New blog post five assignment: Evaluate blogging as an academic assignment to promote critical thinking. Your answers should be construncted as arguments. That is, give your opinion (the conclusion) and then provide the reasons (premises) for your opinion. Simply saying "I liked it" or "I didn't like it" isn't enough. Tell me WHY? Answer each question with approximately 100-200 words. The assignment is still due May 6th at noon.
1. Compare to writing traditional essays - as you have in other classes - were the expectations of the blog assignment easier, harder, or just different? In other words, was it clear to you what the format of a blog was and how to produce one?
I think that, initially, compared to writing traditional essays, my expectations of writing a blog was that it was going to be no different than using blackboard, not too different from writing an essay. However, I learned that writing a blog entailed its own ritual acquaintance (learning) as blackboard did for me last year, and writing an essay all those years ago (although I admit to still struggling). Writing a blog was something that I had to learn - how to insert html codes and, generally, navigating the system. I think that once I learned how to use blogger it did seem easier in that I did not have to put in citations, I could just provide links.
2. Did the blog assignments - and the requirement to create a blog - relate to the class topics and course objectives? Why or why not?
I think that the blog assignments - and the requirement to create a blog - do relate to the course objective of understanding and evaluating the use of modern technology. We "write" our blogs on a computer and create our blogs using both blogger and animoto, all of which are forms of technology. Because our blogs are on the world wide web, they are instantaneously available to anyone who might want to see them - another way in which technology has connected us. As for the blog assignments being related to our class topics: many of the blog topics were about our course related reading; other blog topics, like propaganda, we later discussed in class; while other topics were discussed in class prior to our blogs being posted. So, yes, I do think that the blog assignments (and the requirement to create one) are related to the class topics and objectives.
3. Did the non-text elements of the blog program contribute to your learning in this class? Did they get in the way? Or did they have no effect at all?
I definitely feel that the non-text images helped to contribute to my learning. I never realized how powerful images and music are - some of the students made great animoto videos! I think that by using non-text elements, students have to think in new and abstract ways (making, or forcing, them to become more creative). I think that students varied a great deal on how they could make the non-text elements of blogging work for them.
Watching the Persuaders video and learning about the different styles in which ads appeal to us, I think, made me more conscious of the ads in my daily life. I learned that pathos is the way in which we are marketed toward more than by using ethos and logos.
"I liked it".
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Propaganda explained
How do you define "propaganda"?. What distinguishes propaganda from the legitimate exercise of free speech? Give modern examples of both legitimate political free speech and of propaganda.
To me, propaganda is when a group has an agenda that they want to push to influence toward a cause that they support, believe in. Propaganda is an opinion and while it may be truthful, it is not, necessarily, the whole truth. It is kind of like when you are in an argument you use all the facts that support your idea but neglect to mention anything contradictory so that your argument is all that stronger.
The ways in which propaganda and the legitimate exercise of free speech differ is that propaganda has an agenda that is promoted with the intention of changing people's opinions/views on a widescale basis and is very opinionated, while the legitmate use of free speech, or freedom of speech, is something that people exercise everyday, something that is their right. I suppose, in a way, propaganda is like freedom of speech on roids in that it is organized on a larger scale but with the intention of swaying peoples thought/opinions/beliefs to a specific cause.
A modern example of propaganda can be seen on PETA's youtube channel, or in a presidential campaign ad. Examples of propaganda surround us in our everyday lives. We see it on TV, on the internet, the newspaper, and in our communities. Freedom of speech allows idiots like this to makes videos about the the new healthcare plan. Maybe the guy is a part of some larger organization but I think he just has a lot of time and likes to hear himself talk.
To me, propaganda is when a group has an agenda that they want to push to influence toward a cause that they support, believe in. Propaganda is an opinion and while it may be truthful, it is not, necessarily, the whole truth. It is kind of like when you are in an argument you use all the facts that support your idea but neglect to mention anything contradictory so that your argument is all that stronger.
The ways in which propaganda and the legitimate exercise of free speech differ is that propaganda has an agenda that is promoted with the intention of changing people's opinions/views on a widescale basis and is very opinionated, while the legitmate use of free speech, or freedom of speech, is something that people exercise everyday, something that is their right. I suppose, in a way, propaganda is like freedom of speech on roids in that it is organized on a larger scale but with the intention of swaying peoples thought/opinions/beliefs to a specific cause.
A modern example of propaganda can be seen on PETA's youtube channel, or in a presidential campaign ad. Examples of propaganda surround us in our everyday lives. We see it on TV, on the internet, the newspaper, and in our communities. Freedom of speech allows idiots like this to makes videos about the the new healthcare plan. Maybe the guy is a part of some larger organization but I think he just has a lot of time and likes to hear himself talk.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
The ethos of the real-life horse whisperer
How does someone become an authority on a topic? Select an expert whom you trust on a particular topic and explain why that person's ideas or accomplishments should be taken seriously.
