Jacoby and Religion

Susan Jacoby states that because of religions large role in our lives, it results in irrationality and belief in things that are scientifically proven wrong. In some ways, it is effecting education and making it one- sided because education will not challenge religious views because religion has such a large impact in our lives, even it if harbors hatred. Due to either one-sided, or absolutely no discussion at all of religion, we are taught no religious tolerance. For example, a six year old girl I was babysitting was talking faithfully about her religion and how it’s taught in her Christian school. When I happened to mention another religion, she became disgusted and knew only of the bad things this religion had done. I could easily tell there was already a deep hatred planted in her young little head for a religion that opposed hers, even at such an ignorant stage. I was shocked, to say the least, and I realized that her views are formed because at schools, we are not taught to tolerate other religions or we are not taught about other religions at all. Sure, our parents may tell us, but depending on the person, they probably have one sided views as well. We are never offered a unbiased, straight answer.

Lost My Ideas, If Found Write Them on Paper

As Ms. Fletcher was lecturing the class about the importance of writing as a tool, one frightening thought came to my mind: The dangers of ideas on paper. Have we ever just sat back and taken a world view on writing? It is pure evil, a screwdriver that screws backwards.

"Ideas are dangerous, not people." The phrase should be changed to "writing is dangerous, not ideas". A perfect idea is ruined without proper declaration. Orwell was well aware of this in his "Politics and the English Language," using examples from doctors and scientists whose thoughts were lost in a jumble of confusion and sophistication. What is more prevalent, however, is how writing can morph ideas into forms that shroud the author's point of view. For example, the Bible, Koran, and The Communist Manifesto are books of immense importance to many people, though different interpretations of each have resulted in uproars of death over clarification. How a thought is expressed through writing, and writing alone, determines its reception , which determines its importance.

My question, then, is: Can an idea stay in its original form in writing? Yes, a medium changes the message, but is writing not the most basic medium that is able to stand through time?

America Oh America!

I remember when we read the poem America by: Tony Hoagland in class, I fell in love with it because it was so true! When he says, “I am asleep in America too.” I agreed as well, I’m not saying that we live in a bad place just that I wish I saw more cultural appreciation. Not where as he describes, “Whose walls are made of Radio Shacks and Burger Kings, and MTV episodes, Where you can’t tell the show from the commercials.” My favorite part is when he is talking about his dream with his father in it, “It was not blood but money, That gushed out of him, bright green hundred-dollar bills, Spilling from his wounds, and—this is the weird part--, He gasped, “Thank god—those Ben Franklins were Clogging up my heart--…”” I enjoyed it because is describes how money takes over us and makes us different, it can also warn the possessiveness and deadliness of money.

spanish dummies

Today I was in my spanish class and the class was answering warm up questions. Everyone was saying the same thing, the right answer. Then as we go on this guy answers a question incorrectly but he screams it. I knew in my head that the answer was wrong but I found myself and the whole class repeating him! I suddenly remembered brain-dead megaphone. I was shocked. It is true that we will listen to the loudest person even if we aren't paying any attention to them. At first when I heard brain-dead megaphone I thought it was silly. I was thinking to myself this couldn't happen. Today I was proven wrong when my whole spanish class became spanish dummies. If this happened without anyone noticing they said the wrong answer due to the loud guy that no one was paying attention to, what could happen in our society when people don't notice what they are saying?

Explosive Growth In Technology: Good or Bad?

Ray' Kurzweil enthusiasm on the subject of accelerated growth in technology is highly disturbing. I find his view on technological evolution to be atrocious and unethical. Yes technology is very useful and the improvements made on it very helpful, but going as far as to use it in order to stunt aging, control emotions, our thought process, and manipulating our memories is exceedingly extreme and frightening. I don't write this as way to knock down Kurzweil I just don't agree on his fixation with technology. What are you guys opinion on Ray Kurzweil view on the expansion of technology? Are you guys as highly opposed to these things? If not why?

Is America becoming progressively dumber?

Susan Jacoby believed that America was gradually becoming less intelligent. This is absolutely true. As the media continues to dominate our contemporary society, we are continually becoming more ignorant. Reading has declined, not just among those who are less educated. Instead of enjoying the full experience of reading a book, many would probably just watch the movie, or go on the internet for sparknotes.

A test was given to some high school students in California where they were given pictures and tested on whether or not they could identify the people. The result was that 92% of the students were able to identify the celebrities, like Katy Perry, Tom Cruise, Lady GaGa, Rhianna, and Zac Efron. But, sadly, only 26% of the students were able to recognize all of the political figures, like Barbara Boxer, Condoleezza Rice, and (then senator) Barack Obama. This really shows how ill-informed our society is becoming.

Science and Religion dating?

Jane quickly walks up beside Joe, taking up whatever space was left of the sidewalk.
"Hey Joe!" Jane exclaims with a large grin on her, which threatened to cut her head in two.
"Oh, hey Jane, how are you today?" Joe asks, returning Jane's grin with a smile of his own.
"I am doing well, but", Jane stops mid sentence as she glances around, "Have you heard that Science and Religion are dating now?" They both continued to walk, but Joe was gaping at Jane.
"What?" Joe questions, unsure if he heard correctly.
"Science and Religion are dating" Jane shoots back bluntly.
"How did that happen? They are like, polar opposites!" Joe replies with utter bewilderment as he throws both of his arms in the air.
"I don't know, and I'm not sure if their relationship is going to work out", Jane lets out a sigh, "Expect drama." Joe groans at her last statement as he slaps himself in the face with the palm of his hand.

Conflict between science and religion has been going on for ages. An example may include the Roman Catholic Church's opposition against the claim that Earth went around the sun, which starts around the 1600s. The conflict even continues today, although it may be less prominent than it was in the past.

