our lives, the more I think that we do really need some form of censorship. I know, you are permitted to gasp, but let me ask you this, and this is a direct quote from Jonah Goldberg, “Do you think that ABC should be allowed to run triple-X porn on Saturday morning?”
No? I thought not. Well, and this is also Jonah Goldberg’s point, then you believe in censorship as well. If you believe that you shouldn’t be able to distribute the work of someone else, their book, their music, their characters, then you also believe in copyright laws, which is a form of censorship.
Now, the part that gets tricky is hate speech. Do you believe that members of the Ku Klux Klan should be aloud to spout white supremacy speeches? I personally don’t think so, but if you limit them, you are really starting to put a lid on what people can and cannot say. You are really cutting down on the American idea of everybody can say whatever they want.
The last point I would like to make, and borrow again from Goldberg, is that in modern times, censorship has become something that we gasp at. We think, “Censorship? No!” Even the word “censorship” has come to mean “the bad kind of censorship in which the government takes away all of our rights.” But perhaps, it’s not really such a bad thing.
The second article, if I am to continue my pervious opinion, is actually rather naïve-sounding. They say that hate speech should be aloud and even the Ku Klux Klan members and the Hitlers of the world should be give the right to say whatever they want, whenever they want. Of course, they make no mention of the good kind of censorship and rather deem it all as “bad”.
I would like to draw a parallel. America is a free country in which we are aloud to do whatever we want. However, there are laws to keep us safe, so we are not entirely free. But, would you have the government get rid of the law that says that it’s illegal to kill another human? Would you have them get rid of the law that says that you can’t steal things? No, I don’t think so. Censorship is the same way. We ARE a free country and you can say almost anything you want, but we have to have the censorship laws, and if you thought about it, you would see that there are forms of censorship that everyone believes in.
The article advocating free speech makes some very good points. We have come a long way from jailing people for handing out anti-war leaflets, in fact, we have the right to protest and use it frequently. I believe in that right. I believe that we need to be able to express our dissent, what I don’t believe is that it is so black and white. More a shade of grey, I would say.
This second viewpoint also says “freedom of expression…is…‘the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom.’” And I have to agree. Without this, our society, a democracy, would crumble, but there are some cases in which censorship is a pillar of our society, one of the things that is keeping us afloat. Pull out this building block and we will truly crumble into anarchy.
Goodbye.
Censorship is a really interesting issue, because the more I read about it and the more that I learn about how it effects our lives, the more I think that we do really need some form of censorship. I know, you are permitted to gasp, but let me ask you this, and this is a direct quote from Jonah Goldberg, “Do you think that ABC should be allowed to run triple-X porn on Saturday morning?”
No? I thought not. Well, and this is also Jonah Goldberg’s point, then you believe in censorship as well. If you believe that you shouldn’t be able to distribute the work of someone else, their book, their music, their characters, then you also believe in copyright laws, which is a form of censorship.
Now, the part that gets tricky is hate speech. Do you believe that members of the Ku Klux Klan should be aloud to spout white supremacy speeches? I personally don’t think so, but if you limit them, you are really starting to put a lid on what people can and cannot say. You are really cutting down on the American idea of everybody can say whatever they want.
The last point I would like to make, and borrow again from Goldberg, is that in modern times, censorship has become something that we gasp at. We think, “Censorship? No!” Even the word “censorship” has come to mean “the bad kind of censorship in which the government takes away all of our rights.” But perhaps, it’s not really such a bad thing.
The second article, if I am to continue my pervious opinion, is actually rather naïve-sounding. They say that hate speech should be aloud and even the Ku Klux Klan members and the Hitlers of the world should be give the right to say whatever they want, whenever they want. Of course, they make no mention of the good kind of censorship and rather deem it all as “bad”.
I would like to draw a parallel. America is a free country in which we are aloud to do whatever we want. However, there are laws to keep us safe, so we are not entirely free. But, would you have the government get rid of the law that says that it’s illegal to kill another human? Would you have them get rid of the law that says that you can’t steal things? No, I don’t think so. Censorship is the same way. We ARE a free country and you can say almost anything you want, but we have to have the censorship laws, and if you thought about it, you would see that there are forms of censorship that everyone believes in.
The article advocating free speech makes some very good points. We have come a long way from jailing people for handing out anti-war leaflets, in fact, we have the right to protest and use it frequently. I believe in that right. I believe that we need to be able to express our dissent, what I don’t believe is that it is so black and white. More a shade of grey, I would say.