The way in which a person becomes an authority (someone with the power to influence thoughts opinions and behaviors) is by: being the best in the particular field, niche, they are in; simplyfing and explaining a complex concept to the masses; and to break new ground by making new discoveries or looking at something that had always been done in a particular way and improving it.
The person with whom I have admired and respected their particular brand of ethos for a long time is someone I have never personally met: a horse-trainer by the name of Monty Roberts. Monty Roberts grew up on a ranch with a father that trained horses by breaking their spirit and essentially beating them into submission, a technique that had been the most prevalent at the time and is still used (although not as widely). At the age of thirteen, Monty Roberts had discovered (by observing wild horses in the mountains of Nevada) that horses had their own unique language and that they could be understood - all one had to do was listen (or watch) as they expressed themselves in body language. By listening (or watching), Monty showed that horses could communicate boundaries, relay fear, nervousness, anger, annoyance, relaxation, and affection. Most people who have pets can understand how easy and natural this must seem, but the horse was not always seen as a pet as much as they were seen as modes of transportation and workers. It was not until the invention of the automotive, and such farming equipment as combines, that the need for the horse as a worker or mode of transportation began to decline. No longer needed for work, horses began to fill other niches: pleasure horse; rodeo horse; show horse; among others.
Monty's unique brand of training is now know the world over as Join-Up. Join-Up is establishing rapport with a horse in a way that the horse understands (through the use of body language). Once the horse's trust is gained and recognizes the trainer as the herd leader a unique bond is formed.
At the start of his career, Monty was invited by Queen Elizabeth II, a horsewoman, to her country to show her staff his Join-Up method. After watching Monty, Queen Elizabeth II urged Monty to write a book. Monty listened to the Queen and wrote his first book. Since then, Monty has been teaching at seminars around the world, bringing his unique brand of training with him.
I tried looking for any pictures of 'the old ways/methods' in which horses were trained to illustrate the extreme difference in approaches to breaking and gentling a horse, but could not find any. What I found were sites dedicated to educating people about the ill-effects/flaws of breaking a horse.
I believe that Monty Robert's Join-Up should be taken seriously not only because it is more humane, but it is a more efficient and rewarding way of training a horse. I had the opportunity to watch a horse-trainer demonstrate the Join-Up method at a seminar on the reservation. Horses trained using the Join-Up seem livelier and happier to me.
The way in which a person becomes an authority (someone with the power to influence thoughts opinions and behaviors) is by: being the best in the particular field, niche, they are in; simplyfing and explaining a complex concept to the masses; and to break new ground by making new discoveries or looking at something that had always been done in a particular way and improving it.
The person with whom I have admired and respected their particular brand of ethos for a long time is someone I have never personally met: a horse-trainer by the name of Monty Roberts. Monty Roberts grew up on a ranch with a father that trained horses by breaking their spirit and essentially beating them into submission, a technique that had been the most prevalent at the time and is still used (although not as widely). At the age of thirteen, Monty Roberts had discovered (by observing wild horses in the mountains of Nevada) that horses had their own unique language and that they could be understood - all one had to do was listen (or watch) as they expressed themselves in body language. By listening (or watching), Monty showed that horses could communicate boundaries, relay fear, nervousness, anger, annoyance, relaxation, and affection. Most people who have pets can understand how easy and natural this must seem, but the horse was not always seen as a pet as much as they were seen as modes of transportation and workers. It was not until the invention of the automotive, and such farming equipment as combines, that the need for the horse as a worker or mode of transportation began to decline. No longer needed for work, horses began to fill other niches: pleasure horse; rodeo horse; show horse; among others.
Monty's unique brand of training is now know the world over as Join-Up. Join-Up is establishing rapport with a horse in a way that the horse understands (through the use of body language). Once the horse's trust is gained and recognizes the trainer as the herd leader a unique bond is formed.
At the start of his career, Monty was invited by Queen Elizabeth II, a horsewoman, to her country to show her staff his Join-Up method. After watching Monty, Queen Elizabeth II urged Monty to write a book. Monty listened to the Queen and wrote his first book. Since then, Monty has been teaching at seminars around the world, bringing his unique brand of training with him.
I tried looking for any pictures of 'the old ways/methods' in which horses were trained to illustrate the extreme difference in approaches to breaking and gentling a horse, but could not find any. What I found were sites dedicated to educating people about the ill-effects/flaws of breaking a horse.
I believe that Monty Robert's Join-Up should be taken seriously not only because it is more humane, but it is a more efficient and rewarding way of training a horse. I had the opportunity to watch a horse-trainer demonstrate the Join-Up method at a seminar on the reservation. Horses trained using the Join-Up seem livelier and happier to me.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Is it wrong, really?
