The CNN excerpt, “Black in America” opened my eyes a little bit more about being black in modern day America. Some of the statistics that I saw were very surprising, and I was even more surprised that CNN showed all of this on TV. For some reason, I thought some ideas in the excerpt would have been censored, but they didn’t. I mean, 60% of black males don’t have a father figure? I really don’t know how I could live a life that wouldn’t have my dad in it, let alone a father-like figure.
The film made some good points too on how and why some of these statistics may be. I’m also glad that they interviewed black men and women about these, because it was more powerful hearing their response than a white man’s response. Some of the interviews were very powerful, like when they interviewed the guy who was in prison put still wanted to learn. Black males have a hard enough time finding a job as it is, but adding a criminal record could really hold him back and prevent him from getting a job.
I was really surprised how painstakingly hard it is being black in America. I always knew that it wasn’t always daises and bunt cake, but I thought we’ve gotten past the whole, “being black means you are up to no good” thing. Now, that’s not saying that we have also made some dramatic positive changes. Almost quadrupling the graduation rate of black males is very impressive, but there are still many other controversies we need to work with.
In a way, this seems like a “black power” thing. Its not like looking back at history and remembering how hard African American’s worked to get where they are today, and what kind of struggles they had to get through. It’s more like what happened in the past is important, but we also need to focus on today the future. For me, I kind of had a hard time relating to the people’s stories in the excerpt, but I was also willing to keep my ears open to new ways of thinking. It was a new experience of just kind of being drop kicked into this reality that yes, racism is still active, and you are white. It was kind of hard to watch, but I was able to accept the reality of it and think more about it after I watched it.
Mainly what I learned from this excerpt was that we have made some great changes to allow black Americans to be free. Compared to a few decades ago, we have made some dramatic changes in how we view them, but that doesn’t mean that we still have some problems. I learned that racism will always be around, and there will always be an uphill struggle to fight and get rid of it, but it will probably never happen. Its been a very long road for black Americans, and although we are well down the road, we still have a lot of ground to cover.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Epistolary Style
First of all, I have never read a novel in this style before, and I feel like I'm reading some sort of paper, where I only get the gist of something, but have to read the next "letter" to realize what they say. I feel like I'm reading the newspaper, and I only get a bit of what they are trying to explain. Like the author keeps us guessing what is happening. It sort of reminds me of Boomhaur on King of the Hill, Schnitzel on Chowder, or even Chewbacca on Star Wars, where you don't really know what they are saying, but you have a guess. Often times I find myself rewinding and trying to figure out what they say, and this is what we do a lot with this book. I keep looking back to see if there is anything small that would give me a laugh or explain a lot with the book. It is a style that definitely utilizes reading between the lines. This style is one that I think the author also does very well. I'm no expert at epistolary, but from what I can guess, this seems like the best it gets. Even in epistolary style you can still give out what happens by just right out telling it to you. The author of The Last Days of Summer definitely did a very good job making sure he kept things "secret" and kept you reading until you either have to pry yourself from the book, or you have to finish it. The book really wouldn't be as capturing as it would be if it wasn't written in this style, and I can see myself not enjoying it as much. The best way I can explain it would be like playing a 1st person video game, completing it, and then replaying it again in 3rd person. It just feels a little odd, especially if one particular style fit the game perfectly. It is going to be weird reading other books from now on, because I just got used to the style Steve Kluger uses. Most other books now won't seem to have quite that much of a "glow" to them.
Steve Kluger also does a good job of not just using the same types of letters between characters, but notes, newspaper articles, ticket stubs, and more. This variety is pretty key to have when writing in the epistolary style, because eventually it would get old. He definitely utilizes this style and pushes it to the limits. I absolutely liked it when he even used Joey's report cards to in a way explain Joey's character, and I enjoyed reading the teacher's comments as the guardian’s comments. It seems a lot more flowing than just saying, "Joey is a smart boy but has a sort of twisted sense of humor."
Overall, I think that this style is better than the traditional 1st or 3rd person, but it doesn't fit every book. "Moby Dick" or "The Wizard of Oz" just wouldn't fit in this style, like how the fourth Indiana Jones movie doesn't fit the trilogy at all. This story just somehow blends really well with the story, and does an excellent job creating a flow one letter to the next. I am eager to hear how the story ends, and I really hope to find more books that are written like this.
Steve Kluger also does a good job of not just using the same types of letters between characters, but notes, newspaper articles, ticket stubs, and more. This variety is pretty key to have when writing in the epistolary style, because eventually it would get old. He definitely utilizes this style and pushes it to the limits. I absolutely liked it when he even used Joey's report cards to in a way explain Joey's character, and I enjoyed reading the teacher's comments as the guardian’s comments. It seems a lot more flowing than just saying, "Joey is a smart boy but has a sort of twisted sense of humor."