This second viewpoint also says “freedom of expression…is…‘the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom.’” And I have to agree. Without this, our society, a democracy, would crumble, but there are some cases in which censorship is a pillar of our society, one of the things that is keeping us afloat. Pull out this building block and we will truly crumble into anarchy.
Goodbye.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Don Imus and What He Said to Infuriate Us All
Hello.
I’m not sure if you have heard this, but in the news lately, along with much information about the shooting in Virginia, has been the more controversial issue of Don Imus. For those of you who don’t know, Don Imus made a racial slur on public airwaves, calling a basketball team that had lost the NCAA finals words offensive particularly to African Americans and to women.
The NAACP, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, supports the removal of Imus by CBS and MSNBC claiming that this is the first step to the larger issue of eradicating all racial slurs. And they are not just taking on the radio, but also modern music, TVs and movies. They also are concerned not only for racist remarks, but also bigamy, homophobia and other common insults that spread on our airwaves, TV channels and movies.
Frank Rich, on the other hand, an ex-theater reviewer and a writer for the New York Times in the op-ed section, is not so sure that the issue is black and white. He believes that what Imus said was wrong, but Imus had made many racist, sexist and homophobic comments in the past, including against Rich’s own minority, the Jews. I don’t believe that Frank Rich is saying that Don Imus shouldn’t be censored, he disagreed with much that he had said, but he believes the way to fight back is with more free speech. For example, opinionated editorials.
Now, to what I think. Frank Rich has some very good points, however, I think that some of this is being blown far out of proportion. Thirty-three people were killed in Virginia and we are just as concerned with a racial slur uttered on the radio as with the deaths of all those innocents.
However, I also think that some of the things that are out there are REALLY offensive. The worst of these are slurs that are passed off as jokes. For example, the term that has recently fallen into modern usage, “gay” as a synonym for “stupid”. People can laugh over this in their own circles, but some things are not to be joked about. Just as religion, money and politics are not to be talked about in polite conversation, homosexuality, religion and race are not things that should be joked about.
And last, there are some things out there that are OK speak out against in public. Some are calling for the removal of Rosie O’Donnell because of her comments against Chinese Americans, Christians and Gorge Bush. I think this a bit of an odd list. Christians and Chinese Americans are both groups of people. You can’t speak out against either group until you know every person from that group and can say, with utter certainty that EVERY Christian or EVERY Chinese American is “bad”. Otherwise, you are making a horrible generalization. On the other hand, however, you have Bush. It is easy to speak out against him, as you can directly disagree (or agree) with something that he says, or his opinion on a certain issue. Then, you are not making such a broad oversimplification.
Goodbye.
I’m not sure if you have heard this, but in the news lately, along with much information about the shooting in Virginia, has been the more controversial issue of Don Imus. For those of you who don’t know, Don Imus made a racial slur on public airwaves, calling a basketball team that had lost the NCAA finals words offensive particularly to African Americans and to women.
The NAACP, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, supports the removal of Imus by CBS and MSNBC claiming that this is the first step to the larger issue of eradicating all racial slurs. And they are not just taking on the radio, but also modern music, TVs and movies. They also are concerned not only for racist remarks, but also bigamy, homophobia and other common insults that spread on our airwaves, TV channels and movies.
Frank Rich, on the other hand, an ex-theater reviewer and a writer for the New York Times in the op-ed section, is not so sure that the issue is black and white. He believes that what Imus said was wrong, but Imus had made many racist, sexist and homophobic comments in the past, including against Rich’s own minority, the Jews. I don’t believe that Frank Rich is saying that Don Imus shouldn’t be censored, he disagreed with much that he had said, but he believes the way to fight back is with more free speech. For example, opinionated editorials.
Now, to what I think. Frank Rich has some very good points, however, I think that some of this is being blown far out of proportion. Thirty-three people were killed in Virginia and we are just as concerned with a racial slur uttered on the radio as with the deaths of all those innocents.
However, I also think that some of the things that are out there are REALLY offensive. The worst of these are slurs that are passed off as jokes. For example, the term that has recently fallen into modern usage, “gay” as a synonym for “stupid”. People can laugh over this in their own circles, but some things are not to be joked about. Just as religion, money and politics are not to be talked about in polite conversation, homosexuality, religion and race are not things that should be joked about.