Education and religion conflict with each other in some classrooms and schools. IN TODAY'S SOCIETY it is seen less, but it is definitely there. As stated in one of the podcasts presented to us, some classrooms teach things more ambiguously, especially science, due to their stance with religion.

Anyway, religion and science have not always been on the best terms. Will they ever be able to "get along"? I think that may never be the case. The best each side can do is debate and not start a huge brawl. "Science VS Religion! Come watch the long-term rivals duke it out in the octagon!" Looks like they are even taking it into the octagon. Anyway, religion is based on faith, which is, "belief not based on proof" while science is a study, "dealing with facts". They are just like non-polar and polar, or angel and demon. They just won't mix.

No Shame in Media

Maybe this is related to Susan Jacoby. Maybe even Postman. I don't care; I wanted to bring this up.

Recently (and I'm sure Ms. Fletcher has heard of this), the Los Angeles Times did a review of LA County's teachers and gave them all a score. Now, this ruffled the feathers of teachers' unions, parents, and administrators. But none of this is compared to what has just happened.

A 5th grade teacher, who was a favorite of his students and was cited as a motivational influence, committed suicide out of apparent depression from his low score in the Times. Worse, this story gets the front page on the LatExtra section of the paper.

Without remorse.

I lost a little bit of respect for my favorite newspaper from this. This score system is needlessly affecting the effective. It is also letting teachers' bosses get some background when it's time to hand out the pink slips.

I want to know what YOU think about this. Media exploitation? Teachers getting flak from the system? Comments appreciated.

Bear v. Shark - Human v. Human?

In Bear V Shark by Chris Bachelder, it is set it the future where entertainment is amplified to such extremes as watching a bear and shark fight to see which will succeed. They are both mechanical and in an arena with enough water to allow the shark to swim, yet not enough water to inconvinience the bear. This event is such a grand spectacle in a Las Vegas type setting, with all the flashing lights and sparkle that defines that city today. People from everywhere gather to watch this battle, simply answer the question: Who would win?
While interpreting this story, it reminded me of those famous boxing matches that are so popular today. Two men, head to head against eachother, in some arena in a popular city like Las Vegas. People hand over serious amounts of cash (like money I could buy a car with) just to get a front row seat. And what are they watching exactly? Two men beat eachother up tll one is labeled a winner. I don't think boxing is "bad", because I do watch it with my family from time to time. It is a reason for us to all get together and enjoy it. However, the same gos for Bear V Shark. The people to want so badly to watch it consider it just another form on entertainment, or something to watch with the family. The Bear V Shark story, so seemingly outrageous and extreme, hits closer to home than we may think.

Language:Defining Our Identity?

In James Baldwin's essay, he claims that language is a "crucial key to identity". But, after our discussion in class, I was wondering if his statement holds validity. One of the topics that was brought up was when black people are caught "talking white". If a black person is speaking using proper grammar and what people would perceive as "white" language, then wouldn't the subject of language be pushed aside when describing someone's identity?

In addition, he claims that language explains a person's self-esteem. I believe there are far greater things that affect someones self-esteem. Baldwin takes a bit of a reach in saying that language plays a "crucial" role in describing it.

Let me know what you think.

Should I be louder?

For as long as I could remember, my voice is always overshadowed by a bigger, louder, more attention grabbing voice that demands the ears of the people around. The teacher will ask for an answer and i'll say it and get no response but the person next to me or across the room says the same thing and the teacher gives them praise! It is weird because sometimes I feel like i'm being loud but people have always said I have a soft voice. With the whole megaphone man concept i can totally see where this is coming from. I think it is right, the voice that is louder and that carries across the room with ease even while the speaker uses a normal tone are the ones that tend to do public speaking, announcements, and more looked to as the loud boisterous funny one.

Europe is better at educating its children . . .

Susan Jacoby said in the podcast something about schools not being very good. She seems to specifically believe that children who live in poor areas are going to attend bad schools that have teachers with bad training.

The following is from an article in The New York Times:

“In Europe,” she writes, “the subject matter of science and history lessons taught to children in all publicly supported schools has always been determined by highly educated employees of central education ministries. In America the image of an educated elite laying down national guidelines for schools was and is a bête noire for those who consider local control of education a right almost as sacred as any of the rights enumerated in the Constitution.”

Maybe that's why she says that, "America is dumbing down." If it is, then I agree with her. It's not the childrens' fault that they don't know facts. Nobody is there to teach them; nobody qualified. Some of those children may actually want to know the three branches of government or the name of a Supreme Court justice.

Peer Pressure Kills Elephants

In Orwell's essay, Shooting an Elephant, he demonstrates the effectiveness of peer pressure. Even though he was hated by the Burmese, he still felt pressured to do what they wanted to do even if it meant killing a useful animal. I think that it would be more understandable if the reason why Orwell killed the elephant was because he felt that it could be dangerous. However, near the end of his essay, he states that he killed the beast because he felt pressured by the crowd. This made me slightly upset, but it also made me think. Why do we, as people, always feel a need to do whatever anyone wants us to do, especially when there is a huge mass of people breathing down your shoulders. I know from experience that when a bunch of people and nudging or pushing you to do something, you do it because of the pressure and not because you want to or believe that is it right. But why do we do so? Is it because we want to be accepted and not shunned? I think that it is the need to fit in and be liked, but does this really justify the actions that we are pressured to preform, like shooting an elephant?

Bachelder

Chris Bachelder uses Bear v Shark to demonstrate how culture has changed. He specifically SOAPStone based on how books should be nowadays, and not based on how they are currently set up.

What is the Subject? Is there really only one, or is there actually no main point?

Occasion? Well, for starters, the culture of the modern era; the whizzing clips of news and information that pile up in our minds in a trash heap until it collectively rots away at the core of our individualty, which is demonstrated in the novel.

Audience? The audience is us, and anyone who has catchy commercial jingles stuck in their head or has witnessed a phonecall from a telemarketer.