Overall, I think that this style is better than the traditional 1st or 3rd person, but it doesn't fit every book. "Moby Dick" or "The Wizard of Oz" just wouldn't fit in this style, like how the fourth Indiana Jones movie doesn't fit the trilogy at all. This story just somehow blends really well with the story, and does an excellent job creating a flow one letter to the next. I am eager to hear how the story ends, and I really hope to find more books that are written like this.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
BLACK HAWK DOWN REVIEW AT 1/3 OF THE WAY DONE
The book I am reading is Black Hawk Down. The book is a very good representation of modern warfare in the Middle East. So far I am on page 100 or so, but I am really into the book, so to speak. It is very believable, which I think is good for a book based on an actual event is important.
So far, there are not many casualties, but one or two characters that I thought were going to last a lot longer that he did. One guy even fell off the speed rope on a Black Hawk and fell 70 feet. I don’t know yet if he will survive, but he seems to be in pretty bad shape. The soldiers are in Somalia, and many of them are eager for a firefight because there hasn’t been one in a while. They seem to be killing evil Somalians, but some of the chapters are about young Somalians who are just firing at the Americans because they feel like they are intruding on their land without rhyme or reason. I don’t know whether to be on the American side or the Somali side.
I have gotten to the part where the Black Hawk chopper (super six one) got hit with an RPG and fell to the ground. When the army was discussing this, they were not expecting an RPG firing into the air, let alone a Black Hawk. This makes me feel as if the army didn’t really know whom they were dealing with, and these men probably crazy psychopaths who will do anything to keep them out. Is the US blindly going in and killing people who are innocent? They even mowed down a cow with a Black Hawk mini-gun in one of the chapters.
So the chopper is down, and the soldiers appear to be stuck in Somalia. There are other Black Hawks and other vehicles on the ground, but I don’t think that the soldiers will be rescued at all. Due to the fact that the enemy has RPG’s, the Black Hawks will probably want to get out of there as quickly as they can. The tanks, vehicles and such might be blown up, or just unusable. They have found that the supposed war commander they are searching for to be in or near their general area, and the book has used his point of view a few times. Missiles attacked him, but somehow he was able to survive the onslaught.
The book changes many different angles and views as it progresses. It changes from a soldiers view, to a pilots view, and even to an ordinary Somali man’s point of view. There are many soldiers that are introduced in the book, and it is kind of hard to keep track of them all. There are many parts of the book that explain the soldiers, or what they went through while they are in a firefight, something that I think would be lost in the movie if I saw it. It’s nice and juicy, and even though I’m only third of the way through, I highly recommend it.
So far, there are not many casualties, but one or two characters that I thought were going to last a lot longer that he did. One guy even fell off the speed rope on a Black Hawk and fell 70 feet. I don’t know yet if he will survive, but he seems to be in pretty bad shape. The soldiers are in Somalia, and many of them are eager for a firefight because there hasn’t been one in a while. They seem to be killing evil Somalians, but some of the chapters are about young Somalians who are just firing at the Americans because they feel like they are intruding on their land without rhyme or reason. I don’t know whether to be on the American side or the Somali side.
I have gotten to the part where the Black Hawk chopper (super six one) got hit with an RPG and fell to the ground. When the army was discussing this, they were not expecting an RPG firing into the air, let alone a Black Hawk. This makes me feel as if the army didn’t really know whom they were dealing with, and these men probably crazy psychopaths who will do anything to keep them out. Is the US blindly going in and killing people who are innocent? They even mowed down a cow with a Black Hawk mini-gun in one of the chapters.
So the chopper is down, and the soldiers appear to be stuck in Somalia. There are other Black Hawks and other vehicles on the ground, but I don’t think that the soldiers will be rescued at all. Due to the fact that the enemy has RPG’s, the Black Hawks will probably want to get out of there as quickly as they can. The tanks, vehicles and such might be blown up, or just unusable. They have found that the supposed war commander they are searching for to be in or near their general area, and the book has used his point of view a few times. Missiles attacked him, but somehow he was able to survive the onslaught.
The book changes many different angles and views as it progresses. It changes from a soldiers view, to a pilots view, and even to an ordinary Somali man’s point of view. There are many soldiers that are introduced in the book, and it is kind of hard to keep track of them all. There are many parts of the book that explain the soldiers, or what they went through while they are in a firefight, something that I think would be lost in the movie if I saw it. It’s nice and juicy, and even though I’m only third of the way through, I highly recommend it.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
ON STUDYING PRE BLOG
1.) What are some ways that school encourages or discourages a person's desire to learn? What makes some objects in school exciting and stimulating and others boring?