And last, there are some things out there that are OK speak out against in public. Some are calling for the removal of Rosie O’Donnell because of her comments against Chinese Americans, Christians and Gorge Bush. I think this a bit of an odd list. Christians and Chinese Americans are both groups of people. You can’t speak out against either group until you know every person from that group and can say, with utter certainty that EVERY Christian or EVERY Chinese American is “bad”. Otherwise, you are making a horrible generalization. On the other hand, however, you have Bush. It is easy to speak out against him, as you can directly disagree (or agree) with something that he says, or his opinion on a certain issue. Then, you are not making such a broad oversimplification.
Goodbye.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
The Argument For Censorship (By Plato/Socrates)
Hello.
We are back on our Plato trend. We are now reading a bit in which Socrates (Plato) becomes an advocate of censorship. I think that this part of the republic in particular is hard to read, and agree with, as in a modern society like ours, censorship, though in many ways a part of our life, is generally looked down upon. Thus, this slightly radical line of thought is a bit hard to believe.
Following in my usual pattern, I choose not to answer any of the proffered questions, but instead create my own. My question is, “Can all literature be boiled down to three main categories: those in which there are only honorable men, no women, little or no representation, or dialogue, and no sound effects (such as that of an animal, or the rain), those in which there are some dishonorable men, some women, some dialogue and some sound effects, and those in which all of the above are prominent?”
I think that while it is true, and many forms of literature can be put into one of these categories (think back to the books you have read. Can they be put into at least ONE of these? Most likely.), that if you boil down things to this essential of a form, you are missing the point of the art.
Think. If I were to divide up the books I have read, I could put them into these categories, but the books that fell into the “suitable” (according to Socrates (Plato)) category would be few (VERY few, or perhaps none, for I can think of no books, off the top of my head, that have NO female characters), and certainly not my favorite books. Would that not be the case for you as well?
The books that we find enjoyable are the ones that best represent life. Life is not made up of only men, and only the “good” kind, dialogue-less “scenes” and utter silence to fill the gaps. Even now, as I type this, I can hear my dog, the wind, and the clacking of keys. All of these would be absent in the books that Socrates (Plato) suggests would be suitable. That doesn’t accurately represent the way we live, and would therefore be rather dry.
Also, I would like to talk, briefly, about these conditions that Socrates (Plato) has set. First, and perhaps this bothers me chiefly because of my gender, but why, why on earth, would Socrates want to exclude women from these ideal plays of his? What is wrong with women? If he means, as I think that he might, that we are a temptation to men, that is not chiefly our fault. No, the blame lies at the doors of men, themselves. It is their desires that cause trouble, just as much as it is that of the women. If he thinks that women are weak, as I might be led to believe from his passage on page 90, section e, “Far less can we permit representation of women in sickness or love,” he is wrong again. Men are just as susceptible to fall in love as women are, they are just as susceptible to sickness as well, and therefore, this, as well, is an unfair claim.
Next, Socrates (Plato) excludes the use of “bad men”. I think that this is a slightly odd condition as well, though I have to admit that I am nowhere near as outraged as I was about the comment about women. I think that “bad” men should be encouraged in literature in this society of Socrates’ (Plato’s). If a man or woman can learn from the mistakes of other men and women, they are less likely to make the mistake themselves. Also, I can think of no interesting story that I have read (ever, perhaps) that did not have some sort of villain in it. We, as a race, love to see the triumph of good over evil.
There are more problems I have with Socrates’ (Plato’s) qualifications, but they are a bit pickier and so I will refrain for boring you all.
Goodbye!
We are back on our Plato trend. We are now reading a bit in which Socrates (Plato) becomes an advocate of censorship. I think that this part of the republic in particular is hard to read, and agree with, as in a modern society like ours, censorship, though in many ways a part of our life, is generally looked down upon. Thus, this slightly radical line of thought is a bit hard to believe.
Following in my usual pattern, I choose not to answer any of the proffered questions, but instead create my own. My question is, “Can all literature be boiled down to three main categories: those in which there are only honorable men, no women, little or no representation, or dialogue, and no sound effects (such as that of an animal, or the rain), those in which there are some dishonorable men, some women, some dialogue and some sound effects, and those in which all of the above are prominent?”
I think that while it is true, and many forms of literature can be put into one of these categories (think back to the books you have read. Can they be put into at least ONE of these? Most likely.), that if you boil down things to this essential of a form, you are missing the point of the art.