Purpose? As entertaining as the book is, Bear v Shark screams at our faces that now even books are capable of pushing the limits to conform to the ritual of short, meaningless, and inevitably disposable information wrapped up in another pretty discourse vehicle that ships directly to our brains.

Speaker? The speaker is not of flesh, not of any living biomass; but it does keep us breathing peacefully at night and is our IV for daylight hours (it runs our lives). The speaker's name is Mr. Television, but you may call him Today's Media.

Tone? Everything is fast-paced; wild. Here's a distraction; no, there! And another commercial. How come there are more minutes of commercials than of one program? Why am i really watching this? And we have to live with this voice; this country bloated with megaphone-men/women. Every single day. That may only be Mr. Television's goal, but if it is he that runs our lives, his goal lives strong. Do we really want to listen to this trash heap, or do we finally want to bury this wasteland and start afresh?

Well, that's just scary

Don’t get me wrong, I like Sci-Fi movies, but I don’t see the need for any of them to become our reality. The idea of computer implants, as predicted by Ray Kurzwell, seems unnecessary. The idea of having a computer in someone’s brain, at first, was fun to toy with, but the reality of this became scary.

Kurzwell argued that the human body will become old-fashioned. People will spend more time in a virtual reality. Virtual realities will become less “virtual”, and become our “real” reality. What is so wrong with our realities now? What is so bad about having to use our phones or computer to access the internet instead of our brains? I know that it would be impossible to stop our progress, but I cannot help but question the reasons for and necessity of these advancements.

Let us get rid of megaphone man

Can he be eliminated? Would it be possible to somehow get him to let go of the throne? I think so. He happens all the time, and we have now acknowledged megaphone man’s existence listening to George Saunders. Why had we not noticed him before? It must be because we did not mind listening to him. It did not bother the audience that he was controlling them because it was subconscious. Which means we should not have this problem anymore right? We can stop this “megaphone man” from controlling us since we know he exists. We must learn that just because he has the speaker does not mean he is wiser. Because something is on the television does not mean it is true. To let others or the media control us is ridiculous when we know of their intentions.

So back to my question can he be eliminated? Yes. It goes back to this summer’s books. We all read about the media destroying us and our possible Huxley future. The deciding factor will be whether we chose to do something about it.

Braindead Society

George Saunders could not be more right on the fact that people listen to the loudest person in the room. How is it that people could become distracted so easily? I admit I have a horrible attention span and there are plenty of people that do, but why is it? There have been many occassions in which there are many cliques and groups talking amongst themselves, then are suddenly interrupted by "the man with the megaphone."
An example is when I was afterschool waiting with some friends for my mother to arrive. There was about six of us there talking about different things, then one of them stood up and started talking about soccer and left a few minutes later. Once they left, all of us began talking about soccer and things related to it, even though a couple minutes before we were talking about homecoming or our cellphones. What makes us lose attention this easy, is it lack of intelligence or could it be laziness, whichever reason it is, we all know it happens one way or another.

Everyone has a megaphone

It's lunch time and I'm with a large group of my friends, about 8 or 10. There's a few side conversations going on about food, sports, and plans for the weekend. No single person was determining the flow of the conversations. Then something happened. Almost instantly, the collective flow of conversations turned to Leonardo DiCaprio and whether or not he was a good actor based on the amount of films he was in.

At the time, I did not think anything strange about it because this is how a lot of our conversations went. The troubling part was the fact that everyone in our group has done this at least once. Unlike the brain dead megaphone man who appears during the course of the party, the man in our group was already there.

This led me to the conclusion that the infotainment culture is even stronger in the younger generation. I normally do not see adults at family parties talking about actresses or mainstream music, so why is our generation so inclined to bring up entertainment?

I believe that part of the cause is just our age. We have not experienced as much as someone 10 or 20 years older and from my experience, adults spend a great deal of time talking about the world around us or their life stories.

However, the main force driving the shift in our conversations is the inclination of my generation towards the mediums of entertainment. Television, computers, cellphones and even magazines are ingrained into our generation because of their allure. This leads to one ethical question that can not be answered by facts and conjecture alone. Is the inclination towards entertainment a learned behavior or are we born to crave and cause distractions?

Video Game Addiction

My mom was watching the channel E! last night. The show that was on was called Too Young to Kill: 15 Most Shocking Crimes. On the countdown, there was a teenager by the name of Daniel Petric. Here is his story that got him on this countdown:

So this kid, Petric, got injured while snowboarding and had to stay at home for a certain amount of time. He was introduced to video games, more specifically the Xbox 360 and the game Halo 3, when he was at his friend's house. His dad didn't like him playing such violent games, but Daniel did it anyway. He eventually went out and bought the 360 console and Halo 3, something that his parents asked him not to do. While he was stuck at home due to his injury, he would sometimes play for almost eighteen hours with no breaks. When his parents confiscated and locked the game away, Petric decided the game was a necessity. After about a month, he stole back his game from their lockbox, along with his father's 9mm handgun. He came up from behind his parents and shot them point-blank, killing his mother and severely injuring his father. When the police found him, he was in the driver's seat of family's van with Halo 3 in the passenger's seat. In the trial, he was sentenced to 23 years in prison; he is up for parole in 2031.

Can video games really cause that big of an addiction? I mean, I myself may have been addicted to them when I was younger, but never to that extent. I guess it shows how reliant (in case, addicted) some people are to our technologies that surround our world today, and what would happen if it were taken away.

The Home Language

Richard Rodriguez is the author of Hunger of Memory: The Education of Richard Rodriguez. In this narrative Rodriguez mentions that English should be the only language that is spoken in the home because it is the "language of opportunity". When I heard this, I was troubled. Why can't the home consist of more than one language?

