Entry - Finale

Throughout the time of this course I like to think that I have learned some things about critical thinking and other literature stuff. I honestly think that the sentence pretty sums up how I feel about the learning part of the class, so I guess I could review other aspects of the class… I have taken other online classes before and the way we have done group work here is a whole heck of a lot better than any other course’s that I have been involved with. In fact I think this was the best way to communicate between others without having to meet in person, which was fantastic for someone like me who is incredibly shy when talking to other people about writing and junk.

Personally I actually liked doing these blog journals and kind of felt bad if I missed one or forgot, but I usually found the topic fun or interesting and glad that it is online where anyone can see it because I know it has helped me get over some of the shyness. The ease of comparing opinions of the prompts, other questions, peer draft reviews, etcetera, is actually pretty awesome mostly because I suck at analyzing literature deeper than its face value.  So I guess I’m basically saying that having an English class online has really helped me with the things that I would normally have trouble with in terms of peer relations or what have you.

Some more good things would include content? I think some of the readings we have been assigned from the book were genuinely interesting. There was usually always at least one essay that I actually wanted to answer the questions about, which, by the way, were helpful to me in their own ways. Basically every assignment was helpful to me, someone who pretty much sucks at the English language.

Hmm…let’s see I suppose a bad thing about so much writing in an online environment for me is the difficulty of keeping “online speak,” abbreviations or smiley faces (emoticons) out of the formal writing we have had to do during the class. Spending a lot of time on the computer/on the internet in my free time makes even these blogs free from unprofessional text speak. Since this is the last blog I don’t think I can hold it in any longer, so here’s one for you, cya ttyl. :)

Entry Zwölf - Offensive!?!?

 I'm sure it's safe to say we all know what a political cartoon is, it is simply a form of political opinion that is expressed through a different medium. These are also know to incorporate the use of humor to bring some comedy to the political world. If I can recall correctly, I think political cartoons were more common when I was younger when compared to today, due to the fact many people seem to be "offended" by what is expressed in the cartoons. I put offended in quotations because I don't find myself in this situation nor can I exactly comprehend how other people are upset with them. Though I will admit that I have seen some pretty messed up cartoons from before I was born but during the time that the cartoon was originally released it was all in good fun, if you will. I'm pretty much unaffected by political cartoons, a joke's a joke, if I think it's funny I laugh; although I'm not afraid to admit most of these cartoons go right over my head.

I think people have a problem with political cartoons because they require less effort than reading an editorial or article expressing the same opinion. The physical dimensions of cartoons are relatively small, letting the reader get the artist's full opinion in a matter of seconds. To adequately express this
opinion the artist needs to blow actuality out of proportion, this is where I can see people getting offended. If you were to compare an article and a political cartoon with the same purpose, views, opinions, etc., someone will most likely find the cartoon offensive and not the article. This is just reiterating what I stated, the artist has less room to convey their opinion; they must be bold and unrealistic to prove the point.

The prompt asks if we have ever been offended by a political cartoon and I think I can honestly state no, at least not by anything that is in my time; what was considered to be normal and okay in the past can easily aggravate me. So I guess if the prompt is speaking about my entire life then yes, the racist cartoons of the past will constantly offend me.

As an author in this section stated political cartoons are becoming extinct because the world, or at least the U.S., is too afraid of angering the people with them. The ways of caricatures and "witty" remarks are becoming a thing of the past. I honestly won't miss them much, but some people get a good laugh out of these cartoons. If at least one person like them though, why stop? Because it makes some people angry? Who cares they need to get a sense of humor, laugh it off and move on.

Entry Elf - Writing Improvements

Throughout this time in the class I think I have learned a bit of how to look at works and think more critically about it and come to more intellectual conclusions concerning them. I unfortunately don’t feel that my writing has improved much from what it was, that being said I do think it has become more relevant and better constructed. It seems that these blog journal things are helping me the most, by having an assignment that gives me something to talk about while having the freedom to explore the content in my own way. Although it may not be the best way to improve the way I write academically, I usually actually enjoy writing these things up even though I’m not a fan of writing.

The work that we do as a group also seems to be helping me, by comparing what I think about our assignments with other people really helps me progress with my critical thinking skills. Having the chance to evaluate my thoughts with others without the element of doing it in person lets me get a better understanding of information than in other classrooms; being incredibly shy doesn’t help in real life group situations.

In terms of critical thinking the reading questions really help out. Sometimes I find the questions on the harder side which is good; if everything is easy I wouldn’t learn anything. I don’t usually think on a higher level so having an almost weekly task to use this part of my brain is really assisting my development in terms of English classes.