Think. If I were to divide up the books I have read, I could put them into these categories, but the books that fell into the “suitable” (according to Socrates (Plato)) category would be few (VERY few, or perhaps none, for I can think of no books, off the top of my head, that have NO female characters), and certainly not my favorite books. Would that not be the case for you as well?
The books that we find enjoyable are the ones that best represent life. Life is not made up of only men, and only the “good” kind, dialogue-less “scenes” and utter silence to fill the gaps. Even now, as I type this, I can hear my dog, the wind, and the clacking of keys. All of these would be absent in the books that Socrates (Plato) suggests would be suitable. That doesn’t accurately represent the way we live, and would therefore be rather dry.
Also, I would like to talk, briefly, about these conditions that Socrates (Plato) has set. First, and perhaps this bothers me chiefly because of my gender, but why, why on earth, would Socrates want to exclude women from these ideal plays of his? What is wrong with women? If he means, as I think that he might, that we are a temptation to men, that is not chiefly our fault. No, the blame lies at the doors of men, themselves. It is their desires that cause trouble, just as much as it is that of the women. If he thinks that women are weak, as I might be led to believe from his passage on page 90, section e, “Far less can we permit representation of women in sickness or love,” he is wrong again. Men are just as susceptible to fall in love as women are, they are just as susceptible to sickness as well, and therefore, this, as well, is an unfair claim.
Next, Socrates (Plato) excludes the use of “bad men”. I think that this is a slightly odd condition as well, though I have to admit that I am nowhere near as outraged as I was about the comment about women. I think that “bad” men should be encouraged in literature in this society of Socrates’ (Plato’s). If a man or woman can learn from the mistakes of other men and women, they are less likely to make the mistake themselves. Also, I can think of no interesting story that I have read (ever, perhaps) that did not have some sort of villain in it. We, as a race, love to see the triumph of good over evil.
There are more problems I have with Socrates’ (Plato’s) qualifications, but they are a bit pickier and so I will refrain for boring you all.
Goodbye!
Monday, April 16, 2007
Wonderful Comments! (Thanks!)
Hello.
Long time no posts, eh? Spring break has been glorious. It’s a little hard getting back to this, but ah well.
The assignment today is to examine and take apart the comments that have been given to us. I have chose a few here, talk a bit about the post they were referring too and then what was so great about them.
First, Laura Mitchell left this on a post I wrote about the rain. It was supposed to be something that we loved; I love the rain, that’s what I wrote about. If you want to read the whole thing, it’s titled “Listening, Waiting, Watching”. Here is the comment that Laura left me:
“Kit, this was soooooooooo awesome. I love the way you personalize (er what ever it's called when you give inanimate things human traits.) But you took it to another level when you actually gave the trees voices, so they were human. You really do that well, especially the paragraph about the sky breathing. OH! It's personification. So, you're personifications the best part of the whole page. I knew you liked the rain but this really makes it obvious that you are in love with it, and really wish it rained more often. You make the rain seem rare and beautiful thing (I guess it is in San Diego), I really loved that. I don't know what other to say besides 'this is really good'. I'm a bit jealous myself. Kudos!”
First, I was really flattered to find this comment left on something that I had written. It’s obvious from everything about the comment that she really liked the piece. But the best thing about it was that she didn’t just say that she liked it, though she says that in the last couple of lines, she really goes in depth about what she liked. She says, “But you took it to another level when you actually gave the trees voices, so they were human.” in reference to what she had already said about personification. Thanks!
Second, this comment was left by Chris Connell. I chose it because he corrected something that I said in my post that was not true. This was helpful for my personal understanding, even if I never did go back and change it. The post was called “Fahrenheit 452 (oops!), pp. 40-68” (that it’s called “542” is a mistake. I might go and change it.)
“Wow this was really good Kit. I actually read it all! (yay for me) I really admire your take on the book and I agree with a lot of what you say. One thing I would like to clarify for you. When you were talking about the woman being burned at the stake for "hearsay". In the book it actually says that she was burned for "heresy" which means: opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, esp. of a church or religious system. Makes a little more sense now doesn't it?”
Thank you Chris for correcting my mistake. This was helpful to me! I’m glad that you liked it!
Next up is Beth Kurtz, commenting on my piece called “Myth, Religion or Cult?” This was a piece that I wrote on the side, it had nothing to do with school. This topic was one that Beth and I had discussed in the past, and so we were both very interested in the topic.