Although I was born in the United States, my parents and two of my brothers were not. My household consisted of English and Tagalog. As a result, I grew up understanding both languages. Sure, I can't speak Tagalog fluently, but by being familiar with the language, I feel like I have a cultural identity as a Filipino. I believe that many immigrant families use their original language in the household because it signifies who they are, their identity. What Rodriguez suggests for families to do in their homes will result in a loss of identity. Rodriguez even admits that when he learned English that his relationship with his parents became more distant and that part of his cultural identity was lost.

What is your view on this? Do you believe that it is better for families to only speak English in the home?

Raising Bullies

I really liked that talk on the New York School that is using video games to help students learn their information. (http://www.wired.com/culture/education/news/2007/07/game_school) Director of the program, Katie Saden, said something very interesting about a new type of learning where "The meaning of 'knowing' today has shifted from being able to remember and repeat information to being able to find and use it."

I figure this is a very good point- if we can just google every answer shouldn't we learn more about being able to find answers than the answers themselves? I've had teachers tell me that once you get out of school you don't really need to have everything memorized because you can just google the answer.

However, I was reading one of my mother's magazines and found an article on an increase in bullying of children by children. One of the labelled causes of this lack of social skills? Video games. The article argues that increasing amounts of time spent without "facetime" with real live people has caused children to lose their ability to act socially correct.

I can't help but wonder how the kids will do in the 6th-12th grade "video game school".

"Ignorance is common"

Is it really true that America is dumbing down?

Author Susan Jacoby claims that schools are a failure. I do NOT agree with that. Yes, I am not the biggest fan of school and homework, but it's because the help of our teachers that gives the students the ability to strive and want the best for our future. Teachers are not the only motivation for students but coaches, principles, other students as well as family. If a student decides not to go to college that is their decision, it's the fact that they want the best for themselves and their family by getting a greater education. In order to become a doctor, dentist, etc., people need training, and to get that training you need to go to college or universary.

Jacoby also claims age 15 scored the LOWEST in mathematics. Even if fifteen year olds score the lowest, isn't that the reason why students are able to retake a math class? For example Mayfair, in order to graduate you need to pass algebra 1, and if it means retaking it year after year so be it.

Susan Jacoby may think that America is dumbing down, but in order to KNOW that that is a fact, everybody in the whole entire country must take a test to determine how much the country knows as a whole. She may have gone to schools to try and prove her point, but I am pretty sure she did not go to all of them.

Like I said, I am definitely not the biggest fan of school, but I have to defend all the great teachers and staff, as well as everybody else who wants the best for the newer generations!

Megaphone vs. Resonance

After listening and further questioning myself about George Saunder's essay Brain-dead Megaphone Guy, I realized how gracefully the concept of the term resonance entered my mind. I successfully related this topic heard in class to a distinct one mentioned in Amusing Ourselves to Death when Neil Postman quotes Northrop Frye's principle stating that "Through resonance, a particular statement in a particular context acquires a universal significance." It may seem like pure nonsense to my fellow classmates, but this allowed me to better apprehend my understanding of this term. The megaphone utilized by the individual gave him a sense of empowerment and control over those without one. He cannot be avoided, therefore that is the reason why he was listened to in the first place. According to my thoughts, I related the term resonance and megaphone in less than a second. Both seem to convey the same idea, just a bit differently. What are your opinions? Share them

What's the news about?

"New news has been old news ever since the stone age." As George Saunders stated in his article labeled Brain Dead Megaphone Man.

After watching the news over the course of two weeks, I had taken note that Saunders did have a point when he said the earlier quote. The news is basically being recycled and called another title such as "Man Robs Store" or "Murder on Main Street". Occasionally the recycled news is the same but in some instances there are the recycled news that have more impact that its predecessors for some unknown reasons, the only new news we hear and need to know is the weather forecast. If pnly having knowledge in the change in weather is necessary, then why do we bother with having the media showing us the same news 24/7? It just feels like history is repeating and the same events are occurring. Do you guys feel the same way as I on this repetitive news cycle? What is the reason for the media to repeat the news to the audience? I mean, the only difference is the title of the news so why bother repeating it to us?

Book Recommendation Site

I like this website:  Flashlight Worthy Books.  Was referred to me this evening on Twitter.

For those of you who do not see the point of Twitter, please allow me to explain (one day; not now.  I'm tired).  There's plenty of smart, incisive content and commentary going on at Twitter, believe. it. or. not.

You hate me? So what! I don't care.

What do you do when a big group of people hates you? Do you pretend that you don't care or do you try to deal with it using violence? Whether you are hated by one person or a group of people, the effect is still the same. The Bedford Reader that we have been reading in class has a lot of interesting topics from what I've seen, but one that we've been reading in class so far is Orwell's Shooting an Elephant. A European man is a sub-divisional police officer in a place he despises. He also seems confused as to whether he hates his own people or his oppressors. When you find out that someone doesn't like you, you not only have hate for that person but also hate for yourself. We are already self-conscious enough as it is, but our insecurities really show when we know that we are not liked. The man in Shooting and Elephant made me wonder, if you really hate your job or your life, do you just deal with it or do you try to find a way out of it?

LISTEN TO ME!!!

Just by the title of my blog I am sure I grasped at least a couple people's attention. How easy it is to get someone off topic or what their current thought was by simply shotuing or making a lot of noise. George Saunders "Brain Dead Mega Phone Man" podcast shows exactly this concept. A man with a megaphone steps in and shouts how he loves early spring mornings. Then following this everyone stops what their current topics are and start talking about their early spring mornings. Now the brain dead megaphone has a hold on the group as they laugh and discuss their personal mornings when just a second ago they might have been angry at one another.

This reminds me of what a speaker said at a conference I attended in Redlands. One of the things he said was that if he was to say "dont think about elephants" what do people instantly do? They think of elephants! It seems that everyone is so oblivious when someone steps in and says something random or reverse psychological. Is there any hope for this vast growing disease?