Although the prompt this week was to examine how we think our writing has improved along with the development of the class, I feel that my critical thinking skill has become stronger than my writing. With everything we read and what we are asked about the subject I think the process of thinking up the answers has come farther than how I write said answers.  For me this class is helping me learn, just not writing as much as thinking.

Entry Neun - Insulting

As the prompt says we all have heard some sort of ethic, sexist or racial insults; but what I find interesting is how most of us just brush it off. In more cases than not, these insults most likely came at the end of a joke. Even though we may have just heard something incredibly rude, the set up to the punch line makes most of us laugh and completely ignore the negativity coming from the comment.
What I believe is one of the factors that is making us immune to these remarks, is the frequent use of the terms. Take today's rap music for example, almost every single song uses the derogatory "N word" that I'm incredibly uncomfortable even thinking to myself. Because it is used so often, and listened by people of mostly younger ages, I think kids are getting it into their heads that they can say whatever they please. I'm not saying they shouldn't speak their minds, because they should, but kids shouldn't be using language like that, in fact I feel no one really should. It sounds astonishingly closed minded, I know, but to be honest I don't care. When there is so much negativity around a word why should it still be used in conversation at all?
I think television on the other hand doesn't spread as much prejudicial language because of the FCC. They tend to censor or stop most of the really bad and insulting stuff. When we do see an insult in television it's usually because it is the easiest place to go to. Commenting on someone's ethnicity or sex is probably easier than just walking away from an argument. So I think that's how it can spread in terms of television, we use that form of insult to make ourselves feel better for a moment. Movies on the other hand have a lot more freedom than television so it plays a bigger role. Since movies are mostly depicting the lives of "normal" people, what we hear and see become the norm. I think we are highly influenced when it comes to film so it may only take a few movies or a single actor to spread these insults, and people will feel that it's ok because so-and-so said it in their movies. By the way when did movies start becoming so language filled? I recently saw an old Hitchcock film without a single "curse word" and it was one of the best movies I've seen in my life.
The prompt also asks how books spread these insults around, truthfully I can't say. I don't read often, and when I do it's probably a comic book. What literature I have read though, I can't recall if there was ever any really insulting things, I have a terrible memory.
So I guess in the terms of entertainment mediums, I feel music and movies are the two most influencing forms of spread prejudice insults due to the sheer number of audience members. It's a shame it gets to our kids and they grow up using this language.

Entry Acht - True Happiness

Which is more important happiness or self-respect? That's a tough one to answer.
Although it may seem like happiness is a better selection, I think having self-respect would ultimately lead to more happiness over a person's life time. Basically, the more confidence you have in yourself, the easier it is to enjoy the things in life and have the bad things hurt less. The more someone believes in themselves the more likely, when insulted or maybe faced with the breaking of a relationship, they can bounce back or brush off the bad and go on with their lives. I think the decision between happiness and self-respect is harder than usual because the two are related so closely. To be happy means to genuinely like what you are doing or the people your with etc. but how can you like the things and people around you if you don't like or respect yourself? I guess I feel that people with low self-esteem tend to be less happy than most people overall. Happiness is the quality or state of being happy; pleasure, contentment, or joy how can someone truly enjoy these things if they can't stand or be happy about themselves?
This may be an unrelated and meaningless tangent, but I feel neither happiness or self-respect is truly possible without other people, friends and family, to be there with us. I haven't read any of Jane Austen's works, but I think the main theme that occurs throughout is love, right? Being in love supposed to be an ultimate form of happiness, which is simply impossible without someone else for one to love and to be loved back. Love is complicated though so a more common form of happiness is simply enjoying the company of our friends and family. I guess what I am trying to say is that without other people one cannot be happy; sure they may say they are, but it's lonely without anyone else, how can you be truly happy with loneliness? (Although from time to time we do like having a moment to ourselves, but just ignore that for now.)
Now self-respect is just that, one respecting themselves, so how do other people enter into how we can have better self-esteem? It's quite easy to think about it for a moment. Don't we all have at least one person in our lives that we just respect or adore? When that one person, or people, compliments us just once, doesn't it just immediately boost the confidence in yourself? I think I'm trying to say that we need someone, anyone, to confirm our existence, just once, to reach the highest level of true self-respect. Because once that person who we admire tells you you're perfect, it'll always be in your mind, no one can bring you down now.
So, again, I think self-respect can bring more happiness over a lifetime, but we cannot have true happiness or self-respect without having someone by our sides. Isn't it better to enjoy life with someone else anyways?