It has been my understanding that words are powerful in the emotions that they evoke in us, so I will try and be cognizant of the words that I use as I discuss the issue I have chosen: the treatment of the LGBT community and whether or not they should have equal rights.
As I mentioned earlier, words are powerful representations (symbols) that evoke particular emotions in us. When words are used in a derogatory manner to persecute a group of people to express hate they have a negative effect on society as a whole. Victims of such persecutionn often experience mistrust, depression, and self-hatred as result of their persecution. The worst ways in which these forms of hate manifest themselves are in cases in which a victim takes his/her own life(suicide), or are at the receiving end of a hate crime. Victims families are often left reeling in the aftermath of such tragedies. Such acts of hate dehumanize us as a people.
One of the things I used to ask myself is how do a group of people come to be persecuted? People can be persecuted for for a variety of reasons: their race; ethnicity; religious affiliation; sexual orientation; or simply because they are in the minority. One of the ways in which it has been justified to victimize LGBT is through religion; people will find a passage in the Bible to support their prejudice and spend the remainder of their lives quoting, or misquoting, it. Shakespeare said: "Even the devil can cite Scripture to his purpose." I think that we can all agree that we would like to think the Bible should not (could not possibily) be misinterpreted, but we are men and are fallible, and it has been done so time and time again with tragic results. It is my firm belief that the Bible is about God and his love for us, not about sexuality, even if it states in Leviticus 20:3 "A man who sleeps with another man is an abomination and should be executed." In Leviticus, there are many laws, or codes, such as the passage mentioned that tell how one should (or should not) live their life (i.e. eating of pork, stoning of women who are not virgins on their wedding night, stoning of adulterers), codes that are not followed today. Today, those scriptures are caled a Holiness code, something that is not relavent to today.
Other ways in which it has been justified to persecute members of the LGBT community is to say that homosexuality is unnatural and is a choice because heterosexuality is the accepted norm. Is it a choice, really? If it were that simple, why would so many choose to be victimized for who they are and experience depression, self-hatred, and for some, to tragically end their life? Some argue that LGBT not only choose to be LGBT, but are also made that way (or grow up that way) leading to the debate of Nature vs. Nurture. If it were unnatural, would homosexual behavior be found in animals because they chose to be that way? In New York's Central Park Zoo, two male chinstrap penguins displayed courtship rituals and even tried to incubate a rock until they were given an egg that needed to be incubated. The two male penguins incubated and raised the chick. If A+B=C, then A must equal C. Animals are "natural". Animals can be homosexual, therefore homosexuality is natural.
In June 2, 1969 the Stonewall riots happened. Stonewall marked the beginning of the LGBT movement in the U.S. The persecution of the LGBT community in Greenwich Village was government sanctioned. I think that it is important that events like that are never forgotten, because, as George Wilhelm Hegel said, "those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it."
Today, in our country, LGBT people do not have the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts, such as equal rights to marry who they love, or to serve openly in the military.
The American Psychological Association states "homosexuality is neither a mental illness nor a moral depravity. It is simply a way a minority of our population express love and sexuality." With that said, one must ask themself: is it wrong to treat LGBT as less? I think that it is wrong, but it is not just a simple matter of right and wrong, but a combination of all the reasons that it is wrong rather than based on the premise that someone thinks it is unnatural or that the Bible says so to justify their treatment of the LGBT community.
As I mentioned earlier, words are powerful representations (symbols) that evoke particular emotions in us. When words are used in a derogatory manner to persecute a group of people to express hate they have a negative effect on society as a whole. Victims of such persecutionn often experience mistrust, depression, and self-hatred as result of their persecution. The worst ways in which these forms of hate manifest themselves are in cases in which a victim takes his/her own life(suicide), or are at the receiving end of a hate crime. Victims families are often left reeling in the aftermath of such tragedies. Such acts of hate dehumanize us as a people.
One of the things I used to ask myself is how do a group of people come to be persecuted? People can be persecuted for for a variety of reasons: their race; ethnicity; religious affiliation; sexual orientation; or simply because they are in the minority. One of the ways in which it has been justified to victimize LGBT is through religion; people will find a passage in the Bible to support their prejudice and spend the remainder of their lives quoting, or misquoting, it. Shakespeare said: "Even the devil can cite Scripture to his purpose." I think that we can all agree that we would like to think the Bible should not (could not possibily) be misinterpreted, but we are men and are fallible, and it has been done so time and time again with tragic results. It is my firm belief that the Bible is about God and his love for us, not about sexuality, even if it states in Leviticus 20:3 "A man who sleeps with another man is an abomination and should be executed." In Leviticus, there are many laws, or codes, such as the passage mentioned that tell how one should (or should not) live their life (i.e. eating of pork, stoning of women who are not virgins on their wedding night, stoning of adulterers), codes that are not followed today. Today, those scriptures are caled a Holiness code, something that is not relavent to today.