"There is no news"

As George Saunders has said in Brain Dead Megaphone Man, "There is no news" and he couldn't be more correct. The fact that this photo basically explains that there are more other important things going on in this world but we choose to focus on what's insignificant like following Lindsay Lohan's story against the court ruling of her drug arrest.

The fact that it's so out there that it's resounding itself into 24 hour news when in reality, all we are going to do is just sit there. The oil spill however, is something we should definitely keep a look out for because it can affect us in the long run unlike following celebrities in their sob stories. I could definitely relate to George Saunder's view because technology is there but no one is seeing it as a crime. The best we can do is simply rant about it.

Our Utopia is Now

Thinking back to the question about creating a utopia, I have come to the conclusion that. there is not need to attempt to create a utopia like that of Brave New World or The Giver. Our current society is our utopia.

With disease, dictatorships, disease, crime, and pain our society may not fit the typical definition of a utopia. Dictionary.com describes a utopia as “an ideal place or state”. It is my belief that our society is ideal because it caters to our needs as humans. Even the ugliest aspects of our society our essential in our utopia. Sure discrimination is not pretty, but I believe that it feeds into our need, as humans, to classify different aspects of our life. Disease may also seem frightening, but it is essential for keeping the human population from breaching the carrying capacity of our world, it keeps us ecologically healthy. Even aspects of greed, anger, love, jelousy, and lust are necessary because they allow us to exercise the emotions and complex thinking that set us apart form the other animals in this world, that make us human. Our society is molded to the aspects of humans.

If anyone tries to take these aspects away they are destroying the aspects that make us human. Supporters of euthanasia are also supporting the destruction of diversity that allows each human to be unique and allows the human population to be diverse. It is also not natural for humans to be pumped with pills and laden with machinery because it takes away the aspects that make us humans. Eventually we will all end up looking like Darth Vayder who is “more machine than man” if we try to expand our longevity past what is human.

Humans are not flawless, so why should our utopia be?
To create a “utopia” like that of The Giver, Brave New World, or the world envisioned by Ray Rouzwell would strip our society of everything that makes us human.
You may see a world full of trouble, but I see a world that is human.

Using Technology as a Tool

While listening to Susan Jacoby she mentioned that many people believe that technology is making us smarter. Susan explained that technology is not making us smarter and that technology should only be used as a tool. When I think about this it reminds me about the school in Manhattan, New York that Ms. Fletcher brought up in class. When I first heard Ms. Fletcher talking about this school I did not know what to think. The thought about a school teaching through videogame-based lessons raised many questions in my head. Like, is this a bad thing or a good thing ? It also scared me a little because it seems like we are just becoming more dependent on technology and that we are slowly transforming into a world like Huxley's. All day I had that question in mind and all I could think about was that this could not possibly be a good thing but after I thought about what Susan Jacoby had mentioned. Teaching through videogame-based lessons does not necessarily have to be a bad thing. If it is used in the right way and as a tool for learning I can not see how it would be a bad thing. Ofcoarse I still believe that learning through videogame-based lessons will have consequences but maybe it is not as bad as it seems.

Virtual Reality

Kurzweil has predicted that in 2020 technology will be so advanced to the point that blood cell computers for the brain will be available. We will be able to use these computers whenever we would like and when used it will make us much more intelligent. Kurzweil also states that there are early examples in technology that support his prediction. He predicts that this change in technology will happen in stages and that when technology reaches a certain level humanity will be able to enter a virtual reality. This virtual reality will be created by the user and it will contain anything the user desires. I think of this virtual reality as a dream where the most beautiful and enchanted things surround you. A dream where only happiness is present. Although this sounds like it could be the greatest invention ever, it scares me. Once this virtual reality is created more people will begin to use it and as time goes by it will be used more often, to the point where no one will be living real life anymore. This not only frightens me, it also makes me heartbroken. I love life and I can not imagine living in a virtual reality instead of life. Even though it can sometimes be depressing this felling of unhappiness is a part of experiencing life. Virtual reality will bring a great amount of happiness but it will not be the same as actually experiencing all the people and situations that evoke happiness. What scares me the most is the thought that I will become a frequent user and lover of the new technology. What will become of humanity after this invention?

Hey, Get Your Own Ideas

I can really relate to Saunder's opinion of "the man with the megaphone" because I see it happening all the time, especially with myself. If there is one person who attracts a lot of attention talking, everyone in the area is naturally going to listen to him/her, whether intentionally or not. As they listen, the ideas the person with the "megaphone" is speaking about drift into their minds as true, no matter how absurd, and they begin to connect their conversations with that of the Megaphone Man. This has happened to me a lot-when I am talking to a friend, surrounding people start to follow up on my conversation amongst themselves; I find that as stealing some one else's thoughts, and it is extremely annoying. Still, I am guilty of building off of someone else's conversation, usually when I have my own opinion on the matter or when around someone who isn't easy to talk to. In this sense, the Megaphone Man can be very helpful in creating conversations-whether idiotic or not.

Louisiana.

Hey guys!

Anyways, this is a random post to just say 'hello' with a special virtual hug for Ms. Fletcher :D

*hug!*

Hopefully we'll be in Florida by Tuesday, so I'm going to try to keep you posted (mostly through facebook since thats on my phone).

Well I'm biding adieu for now and maybe write tomorrow:)

ps. If anybody is ever going on a road trip through the south, watch out for bats... for some apparent reason they try to land on your head and thats just too scary.

About Our Weekly Essay...

Ms. Fletcher you didn't say when this week's essay was due, so is it Monday or on Wednesday like last week?

NPR Today is especially good

Here's a story about a doctored photograph that is especially good.  A Susan Sontag rewrite, anyone?