Everyone is different when it comes to his/her learning style and what they are interested in learning. Ways that schools encourages a person’s desire to learn is teaching them new subjects and ways to gain knowledge. They teach subjects like mathematics, language and literature, art, and other topics that they view fit to teach a child. For a lack of better words, they “put down the foundation of learning,” so to speak. Now, when I say they, I mean teaching up until college.
They teach the basics of learning habits on basic concepts and subjects, but also stifle a person’s desire to learn by only teaching them these concepts. They really don’t allow much leeway in letting a “student*” research and learn what he/she wants to learn. They have a very basic, cookie cutter system that they force the student to follow. This can discourage a person’s desire to learn the specific things that he/she wishes to learn and will use. That being said, I think that it is important to learn the basics, but not to the extent where you have to learn everything by this system. Again, different people have different learning styles and systems, and the basic system that the schools teach them can impeach their creative way of learning and stifle their learning process.
School can make subjects interesting to learn mostly by having a good “teacher**.” All students can probably agree this because it is the teacher who informs you and “teaches” you what is required. If the teacher is able to teach you something in a way that you find enjoyable and interesting, then it will make it easier for you to learn the subject is. Even subjects that might seem boring, a good teacher can take any “bad” subject and make it interesting for the student.
What also help to make objects in school interesting are the student’s own personal interests. Again, each person is unique with his or her personal “objectives” that they want to achieve and topics they want to learn. When a student is engaged in a topic that seems interesting or intriguing to them, they tend to enjoy the class more and most likely do better academically in said class. One student likes one subject, another students prefers another subject. Most likely the subject will be something that the student thinks will help them later on in their near to mid future. Also, this doesn’t have to be a academic idea or class, it can be aspects like people and environments. A student will most likely feel more “at home” in his or her school if they set a nice and friendly environment, or he/she has friends there to talk to and be with.
Aspects that make school duller are the same as what can make them interesting. Teachers can make classes interesting, but can also teach in a way that can be so uninteresting, that the student hates going to said class because they are not engaged and being taught in the way they can learn “properly.” Student’s interests can also create whether or not some aspects seem boring. If a student is not interested at all in the subject she/he is learning or just doesn’t think that the topic relates to them at all, they won’t participate. This subject is seen in their eyes as boring and just busy work that they are doing to proceed through school.
I don’t really know how we (everyone) as a whole can help school become less boring and catch their interest. If we do find a way, it will take a generation to put it into action because it took several generations to create the system we have now.
*I use Student very loosely, and please note that all the other references to student should be written as: “student”
**All other teacher references should be written as: “teacher”
Everyone is different when it comes to his/her learning style and what they are interested in learning. Ways that schools encourages a person’s desire to learn is teaching them new subjects and ways to gain knowledge. They teach subjects like mathematics, language and literature, art, and other topics that they view fit to teach a child. For a lack of better words, they “put down the foundation of learning,” so to speak. Now, when I say they, I mean teaching up until college.
They teach the basics of learning habits on basic concepts and subjects, but also stifle a person’s desire to learn by only teaching them these concepts. They really don’t allow much leeway in letting a “student*” research and learn what he/she wants to learn. They have a very basic, cookie cutter system that they force the student to follow. This can discourage a person’s desire to learn the specific things that he/she wishes to learn and will use. That being said, I think that it is important to learn the basics, but not to the extent where you have to learn everything by this system. Again, different people have different learning styles and systems, and the basic system that the schools teach them can impeach their creative way of learning and stifle their learning process.
School can make subjects interesting to learn mostly by having a good “teacher**.” All students can probably agree this because it is the teacher who informs you and “teaches” you what is required. If the teacher is able to teach you something in a way that you find enjoyable and interesting, then it will make it easier for you to learn the subject is. Even subjects that might seem boring, a good teacher can take any “bad” subject and make it interesting for the student.
What also help to make objects in school interesting are the student’s own personal interests. Again, each person is unique with his or her personal “objectives” that they want to achieve and topics they want to learn. When a student is engaged in a topic that seems interesting or intriguing to them, they tend to enjoy the class more and most likely do better academically in said class. One student likes one subject, another students prefers another subject. Most likely the subject will be something that the student thinks will help them later on in their near to mid future. Also, this doesn’t have to be a academic idea or class, it can be aspects like people and environments. A student will most likely feel more “at home” in his or her school if they set a nice and friendly environment, or he/she has friends there to talk to and be with.