Other ways in which it has been justified to persecute members of the LGBT community is to say that homosexuality is unnatural and is a choice because heterosexuality is the accepted norm. Is it a choice, really? If it were that simple, why would so many choose to be victimized for who they are and experience depression, self-hatred, and for some, to tragically end their life? Some argue that LGBT not only choose to be LGBT, but are also made that way (or grow up that way) leading to the debate of Nature vs. Nurture. If it were unnatural, would homosexual behavior be found in animals because they chose to be that way? In New York's Central Park Zoo, two male chinstrap penguins displayed courtship rituals and even tried to incubate a rock until they were given an egg that needed to be incubated. The two male penguins incubated and raised the chick. If A+B=C, then A must equal C. Animals are "natural". Animals can be homosexual, therefore homosexuality is natural.
In June 2, 1969 the Stonewall riots happened. Stonewall marked the beginning of the LGBT movement in the U.S. The persecution of the LGBT community in Greenwich Village was government sanctioned. I think that it is important that events like that are never forgotten, because, as George Wilhelm Hegel said, "those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it."
Today, in our country, LGBT people do not have the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts, such as equal rights to marry who they love, or to serve openly in the military.
The American Psychological Association states "homosexuality is neither a mental illness nor a moral depravity. It is simply a way a minority of our population express love and sexuality." With that said, one must ask themself: is it wrong to treat LGBT as less? I think that it is wrong, but it is not just a simple matter of right and wrong, but a combination of all the reasons that it is wrong rather than based on the premise that someone thinks it is unnatural or that the Bible says so to justify their treatment of the LGBT community.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Smart technology, or not?
Does technology make us smarter or dumber? That seems to be a question that we have begun to ask ourselves more and more. As with all arguments, whether technology makes us smarter or dumber can be debated one way or the other. While a majority of people cannot deny that the technology of today far exceeds that of generations past, requiring some form of knowledge to work these intricate gadgets, there are a number of people who are just as concerned as to the direction in which in which our country, our youth and future, are going.
One of the arguments for technology making us, as a people, dumber that comes to mind, is that of my own elders telling me that the the youth have it too easy, now. Everything is handed to them without having to work for it. The way in which I can apply that thought process, opinion, to technology and it making us dumber is that we may come to rely too heavily on it. What would happen in the event that there was some catastrophic disaster and all technology requiring electricity, or something to make it work, stopped working? Another example that I can think of in which technology is making us dumber is that we no longer have to really know knowledge, we can simply look it up on the internet. The say that children's IQ scores have increased dramatically from times past, but do they really know?
It is true that the youth of today, Generation Y, are growing up in an age of growing technology. A steady influx of new gadgets and inventions are appearing, almost daily, on the market with new ways devised in making our lives easier, safer, better. Ways in which technology make us smarter, is that people have begun to assimilate the new technology into their everyday lives by learning how to use the new technology. Technology also allows people to be confronted with a barrage of information in a relatively short period of time.
Another aspect of the new technologies is that it can take a large nation like the United States that is a melting pot of peoples from all walks of life and have a measure of uniformity, not just in the government or language, but in its culture. Technology has a major impact on what is considered popular culture.
I am of the belief that technology makes us both smarter and dumber.
One of the arguments for technology making us, as a people, dumber that comes to mind, is that of my own elders telling me that the the youth have it too easy, now. Everything is handed to them without having to work for it. The way in which I can apply that thought process, opinion, to technology and it making us dumber is that we may come to rely too heavily on it. What would happen in the event that there was some catastrophic disaster and all technology requiring electricity, or something to make it work, stopped working? Another example that I can think of in which technology is making us dumber is that we no longer have to really know knowledge, we can simply look it up on the internet. The say that children's IQ scores have increased dramatically from times past, but do they really know?
It is true that the youth of today, Generation Y, are growing up in an age of growing technology. A steady influx of new gadgets and inventions are appearing, almost daily, on the market with new ways devised in making our lives easier, safer, better. Ways in which technology make us smarter, is that people have begun to assimilate the new technology into their everyday lives by learning how to use the new technology. Technology also allows people to be confronted with a barrage of information in a relatively short period of time.
Another aspect of the new technologies is that it can take a large nation like the United States that is a melting pot of peoples from all walks of life and have a measure of uniformity, not just in the government or language, but in its culture. Technology has a major impact on what is considered popular culture.
I am of the belief that technology makes us both smarter and dumber.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