Here's a black-out technique that I would love to try -- taking messages of hate and transforming them into messages of love.  Check out the website the story sends you to, Godlovespoetry.com

Finally, a little piece on the iPad as the textbook of tomorrow.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're heading to college tomorrow, so here is a little glimpse into your future.

Do you kids listen to Science Friday?   It's a radio show on Friday evenings...at the website today, there's several links of interest, but I think you'll like the Crow Cam (New Caledonia crows using tools), and the Attention Span test.

Can We Create A Perfect World?

Today in fourth period, Ms. Fletcher said that we could continue with the Socratic Seminar. We had a thorough discussion, tackling this question:

-What does it take to create a genuine utopia? Is it possible? Is it a worthy goal?

Of course, everyone holds their own opinions and ideas. My opinion, however, is that a perfect world is impossible to create. I mean, there is always room for improving our world... but perfect; I don't think so.

Take all of the qualities of a perfect world into consideration. No disease. No suffering. Everyone equal. Those are just a few of the many. How can we get rid of diseases entirely? Is that even possible? In class today, someone mentioned that a possible way to create a disease-free world would be to get rid of people with diseases- to kill them. Think about the families of those being killed. A utopia means everyone is happy. Would you be happy if someone you cared about was killed because they had a disease? Another aspect of a perfect world would be balanced power and equality among all people. No matter how hard we try, there is always someone who wants to take charge. This leads to tyrannical rule, and in turn would steer us from the idea of equality among everyone.

The Socratic Seminar is a good way to see what other people are thinking. However, some people (like me) just don't have the desire to chime in and express what our beliefs are on the spot. And to be honest, it can sometimes be intimidating. That's why I wanted to share my opinion on the blog. Now I am interested in hearing what you guys have to say.

Just my thoughts on today's Socratic Seminar . . .

In today's Socratic Seminar, the discussion question was, "Are there Alphas and Epsilons in American culture?"
Many people were basing their answers off of the characteristics that separate these classes.
But . . .
What about opinion? Everybody has their own opinion about what beauty is. Wouldn't that change the separation of classes? Like some people said today, the people in our society are probably separated into classes according to each individual's opinion.

In Brave New World, the people are thought to be handsome, smart, and strong because they are Alphas. I don't like titles, but if there are Alphas and Epsilons, a person would probably be an Alpha because he or she has all the previous traits. But then there would still be the matter of opinion; I may think someone is handsome and my friend may think otherwise.

Quick! Who's the 30th President?

Lower standards, failing knowledge, rising ignorance; I'm afraid most of this is true. Susan Jacoby provides an excellent point that America forgetting their own history. Can you name all of the U.S. presidents or the ammendments of our Constitution by memory? If you can, kudos to you, but I'm sure most of us can't (including me, I'm sorry to say. I'm sure I seem hypocritical writing this). Now that I think of it, it is pretty bad of us not to know our own rights or leaders.
Jacoby blames our public school system and the need for curricular standards. I, however, believe it is not the school's fault, it could be ours. School teaches us what we need to know to prepare for our futures. I believe it's our ignorance that gets in the way. Remember those history tests that needed to be taken over and over again like the states and capitals or the ammendments? We'd bang our heads on the desk and groan, "Not this again..." Maybe it's because we just don't care or that we have more important things to cram in our brains. We should make a goal to be less ignorant.

Mr. Lincoln, Are u still disapointed?

There's a commandment that states thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife is there not?

Well the original commandment stated "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, property, or slaves.

Slaves.

The original Commandment.

How can the bible say this? The bible, the good book.

So, Mr. Lincoln, what's worse avoiding the topic of slavery in the declaration of independence, or the blunt statement of Thou shalt not...... slaves?

What do you think? Hiding the word, or showing it front and center?

Ps. I saw this on a program called bibles mysteries or something like that. Quite interesting.

At what point do we become the technology?

At what point do we become the techonology?

In the podcast we listened to in AP English class Ray Kurzwell a technology enthusiast explains that soon our natural intelligence will be 1billion times inferior to computer technology.

What defines a human as a human?

My definition is, being able to experience emotions, make rational thought, and adapt to different experiences, plus the 6 things we learned in anatomy movement, growth, responsiveness, reproduction, specialized cells, and metabolisim) but the most important thing though that makes you a human is your memories.

So, if we have computer brains, does that make the computer the human and do we become the technology. In the podcast Kurzwell explains that the robots will be able to expereince human emotions, make rational thoughts, and (computers do this by themselves already) adapt to different experiences. If we had computer brains, the computer could use us as a vessel, it would have movement, could upgrade (grow/ obtain specialized cells), would be responsive, could build new computers (reproduction) and power itself (metabolism). Since your computer is in your brain it would share your memories.

So, at what point do we become the technology and the technology becomes the human?

Loud= Irritating

To all the megaphone men in the world BE QUIET. Silence is louder than words, and words are louder than nonsense spoken through the mouth of the loudest person in the room. So what if someone is louder than others in a conversation? That just gives the quiet people a chance to develop their own thoughts and realize that the loud mouth standing next to them is just in dire need of attention. Sure there are people who are loud and make a valid point, but in most cases the loudest is not forming ideas but rather droning on about some irrelevant topic.
People need to understand that well deveolped ideas, such as those by George Saunders, take time and patience to comprehend and fully appreciate. Today most people only enjoy loud, quick and simple ideas. Wake up people. The world of today needs to quiet down and listen up, agree, disagree?

Can my religion be in the way of my thinking?