“Kit kit kit... I really enjoyed your lengthy and thourough comment on my rage entry. I saw this one so bare and commentless and couldn't help to express my opinion. I do remember us having this very conversation a little while ago. I must say that I see complete truth in the point you are making. I think it is not at all ridiculus to question christianity, or judeism(?) or buddhism or any other relion the same way we question myths. The only REAL difference between the two is that that the people who believed in myths are no longer alive. They were just as devoted to them as many people are now to religion. I guess this is because it gives them something to believe, something to follow. Or maybe they were never really given a choice, so it's just second nature to them. They don't even think to question it because thats just how it has been their whole life. (hmmm... sound a bit like F451?) I'm sure you are at least vaguely familiar with a certain quote from John Lennon where he stated that they(The Beatles) were bigger than Jesus. If you read the full statment(which most people neglect to do) he says that Christianity will shrink and vanish. While this sounds ridiculous to us now, in a thousand years, who says this won't really happen? It happened with Greek myths didn't it? He also says something like Jesus wasn't bad, but the disciples being the ones who ruined it, because they twisted it around. This isn't really relevant, but I liked that part. Anyways... I also think it is interesting that religions such as Christianity and the practices ascociated with it have very pagan roots. This being ironic becuase how strongly paganism is rejected among christians today. It truly is all a matter of PERSPECTIVE and the passing of time. I think most of the time it is easier for people to accept and believe what is familiar to them or is a social norm, then go against it. I have left a rather long comment, so I won't go into the brainwashing part of it, but remind me to talk to you about that some time. Love, Beth the Viking.”
This was a second comment that she left, giving me the direct quote:
“I thought I should probably give you the quote, so here it is: "Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue with that; I'm right and I will be proved right. We're more popular than Jesus now; I don't know which will go first — rock and roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right, but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me" -John Lennon 4 March 1966 I'm sure you know the story, but in response to the "we're bigger than jesus" part(which was almost always used out of context!) people flipped out and started burning Beatles stuff and having protests and what not. It's one of those examples of people taking their religion so far that they loose sight of what it's really about in the first place. -Bethybumm”
Thank you, Beth, discussing this with you was VERY interesting!
The last one is from Justin Ureta. This is only one of the many, many comments that he left on my “blog” over the time that we have been engaged in these web pages, but it was the first and, I thought, a good example. If you are looking for my response, or more comments from him, I would suggest that you look on both of our “blogs” as I don’t think that any of them are all in one place. This particular comment was on a piece called “Fahrenheit 451 80-91”.
“Kit, I saw your comment on Mr. Jana's blog (Under his entry, "READ THIS: My Reflections on Blogs and Technology"), and couldn't resist but to fight in the name of computer nerds everywhere ;) Let me start off by pointing out part of your comment: "We are reaching this age similar to what Captain Beatty says, “Why learn anything save pressing buttons, pulling switches, fitting nuts and bolts?” I see that already. You ask someone what the last book they read was and they can’t tell you, they don’t remember or it was something that had to read for class. So we look at why that is. I am sure that if you looked at when reading began to decrease it would drop in perfect synchronization with the introduction of an Internet that is available to anyone. Teens don’t do anything unless it is required. They want to sit on their “blogs” and their instant messenger and they’ll read a book if you make them, but not unless they have to. It doesn’t progress their understanding of “fitting nuts and bolts”. First off, I ask you not to stereotype your fellow teens in such ways. It would have worked if you simply said "the majority of teens." Second off: You regard typing such intricate posts as "pressing buttons, pulling switches, fitting nuts and bolts"? Please, if you could bring me three books that you own that were handwritten, I'd love to see them. Third off: Reading did not decrease when the internet began. That was radio. In fact, I think it is the internet that is SAVING reading! Since nothing could be easily transmitted by audio through the internet, everything is transmitted through text, causing teens all around the world to "learn" how to read again. On top of that, there are wonderful websites like www.dailylit.com that will actually SEND you novels for FREE via email. If it wasn't for them, I would have never gotten the chance to read 20,000 leagues under the sea. Fourth off: "They want to sit on their “blogs” and their instant messenger and they’ll read a book if you make them, but not unless they have to." Do you have a journal or a diary, Kit? Tell me, what is so different between that and a blog? And as for instant messanging, have you never written a letter before, or used the telephone? Instant messaging is the same concept, except, as the name suggests, it is instant. Convenient. Furthering communication between humans. I dare you to tell me that is a bad thing. As for "only reading a book when they have to," I sadly must agree with you there. I have a theory, though, that if you took a novel and gave it to a teen, he wouldn't read it. BUT, if you took the same novel and placed the whole of it's contents on a webpage, kids would read it. For some reason, the word "book" just has a negative impact on the youth these days. Finally, I would like to direct your attention to a rather interesting piece of literature (That I found online, of all places. Gasp.) http://www.futureofthebook.org/gamertheory/ It's a rather wonderful piece, building off of Plato's Allegory of the Cave, with the thesis that the world is becoming more like the video games that once mimicked it, and what's more, why that is a GOOD THING.”