Entry Sieben - My Social Ungraces

We all know we give off "vibes" from the way we walk and talk, but are you aware of what you do around other people on a daily basis? Personally I can easily recall the things that I do; I am most definitely not the most normal person in the world it's just the way we are.
The first thing that I can think of about myself, is the fact that I tend to wear a baseball cap most days. I am incredibly self conscience about one thing and that is my hair; I don't know why, I just am, and it annoys the heck out of me. So most days I usually say to myself "Screw it," and put on the hat to cover up the hair. Sure a hat's a hat, but I think that on a sub-conscience level, or whatever, the hat is an early sign that someone may not be sociable or isn't in the mood. I think it's due to the fact that it's covering something on the most obvious part on our bodies, the head. Even though I know my hat could be a factor into why some people would not want to be sociable around me, I'm far too lazy to get my hair "perfect" everyday.
Another problem I have a terrible time dealing with is eye contact. I cannot keep eye contact with anyone, it doesn't matter who you are I am incapable of keeping contact for the life of me. The better I know a person the longer I can keep it up, but at some point in the conversation I just need to look away, it's horrible. I know darn well that this just ticks people off, I can only imagine how put off that someone might feel who has a conversation with me. It's always like I am never interested in what anyone says, when it's the opposite that usually true. And again, this happens all the time, when I'm meeting someone new or just talking to a friend. So anyone meeting me for the first time, sorry, I'm not not interested I'm just messed up in the head.
Being socially awkward it's not hard for me to come up with these nonverbal cues that I do all the time. To keep this relatively short though, so I'll stick to one more and save you the suffering of it all. I guess the next biggest thing that puts people off of me would be my posture most likely. I am a sloucher, half the time I tend to slump as far down as I can in chairs and the other half I am usually humped over. It's just another one of the things that I feel make people think that I don't want to be sociable.
I give myself an "okay" grade in terms of sociability, because if you and I can get passed all the awkwardness that makes up me, I'm actually pretty nice and quite talkative. I guess I just need to work on the ungraceful social exterior , I'm in for some work aren't I?

Entry Sechs - Dialects

Whether we think about it or not, the dialect or accent someone uses influences what we think about them before we even get to know the person. For example I tend to stereotype people who have a New York or a New Jersey accents as people are or would be incredibly rude. As I’m sure we all know or can surmise, dialects and accents are regionally based, I can think of four different dialects off the top of my head in the United States alone. It’s very easy to listen to someone speak and create a stereotype or opinion of their life when the truth could be the complete opposite.

Unfortunately it is pretty safe to say we all do it in some way, the way personal experiences and the way society around us portrays most people tend to make our stereotypes true more often than not. When we look at things like television and movies, we see this all the time. Even though most of us are aware enough to know that stereotyping people like this is wrong, the way we observe and take in everything around us, it’s just human nature to assume the worst. Relaying back to television, the way T.V. shows portray gang members and their speech, when I hear someone speak just like that in real life, I can’t help but think “He’s in a gang.” I personally hate that that is the place I go to first, but there isn’t much evidence in the world to make me think of the positive originally.

Gang members are obviously not the only stereotype we look at, when you hear someone with a southern accent what do you think? Because I’ve spent half of my life living in Texas, what we think may be different. I feel that in movies or television people with southern accents, or at least a Texan accent, are seen as a “slower” member of society and/or are cowboys. I know this to be false, although in the rural parts of the south, you are more likely to meet a farmer or a cowboy, but they are outnumbered by people who are not in the cities and growing neighborhoods. So like the dialects that vary by region, the perception of these accents also varies by region.

Although we know the stereotypes are there, it’s kind of hard to think how they got started in the first place. The only explanation I can think of is simply someone hearing or using the kind of dialect or accent and it just spread from there. Keeping in line with the gang member reference, I think that it just spread so new/other gang members can feel a sense of togetherness through the use of language. Thinking about it, that makes sense as a whole; other people adopt/use certain dialects in order to fit in or in some cases to stand out in their local communities. So it’s pretty safe to say that the dialects and the stereotypes that go with them won’t be going anywhere anytime soon.