It was Susan Jacoby I believe that said something about religious people somehow have a barrier that blocks off certain kind of theories that involve scientific evidence to support the assumption. Lets use an example that she brought up; the "Big Bang" theory, scientist have questioned themselves about the million dollar questions. How did we get here? How did we start? Was there life before the human specie evolved? People who follow a religion (lets call this religious person Bob) would probably laugh at the brilliant minds and simply say "God brought us here and God made everything" But of course where is the evidence to support that answer? ( Because it only seems like now in this century, you need every opinion to be supported by proofs, scientific evidence, facts facts and facts). So Bob would probably respond with this "Why everything is written in my ______." ( feel free to state whatever religious writing in the blank, i would choose the Bible but that's just me). Anyway, this answer might not be good enough for the brilliant scientist and refer back to the "Big Bang" theory.
So that was just a small example of how religion can "get in the way" of other's opinions or ideas or even scientist theories about questions like how the world started. Is it wrong to question your regions briefs? Can I believe that God made this world and also believe that earthquakes happen because plates get too much pressure thus causing them to shift? Can my religion some how be "blinding" me from excepting scientific theories? Does anyone else feel the way I do?

The louder, richer , and more powerful and our thoughts

When listening to George Saunders podcast about the book Brain Dead Megaphone i realized that we walk on a fine line of what is true and what we're are told is true. If the day is gloomy but we hear over and over again in a increasing louder voice that the day is sunny and beautiful our minds begin to think maybe today is beautiful. We have beliefs but if someone louder, richer and more powerful says our beliefs are wrong and continues to say so and throws fabricated evidence at us we still start to rethink our beliefs. The media can control our thoughts and our wants because everywhere we go there is a media outlet telling us what is right or what is going on in our community. The "news" as it is called fabricates every thing they say they spare us the details but really the conceals what is really going on behind the fancy slide shows and catchy tunes.

How to measure a Genius?

Now I realize this is not completely on the subject but it is related. At one point during the Ray Kurzwell section of our audio lesson he was referred to as a "restless genius." This got my easily distracted mind spinning, and I began to think how we measure a true genius. GPA, IQ? Similar to many things, genius has become overused and it may even be called a cliche. "Oh my. So-and-so is a genius she is taking 4 AP classes." No doubt this person is intelligent, but a genius? When I hear the word, a picture of Einstein instantly appears in my mind. Does someone have to be as smart as Einstein to be called a genius? At which point does someone go from being very intelligent to a genius? (two rhetorical questions in a row... it's a stretch) It is a fairly common word. Today I called my math teacher a genius after she finished a word problem that would have taken me hours. I agree with my favorite fictional character, Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory, when I say genius is being underrated. This is a small clip from an episode where Sheldon shares his feeling about this subject.


Well I couldn't figure out how to directly post it onto the blog but here is the URL. Check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPU8PKHBhWk

Just Something That Caught My Attention On Tumblr.

HMMM, something to think about?

It is a "unique American feature".

Analyst Susan Jacoby believe that America is becoming dumber and ignorant over the years as the media culture triumph over print culture. She believe, along with other intellectuals, that this epidemic of anti-rationalism and anti-intellectualism running rampant throughout America is rooted from all the media technology we have today, like the iPod, the computer, and the television. As I listened to the podcast of Susan Jacoby in 2nd period, I could not help but nod in agreement with the things she has mentioned. I agree that our generation is becoming dumber. The demand for newspapers, magazines, and books have sharply declined as a result of people turning towards the television or the internet for instant access of information or worse: people not caring at all. More Americans have shown the lack of even the most basic math, science, and geography skills. Compared to other nations, the United States ranks low in mathematics and science. How is this possible in such a powerful first-world nation?

I believe that our inclination to use media technology daily, our obsession of entertainment culture and instant gratification, and the fact that we allow this culture to easily penetrate our society without limitations are some of the reasons why our nation is losing more and more brain cells. Many Americans do not realize that when they sit idly for hours checking people's profiles on Facebook, or watch entertainment shows about celebrity gossips on television, they losebrain cells as these activities do not really require much brain activity. For many years, America has maintained it's reputation as the most powerful and influential nation in the world. With the continuing decline of intellectualism in America, it will not surprise me should we lose our dominance over the world in the years to come.

Do you always want the power over your own mind???

After listening to the several podcast this week I was forced to realize how technology will always advance and unfortunately it will just continue to consume us if we allowed ourselves to be control by technology. One of the podcast described a world in which computer could implanted in the brain. This was appalling to know that one day people could willingly forfeit the mind but not just for a drug but to an addiction...the addiction of technology. If there is always a computer constantly with you and at any given moment you can access, there is now no way for someone to be able to think for themselves. I believe that implanting computers into ones brain will drastically interrupt their mental stability. If someone has a computer in their head and for instance they're going through a difficult situation the computer automatically tell you how you should feel and how you should cope with any particular situations. Instead of someone being able to use their own mind to cope with misfortunes the best way for them. Understandably a computer in you brain does come in handy when you need it but at what cost? Not having my right mind or having something determine how I should feel is not a price I am going to be willing to make.

HEY! HEY! HEY! DO I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION YET?

Brain dead Mega Phone Man.

He was Loud.

He was hypnotizing.

He was Persuasive.

George Saunders podcast grasped my attention the most because he gave a funny little example of how human psychology works it's magic. Basically, if one is loud enough to over power the voice of all, and shouts how much he loves "early mornings in spring" we tend to listen (As Saunders states.) Which is nothing but the truth, I mean, it's hard not to hear him, so why not listen? So by the end of the conversation that Brain Dead Mega Phone man is having at us, we seemingly become brain washed in a way and reminisce on our experiences of early mornings in spring and find ourselves smiling and loving them. And for some reason Saunders metaphoric example reminded me of a cult. Megaphone man, the cult leader, is not the sharpest crayon in the box nor the most articulate but because he is so loud, it makes what he's saying important even though it obviously isn't. Early mornings in spring...not important. So if this cult leader is telling us non relevant things we tend to think vapidly, and when we think vapidly, we become vapid. I can recall a few moments in my life when I've agreed with someone just because they are "famous" or "superior", has this ever happened to you?

Do you think it's inevitable, or do you think someone somewhere could be indifferent to this?