This conversation became incredibly interesting and long (and heated, I might add). It was nice to debate this topic with someone on a more personal level than in a classroom setting. One of the nice things about this debate with Justin was also that his position was so radically different from my own. This element made it much more interesting (and difficult!) to come up with new arguments, anticipating the way that he would respond. Thank you!
A last big thanks to everyone!!
Goodbye!
Long time no posts, eh? Spring break has been glorious. It’s a little hard getting back to this, but ah well.
The assignment today is to examine and take apart the comments that have been given to us. I have chose a few here, talk a bit about the post they were referring too and then what was so great about them.
First, Laura Mitchell left this on a post I wrote about the rain. It was supposed to be something that we loved; I love the rain, that’s what I wrote about. If you want to read the whole thing, it’s titled “Listening, Waiting, Watching”. Here is the comment that Laura left me:
“Kit, this was soooooooooo awesome. I love the way you personalize (er what ever it's called when you give inanimate things human traits.) But you took it to another level when you actually gave the trees voices, so they were human. You really do that well, especially the paragraph about the sky breathing. OH! It's personification. So, you're personifications the best part of the whole page. I knew you liked the rain but this really makes it obvious that you are in love with it, and really wish it rained more often. You make the rain seem rare and beautiful thing (I guess it is in San Diego), I really loved that. I don't know what other to say besides 'this is really good'. I'm a bit jealous myself. Kudos!”
First, I was really flattered to find this comment left on something that I had written. It’s obvious from everything about the comment that she really liked the piece. But the best thing about it was that she didn’t just say that she liked it, though she says that in the last couple of lines, she really goes in depth about what she liked. She says, “But you took it to another level when you actually gave the trees voices, so they were human.” in reference to what she had already said about personification. Thanks!
Second, this comment was left by Chris Connell. I chose it because he corrected something that I said in my post that was not true. This was helpful for my personal understanding, even if I never did go back and change it. The post was called “Fahrenheit 452 (oops!), pp. 40-68” (that it’s called “542” is a mistake. I might go and change it.)
“Wow this was really good Kit. I actually read it all! (yay for me) I really admire your take on the book and I agree with a lot of what you say. One thing I would like to clarify for you. When you were talking about the woman being burned at the stake for "hearsay". In the book it actually says that she was burned for "heresy" which means: opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, esp. of a church or religious system. Makes a little more sense now doesn't it?”
Thank you Chris for correcting my mistake. This was helpful to me! I’m glad that you liked it!
Next up is Beth Kurtz, commenting on my piece called “Myth, Religion or Cult?” This was a piece that I wrote on the side, it had nothing to do with school. This topic was one that Beth and I had discussed in the past, and so we were both very interested in the topic.
“Kit kit kit... I really enjoyed your lengthy and thourough comment on my rage entry. I saw this one so bare and commentless and couldn't help to express my opinion. I do remember us having this very conversation a little while ago. I must say that I see complete truth in the point you are making. I think it is not at all ridiculus to question christianity, or judeism(?) or buddhism or any other relion the same way we question myths. The only REAL difference between the two is that that the people who believed in myths are no longer alive. They were just as devoted to them as many people are now to religion. I guess this is because it gives them something to believe, something to follow. Or maybe they were never really given a choice, so it's just second nature to them. They don't even think to question it because thats just how it has been their whole life. (hmmm... sound a bit like F451?) I'm sure you are at least vaguely familiar with a certain quote from John Lennon where he stated that they(The Beatles) were bigger than Jesus. If you read the full statment(which most people neglect to do) he says that Christianity will shrink and vanish. While this sounds ridiculous to us now, in a thousand years, who says this won't really happen? It happened with Greek myths didn't it? He also says something like Jesus wasn't bad, but the disciples being the ones who ruined it, because they twisted it around. This isn't really relevant, but I liked that part. Anyways... I also think it is interesting that religions such as Christianity and the practices ascociated with it have very pagan roots. This being ironic becuase how strongly paganism is rejected among christians today. It truly is all a matter of PERSPECTIVE and the passing of time. I think most of the time it is easier for people to accept and believe what is familiar to them or is a social norm, then go against it. I have left a rather long comment, so I won't go into the brainwashing part of it, but remind me to talk to you about that some time. Love, Beth the Viking.”