Aspects that make school duller are the same as what can make them interesting. Teachers can make classes interesting, but can also teach in a way that can be so uninteresting, that the student hates going to said class because they are not engaged and being taught in the way they can learn “properly.” Student’s interests can also create whether or not some aspects seem boring. If a student is not interested at all in the subject she/he is learning or just doesn’t think that the topic relates to them at all, they won’t participate. This subject is seen in their eyes as boring and just busy work that they are doing to proceed through school.
I don’t really know how we (everyone) as a whole can help school become less boring and catch their interest. If we do find a way, it will take a generation to put it into action because it took several generations to create the system we have now.
*I use Student very loosely, and please note that all the other references to student should be written as: “student”
**All other teacher references should be written as: “teacher”
Friday, October 31, 2008
pft...government...
1. Who are your U.S. senators?
Evan Bayh (R) and Richard Lugar (R)
2.Who is your Congressman/Woman?
Steven Buyer (R)
3. Who is your state senator?
Jim Buck (R)
4.Who is your state congressman/woman?
Mitch Daniels (D)
5.Which of these is up for re-election?
Mitch Daniels
6.What are their position/political affiliations?
Mitch Daniels is wishes to help communities with foreclosure and homeless, and to help with child support.
7.Who is running for governor?
Mitch Daniels (R), Andy Horning (L), Jill Long Thompson (D)
YAY
Evan Bayh (R) and Richard Lugar (R)
2.Who is your Congressman/Woman?
Steven Buyer (R)
3. Who is your state senator?
Jim Buck (R)
4.Who is your state congressman/woman?
Mitch Daniels (D)
5.Which of these is up for re-election?
Mitch Daniels
6.What are their position/political affiliations?
Mitch Daniels is wishes to help communities with foreclosure and homeless, and to help with child support.
7.Who is running for governor?
Mitch Daniels (R), Andy Horning (L), Jill Long Thompson (D)
YAY
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
I Pledge Alligance...
The question, “Are all people created equal?” can be twisted into several different meanings and debates. You could argue that we are born equal, but as life passes on, that equality starts to deteriorate or if any physical differences or even social statuses make a difference. This question I think actually poses many different sub-questions, which should to be taken into careful consideration.
In the question itself, they use a very distinct word that I find intriguing, and that is “created.” All men (and women) are “created” equal. This word can also mean born of to bring to existence. So it is implied that you have equal rights when you are born. The question that is brought up from this is do we keep that freedom as we continue to live out our lives, or is it stripped away from us. First of all, I think that yes, we are all born created with equal rights. We might have the same “fortunes” or opportunities as each other, but we all have the same rights as another. Equality can be warped and twisted in different ways. Equality can mean your rights or your wealth, attributes, and other features/ characteristics. I think we are all born differently, and we are definitely are different and unique from one another, but we all share one big thing, our rights (American wise, sorry North Koreans, I got nothing for you.)
Is our equality stripped away from us as we continue to live our lives? Many people do think so and try to solve this problem with different solutions, such as protesting, starting clans, etc. I think that you are still created equal and it sticks with you for as long as you exist, but other people are probably going to try and take your rights away from you, or make you think you don’t have any. You still have those equal rights, but it just feel or seem like it.
This is also another reason why some people might not believe that they have these inalienable rights and liberties is because of other people getting in the way and trying to knock you down. There are two sides to today’s congress, Democrat and Republican, which really don’t have many differences at all, but they just beat the living crap out of the differences they do have and keep blowing them out of proportion that it seems as if you are trying to choose between heaven and hell. Because of this, people are constantly being ridiculed and possibly banished from their social group just because of what they believe in, and the freedom of free speech and free thinking is one of those inalienable rights that people posses which is constantly overlooked upon. We just keep beating and beating each party up and we become more and more farther apart. Eventually, I think we might even have a civil war on our hands if we don’t realize what kind of nation we are creating from this. Many of the constitutional rights are being downsized and exploited because of one another taking a side. We need to ban together and help one another to become an even greater nation.
In the question itself, they use a very distinct word that I find intriguing, and that is “created.” All men (and women) are “created” equal. This word can also mean born of to bring to existence. So it is implied that you have equal rights when you are born. The question that is brought up from this is do we keep that freedom as we continue to live out our lives, or is it stripped away from us. First of all, I think that yes, we are all born created with equal rights. We might have the same “fortunes” or opportunities as each other, but we all have the same rights as another. Equality can be warped and twisted in different ways. Equality can mean your rights or your wealth, attributes, and other features/ characteristics. I think we are all born differently, and we are definitely are different and unique from one another, but we all share one big thing, our rights (American wise, sorry North Koreans, I got nothing for you.)