We're under the megaphone's spell. WoOoO...

Ah, George Saunders. You know how you can tell when someone is a genius? Especially when they give you an extended metaphor which sounds quite humorous, then drop the bomb that this is a real life situation. In his NPR (or PRI? Not sure...) podcast interview in which he uses an excerpt from the Braindead Megaphone, Saunders illustrates a narrative in which a nonsensical man with a megaphone takes control of the conversation of a party, simply because he is the loudest. Boy, did I get surprised when I figured out his allegorical dimwit was my own TV!

Are we guilty of this sort of discourse in which TV has taken over? Yes. Inside our minds, this AP class probably scorns the fact that entertainment has become our form of conversation because of this new literature and insight Mrs. Fletcher has given us. Oh, but we are not saints.

I am a big fan of Mythbusters, for example. Also Anthony Bourdain: No Reservations. These shows are bound to be brought up in any of my conversation. Yes, a car can skip on water. Yes, water is bulletproof. Yes, the Philippines has made the best pork Bourdain has ever eaten. Ironically, I am criticizing television-oriented discourse right now!

What I am saying is that we should be careful not to play elitism here with this new information, since we ourselves are guilty of the sin we scorn. Maybe my point is that this entertainment is all fun and games, which is good. Postman warned that we may become too attached to our TV, and be in blind belief of all of its words. So, if we accept that the TV is purely for our enjoyment and not go take it too seriously, I think we will do just fine. Thoughts? Comments? Disagreement?

Benefits and Consequences of Our Technology

Ray Kurzweil predicts that in a few decades we will able to merge with technology that will help us extend our minds and lives past our biological limitations. Also we can create virtual worlds and bodies in our own image that will seem real. This may sound good at first but we must, as Postman had said, recognize the consequences of these actions. Take for example the computer, it started as a revolutionary devise that was very useful in fields like science and math but as it became more abundant it has become less relevant. Now it is a personal usage of almost every household and is not used for great importants as back then.

There are many benefits for this technology but there are also consequence as well. People will take advantage of it like spending more time in the virtual world than the real world that they will loss sight on whats real or not; and will also redefine humanity to a new level. God may even become less relevant since we are able to live more longer and have our own personal heavens in our minds. We will perhaps be so engross to our fake worlds that we will not recognize we are becoming less free from this technology and more controlled like in Brave New World. If this technology is to come, people will be unable to stop it,but are able to control it if they knew the consequences.

Is the loudest always right?

As we listening to an interview of George Saunder I am reminded of a striking trend that has consumed our society. This is an idea that what is said the loudest is right and becomes popular, even if this is said without context or background information. This becomes apparent in all aspects of American media today especially in the case of advertisement. Consumers are bombarded with commercial after commercials, then by billboard ads, then even ads in newspapers and on radio station with its only reasoning behind it is that i said the most so it must be true, so it must be for you. Which seems as only a supporting effort to the declining of our nations intelligence.

Ray Kurzweil on how technology will transform us | Video on TED.com

Ray Kurzweil on how technology will transform us | Video on TED.com

Here is the post about Ray Kurzweil! He says some exciting things about renewable energy in this speech. I like it when we speak about eradicating poverty, disease and solving the world's energy problems. I don't know if I want computer chips in my head and I know I don't want to extend my life too far beyond a reasonable life expectancy. I think it might be creepy to see people like me running around at 150 years of age.

What America has come down to

On friday during 2nd period, listening to the first story was very interesting. It explained how America is vapid. It tells a story in which it is shown that we are filled with false knowledge, these kids are asked "What is pearl harbor?" and they gave a completly wrong answer. I just wonder if they decided to make something up instead of simply saying "I don't know" or where and whom did they recieve that false information from?

We can also be so stubborn! If we for example think an apple is orange but we have been proven wrong ,why is it that some will still believe that there is an orange apple?Makes no sence right? I would think if we get proven wrong we would change our minds but that is not what I heard was happening. They explain this on the tape which was shocking to listen to.

Lastly, many of us find computers very useful in education, and they are; only if one knows how to use them correctly and is able to determine what is true and what is false. If one is gullable to everything they read and see online they will end up being ignorant because not knowing the information is better than knowing false information.

Monkey See, Monkey Do

During today's second period, Ms. Fletcher exposed us to the ideology of the author of The Braindead Megaphone Man. During the author's interview, he painted the picture of a party scene in which the guests are having completely rational, intelligent conversations. Suddenly, a man, who neither exceeds their level of intelligence, nor has an urgent piece of news, enters with a megaphone. Utilizing the power of his instrument, he navigates the conversation with his inane thoughts. The only reason the party-goers pay him any mind is due to the mere fact that he is loud. Every day of our lives, we are bombarded with the loud screams of technology. A radio interview functions as background music as a young couple eats lunch in a fastfood restaurant. A television set is tuned into the newscast within a small cafe. Though the guests within the restaurant and cafe could conceive evocative conversations of their own, they will be compelled to discuss the topics heard on the radio and t.v. No one has confirmed the validity of these topics or even thought to ask what relevance they have to their own lives. But we listen and believe purely because of the volume of technology.

Political Correctness

According to Susan Jacoby , "political correctness has run mad in public education." I can't help, but agree. At times this may be appropriate so as not to offend. Other times, though, the obsession with being politically correct runs nearly on the verge of censorship. In the case of books, if the public becomes too concerned with being politically correct, they may lose the moral behind the story. For example at this link, there is a politically correct satire of Little Red Riding Hood. The rhetoric is distracting and the readers lose sight of the original intent of the fable. This shows that if the public becomes too concerned with political correctness they may be sacrificing education.

What I wonder though is why America particularly seems to be obsessed with being politically correct? I'm sure it can be attributed to the belief in our various freedoms, but I think being bothered by a show, book, or movie because of its political incorrectness is whining over the trivial.

Your thoughts?