This was a second comment that she left, giving me the direct quote:
“I thought I should probably give you the quote, so here it is: "Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue with that; I'm right and I will be proved right. We're more popular than Jesus now; I don't know which will go first — rock and roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right, but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me" -John Lennon 4 March 1966 I'm sure you know the story, but in response to the "we're bigger than jesus" part(which was almost always used out of context!) people flipped out and started burning Beatles stuff and having protests and what not. It's one of those examples of people taking their religion so far that they loose sight of what it's really about in the first place. -Bethybumm”
Thank you, Beth, discussing this with you was VERY interesting!
The last one is from Justin Ureta. This is only one of the many, many comments that he left on my “blog” over the time that we have been engaged in these web pages, but it was the first and, I thought, a good example. If you are looking for my response, or more comments from him, I would suggest that you look on both of our “blogs” as I don’t think that any of them are all in one place. This particular comment was on a piece called “Fahrenheit 451 80-91”.
“Kit, I saw your comment on Mr. Jana's blog (Under his entry, "READ THIS: My Reflections on Blogs and Technology"), and couldn't resist but to fight in the name of computer nerds everywhere ;) Let me start off by pointing out part of your comment: "We are reaching this age similar to what Captain Beatty says, “Why learn anything save pressing buttons, pulling switches, fitting nuts and bolts?” I see that already. You ask someone what the last book they read was and they can’t tell you, they don’t remember or it was something that had to read for class. So we look at why that is. I am sure that if you looked at when reading began to decrease it would drop in perfect synchronization with the introduction of an Internet that is available to anyone. Teens don’t do anything unless it is required. They want to sit on their “blogs” and their instant messenger and they’ll read a book if you make them, but not unless they have to. It doesn’t progress their understanding of “fitting nuts and bolts”. First off, I ask you not to stereotype your fellow teens in such ways. It would have worked if you simply said "the majority of teens." Second off: You regard typing such intricate posts as "pressing buttons, pulling switches, fitting nuts and bolts"? Please, if you could bring me three books that you own that were handwritten, I'd love to see them. Third off: Reading did not decrease when the internet began. That was radio. In fact, I think it is the internet that is SAVING reading! Since nothing could be easily transmitted by audio through the internet, everything is transmitted through text, causing teens all around the world to "learn" how to read again. On top of that, there are wonderful websites like www.dailylit.com that will actually SEND you novels for FREE via email. If it wasn't for them, I would have never gotten the chance to read 20,000 leagues under the sea. Fourth off: "They want to sit on their “blogs” and their instant messenger and they’ll read a book if you make them, but not unless they have to." Do you have a journal or a diary, Kit? Tell me, what is so different between that and a blog? And as for instant messanging, have you never written a letter before, or used the telephone? Instant messaging is the same concept, except, as the name suggests, it is instant. Convenient. Furthering communication between humans. I dare you to tell me that is a bad thing. As for "only reading a book when they have to," I sadly must agree with you there. I have a theory, though, that if you took a novel and gave it to a teen, he wouldn't read it. BUT, if you took the same novel and placed the whole of it's contents on a webpage, kids would read it. For some reason, the word "book" just has a negative impact on the youth these days. Finally, I would like to direct your attention to a rather interesting piece of literature (That I found online, of all places. Gasp.) http://www.futureofthebook.org/gamertheory/ It's a rather wonderful piece, building off of Plato's Allegory of the Cave, with the thesis that the world is becoming more like the video games that once mimicked it, and what's more, why that is a GOOD THING.”
This conversation became incredibly interesting and long (and heated, I might add). It was nice to debate this topic with someone on a more personal level than in a classroom setting. One of the nice things about this debate with Justin was also that his position was so radically different from my own. This element made it much more interesting (and difficult!) to come up with new arguments, anticipating the way that he would respond. Thank you!
A last big thanks to everyone!!
Goodbye!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)