Entry Fünf - English Gobalization

As Mauro E. Mujica stated in Why the U.S. Need an Official Language, “English is the language of business, higher education, diplomacy, aviation, the Internet, science, popular music, entertainment, and international travel.” If one was to think about it, this statement is total truth; it is safe to say being born into a country without a prevailing use of the English language would put that child at a disadvantage in terms of global immersion. As Mujica stated almost everything in the world is dominated by English, I think this is due to the fact that some of the world’s largest and most powerful markets in the world are English based.

I think the reason why mostly everything is in English is because whatever the topic was (i.e. the Internet or aviation) it became popular in English and just expanded from there.  Why change something that works? It’s hard to imagine, for me, if the bulk of the music or movie industry was in a different language, it would not be as big in my life as it is now. I am very fortunate to be in an English speaking country. I like my TV and movies coming out without the need for subtitles and listening to music I can understand.

Like almost anyone will say, English it the language to know to make it in the world, unless you plan to stay on the local level for your entire life. I don’t know how many things work for anyone who doesn’t grow up with English, but I couldn’t imagine my life without my usual internet sites or video games. Again I know that I am fortunate to be an English speaking native, and have already been given a decent advantage over other people around the world that either don’t know English or are not yet masters of the language.

Although most of the global economy is constantly evolving, I don’t see it expanding too much further in the terms of language. I think where the world is at works for us all, although personally I feel we should encourage a bit more incorporation of other languages. Having a universal language for the world in terms of all these subjects would be a great way to “unite” us, but would it ultimately destroy our language diversity?  I think the English language isn’t going to spread much more anytime soon. English is the “language of the world” just like that.

Entry Vier - "Helping Hand"

For me the most author/essay in chapter two was "Writing for an Audience" by Linda Flower. Although I already know that thinking about your audience and keeping them in mind throughout the paper is a must, but Flower brought up some very interesting points that I've never thought about. For example, where you live can give one person a different view of a lake or beach, Flower uses a lake to show us this example. She states that even though that generally people see a lake as a sunny place to swim and ski, she thinks of lakes as "cloudy skies, long rainy days, and feeling generally cold and damp." This was a great visualization for me, I've never really thought about how some people might view something differently than the "norm." It made me realize that, should the need arise to write about a setting, I should give a better description so that my view of the place comes through and helps the point I'm trying to make to the reader.

Before Flower went into the differences between writer and reading she explained that one should take the time to actually examine the planned audience. I know that writing is "about" the audience but I can honestly say that I don't think I've ever truly taken the time to think about the expected audience and plan for what they already may or may not know, their attitude toward the topic or what the reader may need from the work. With this being pointed out to me, I feel that I can/should take the time to truly examine who I am writing for and why, so that my writing can can a solid turn for the better.

Although she does not spend much time talking about the knowledge of the audience, I think it is one of the biggest things we should look at, if we do not consider what our readers may or may not already know, we could cause problems when trying to discuss our topic to the audience. Flower's questions, "What does your reader need to know?" and "Does your reader have enough background knowledge to really understand you?" are great to ask ourselves when beginning to write almost anything. Even though this is probably common knowledge, I think we cannot emphasize taking audience knowledge into account enough.

Overall I think Flower does an excellent job letting us know that we need/should really examine our audience to the fullest; to make sure we know how the audience will react to and absorb the information you are relaying. Again, I feel this article helped me the most because it will allow me to prepare better and allow the things I write to be better than they are today.

Entry Drei - Dear Mr. Editor

Dear Mr. Editor,

I have written this letter to voice my opinion about Amir Taheri's "The Semantics of Murder." First of all thank you for including it in your publication, I personally think it is a very interesting topic to explore, wondering how the people with ties to the Muslim world view these suicide bombers. As Taheri points out, we can see that the leaders of the Muslim community voice their opinions for suicide bombings, and even encourage it their children. I find it fascinating that by doing so, a Muslim is breaking one of the five unforgivable sins, which is to commit suicide. It's amazing how someone so young can be brainwashed into committing acts of terrorism for their religion, even though it involves going against the religion to do so.


Taheri explains that the organizations that fuel these bombing use other words in their language to justify going against unforgivable sins. Because they cannot call themselves martyrs, they describe themselves as "martyr-like," once again proving to me that if they don't see themselves as religious heroes, the people don't either. He continues to point out that these terrorists try to coin different terms of themselves without tying it to their religion if they can.

It seems that the leaders are so obsessed with destroying Israel, they would condemn their own followers. Taheri makes an interesting point here, even though these leaders appear to condone these acts of terrorism they always make sure it is someone else's child. This to me proves that they know that these acts of terror oppose their religion, so they make sure to doom the soul of a person who is not a relative.