Is our equality stripped away from us as we continue to live our lives? Many people do think so and try to solve this problem with different solutions, such as protesting, starting clans, etc. I think that you are still created equal and it sticks with you for as long as you exist, but other people are probably going to try and take your rights away from you, or make you think you don’t have any. You still have those equal rights, but it just feel or seem like it.
This is also another reason why some people might not believe that they have these inalienable rights and liberties is because of other people getting in the way and trying to knock you down. There are two sides to today’s congress, Democrat and Republican, which really don’t have many differences at all, but they just beat the living crap out of the differences they do have and keep blowing them out of proportion that it seems as if you are trying to choose between heaven and hell. Because of this, people are constantly being ridiculed and possibly banished from their social group just because of what they believe in, and the freedom of free speech and free thinking is one of those inalienable rights that people posses which is constantly overlooked upon. We just keep beating and beating each party up and we become more and more farther apart. Eventually, I think we might even have a civil war on our hands if we don’t realize what kind of nation we are creating from this. Many of the constitutional rights are being downsized and exploited because of one another taking a side. We need to ban together and help one another to become an even greater nation.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
SUPERSIZE YOURSELF
After watching the film, SUPERSIZE ME, my response was I really honestly do not feel more or less obligated to eat fast food. I knew that this was bad for me to begin with, but what I didn't know was how much this could affect me in a short amount of time. Definitley I feel like I should take my fast food eating down to a minimum. My parents have always told me this, but actually seeing exactly HOW MUCH sugar and fat I intake when I eat that kind of junk is just sickening. Now, the type of food they sell does not sicken me, but how much it can add up. Really though, I prefer Wendy's or Taco Bell, but McDonald's will do in a pinch.
The rest of the world on the other hand, some of them disagree what Morgan Spurlock did. There were NUMEROUS documentaries after his trying out similar diets like he did and investigating fast food. Specifically, there was a documentary about how a woman went on a 30 day Mickey D diet and lost 10 pounds and dropped her cholesterol. This being said, she only took in about 2,000 calories a day, while Morgan Spurlock took in about 5,000 calories a day, and didn't exercise. I have been told by my father numerous times that most of the time it isn't what you put inside you, it's how much you put inside you, or quantity effects you more than quality (weight wise, not health wise). Yes, I believe this to be true, you can eat only salads, but if you eat 5,000 calories of salad every day, you arn't helping yourself. This is one way to look at this.
What I also thought as crazy was several of McDonald's reactions. They took away the super size option at their restaurants, which I think should be a huge accomplishment for Morgan. They also created a new "healthy" breakfast sandwich called th McGriddle, but Morgan said that it had more sugar than the McDonald's cookies. I think that McDonalds knows that what they sell is unhealthy, and the admit that they do, but McDonalds does say that in isn't thier fault that people "overdose" on their food and become obese.
This brings up the question, "Where does personal responsibility begin and where does cooperate responsibility begin?" I think that this is an age old question that will probably be a problem from now until we can finally find a solution we can all agree on. To me, I think that the QUANTITIY of the food you stuff in your face is YOUR responsibility, but the QUALITY of the food you stuff in your face is up to the businesses.
The rest of the world on the other hand, some of them disagree what Morgan Spurlock did. There were NUMEROUS documentaries after his trying out similar diets like he did and investigating fast food. Specifically, there was a documentary about how a woman went on a 30 day Mickey D diet and lost 10 pounds and dropped her cholesterol. This being said, she only took in about 2,000 calories a day, while Morgan Spurlock took in about 5,000 calories a day, and didn't exercise. I have been told by my father numerous times that most of the time it isn't what you put inside you, it's how much you put inside you, or quantity effects you more than quality (weight wise, not health wise). Yes, I believe this to be true, you can eat only salads, but if you eat 5,000 calories of salad every day, you arn't helping yourself. This is one way to look at this.
What I also thought as crazy was several of McDonald's reactions. They took away the super size option at their restaurants, which I think should be a huge accomplishment for Morgan. They also created a new "healthy" breakfast sandwich called th McGriddle, but Morgan said that it had more sugar than the McDonald's cookies. I think that McDonalds knows that what they sell is unhealthy, and the admit that they do, but McDonalds does say that in isn't thier fault that people "overdose" on their food and become obese.
This brings up the question, "Where does personal responsibility begin and where does cooperate responsibility begin?" I think that this is an age old question that will probably be a problem from now until we can finally find a solution we can all agree on. To me, I think that the QUANTITIY of the food you stuff in your face is YOUR responsibility, but the QUALITY of the food you stuff in your face is up to the businesses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