When I review the facts I can't see anything but evil deeds, these leaders are killing their own while they sleep nice and cozy at night. I personally cannot see how anyone, even a member of the Muslim community, can call the suicide bombers anything other than terrorists. Taheri asks at the beginning of this article, are the bombers seen as martyrs to their people? I feel that the answer should be no. I think Taheri does an excellent job pointing out these organizations don't speak for the entirety of Muslims, they are simply people who wish to destroy everything that they dislike or hate.

Again thank you for including this in your publication, I feel it spreads some light on the mostly unknown world of Muslims and its connection to terrorism.

Sincerely,
Austin Kaylor

Entry Zwei - Illiteracy

In our current time, being illiterate is one of, if not the hardest, disability to overcome. It is very easy to say that without reading or writing one cannot get very far in this world. The prompt asks us to brainstorm a list of things that one is unable to do while being illiterate, the word "anything" came to mind first. What can someone without being able to read or write actually do? It is hard to imagine going through the world without these two basic and essential parts of of life.

Going back to the list that I made the first thing I thought of, besides "anything," was not being able to read any information from the internet. This is easily a technology based era, when your cellphone can do anything you want it to do and have another 5,000 other functions, you would be screwed if you tried to get something simple, like the local news, off the internet. The way we use the internet these days is more than enough for people involved in news to realize putting information online is a better way to get to their audience; although one might argue you can still get information from the nightly news, how much of that information is relevant or the stories you want to know about. For example, in California an Earthquake, of almost any caliber, is enough to trump anything else going on in that particular news day; if you live no where near the epicenter of the quake you will still only get news revolving around it, and most likely not hear the news you want for that day. The next best thing to do is to check the internet, it is almost guaranteed someone will have reported about what you want, but if you can't read what you want to know, you'll be way out of luck.

Being a big fan of technology it's no surprise that the second thing on my list of what you can't do if you were illiterate was the inability to text, update your facebook status, or do the twitter thing. I personally don't twitter but thousands upon thousands of people do, unable to write or read would make websites like twitter and facebook obsolete. People always want to know what their friends or family are doing, facebook and twitter are two of the most popular ways of doing this. Because we live in this technologically advanced age, no one wants to call someone up to tell them their daily plans, when a cellphone accessible website is so much more convenient. If you plan to be socially active while being illiterate you are going to have a tough time finding out exactly when, where, and what your friends are going to be doing.

So basically, to me, being illiterate would easily destroy more than half my life, simply based on how often I used the internet. Unless you can find everything you need in the form of an audio medium, being unable to read or write will possibly annihilate the chance to live a "normal" life.

Entry Eins

Hmmm critical thinking, what does it mean? For me it is a process of examining parts of our lives, whether its a choice we made or maybe looking at a book we read; thinking critically is the way we look at ourselves or others and compare it to how we feel or maybe the actions that we take. Has a friend or family member ever done something where you thought, "Would I do the same thing in that situation?" You examined what they did or did not do, and decided for yourself that is was either ultimately right or worng and then how you felt about it. Could a better action been taken or was it the best answer at the time? That's what I believe happens when decide to look at our lives and think critically of ourselves.

When thinking about this in terms of reading, we must go passed what we actually read and try to see the thoughts of the author behind the words. We should try to figure out a deeper meaning and compare it to the world around us for a better understanding of both the written work and where the author is coming from when they wrote their story. When I read I try to pick out deeper meanings as best as I can, even though I'm most definitely not the best at it. Picking out a change in tone or word choice may show the author's ture feeling on the situation. After I pick something out I compare it to how we live now and how this work may impact it.

Even though this is how I feel about critical thinking, unfortunately I don't personally do it in my life all that often. I tend to live and look at things on the top layer; although from time to time I look at a piece of news and start to examine it and try to discover a deeper meaning. The news is usually something of a political nature because it is one of the easier areas of real life to look at and say "What would I really about this or that? Would it be better than what was done?"

As I said earlier I am not the best at viewing things critically or seeing a deeper meaning, so through the course of ENGL 103 I hope to get a better understanding of what it means to look at something in a critical way in both written works and real life. As of right now it is fairly difficult for me to look at written work and come to a conclusion that is not totally obvious, hopefully through the work we do here and the discussions we have I can personally get a better understanding of this and come out better than before. Lastly, after the course is completed I hope to see the world for what it really is or at least be able to look at a piece of news and be able to dissect it to get the relevant information from it that I need.



I apologize of any spelling or grammar mistakes.