Why Do People Fear a Nation?

Link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0letTTwnqh4

Speaking Out

Why are people so afraid to stand up for what they believe in? This video link is about a man named, Norton Monk, who was upset with the way a court chamber and its legal advisers handle a court meeting earlier in the week. He addressed the Chamber Officials and confronted them with the issue at hand. He was upset that 3 chamber members were kicked out of the earlier meeting, because they were making connections to the Government that the officials were not happy about. So in return the officials abused their authority and decided to remove the citizens. This is plainly against our constitution and our amendment of free speech. 

I am making a connection between this video and the V for Vendetta film, by saying that it is fear which keeps people under corrupt rule. Norton Monk stood up for what he believed was unruly and was shunned like the rest. He was dismissed from the room and the people surrounding him were too afraid to agree that they applauded the Chamber Officials. This is why people fear speaking out, REJECTION. How can we ever changed a world if we are not allowed to speak freely, as our constitution states? V, in V for Vendetta, is trying to have a nation come together and do exactly what Norton Monk has done. V is trying to rid of the fear people have for their government. 

Many people will become upset with the way that is nation is being run, and they will go away and hideout in a rural area. By so doing they are adding themselves to the coward list, and are participating in the corruption before them. I don't understand why people will choose to sit around and watch. look at what happened with Hitler when no one did anything. You would think that we would've learned. If we as citizens of this country feel that our nation is not conducting accordingly, then we have the right to speak out and make a change. I think what V is trying to explain through the whole movie that one person can stand up for whats right, but it takes a nation to make a difference. A nation should not be ran by a few hundred of people in a white house. I can understand that people fear the mutilation they would receive for speaking out, but that just shows your courage. Do not ever let feel bad for having courage. We don't have to change the whole world to make a difference, it can little matters such as kicking people out of court room. If people witness the courage of others, then maybe they will gain some themselves. 

V for Vendetta Connection

Fear of Speaking Out

Link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2KoTc9oMsE

This link is to a youtube video of William Cooper doing a speech on fear of speaking out. Cooper gives an example on how one man stopped 7 mutilating machines in their steps, because the man did not believe in the cause and did not support the death tolls to be counted in the future. This video is a perfect example of what V for Vendetta is trying to explain to its audience. The connection between the youtube clip and the film is the use of fear to control society.

Many people who do not believe that their country's intentions are pure and honest, usually choose to do nothing. They think they can hide out in some rural area where they don't have to deal with it, when in reality they are just adding to the problem. If we know something is wrong or something can be done to fix our society then we must speak out against the problems. Many people fear the mutilation you receive by others when trying to act out for your cause.  People tend to do this, because they too fear being outcasted by society. Many people also fear rejection of their opinions, and if we all continue to operate in these manors then nothing will ever change for the better. The people who have power will stay in power, and they will suck all the resources they can out of us. The biggest thing about this issue, is that you do not need to speak out against the world, you just need to stand up for what you believe in and be confident in your own voice of opinion. 

Snowden's Connection to V for Vendetta

"If you realize that that's the world that you helped create and its going to get worse with the next generation and the next generation, to extend the capabilities this sort of architectural oppression, you realize that you might be willing to accept any risk no matter what the outcome is so long as the public makes their own decision about how that is applied" -Edward Snowden, Hong Kong. 

Many people focus on the censorship of news and public information, but until Snowden, not many realized that they had to worry about their own private information being spied on and censored. In V for Vendetta the government is (with the exception of a few extremely well kept and well fronted secrets), all knowing. They reserved the right to spy and collect information on all of their citizens by claiming that it was a matter of national security.  However far fetched the idea of such a modern dystopian society is, we have seen this type of behaviour happen in the United States before. After 9/11, President Bush passed the Patriot Act and established the United States Department of Homeland Security, in order to spy on 'potential terrorists'. This was exactly the type of political action and abuse the author of the novel V for Vendetta warned about. This is exactly the world that Edward Snowden has exposed, and whether he did it  for informational purposes or to undermine the authority of the government, he has ultimately left it up to the citizens to decide what to do with their government. 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance

V for Vendetta

One major theme throughout V for Vendetta is obviously censorship. The government regulates the information provided to the citizens in all facets; television, newspaper, radio, ect. The flow of information was being regulated and redirected by the people in power in order to keep everyone else lost and ignorant. Once I figured out a satisfactory definition for censorship I started to think about how this phenomena arises. I mean at the very beginning, how does a society as a whole involved in a culture of censorship? I like to think of myself as an intelligent person and I'd like to think that there are many others of equal or greater intelligence out there. So how does it happen that all these intelligent people out there are all able to be duped. How is it that there are no checks and balances? Why is no one seconding guessing the information given to us? When do people hand over their powers of wonder and deductive reasoning? The conclusion I came to is that it has to start with something innocent, and something inherently trustworthy. I would like to focus on an organization that I am actually a big fan of, TedTalks. TedTalks is a wonderful flow of information. It is a platform for brilliant, innovative people to share their thoughts and feelings with the general public in a direct and organized fashion. But who decides what is of value to the society? This is becoming an issue for TedTalks as we speak.

http://www.naturalnews.com/041931_ted_talks_censorship_consciousness.html
 I know neither of the video links in the article work so here you go:
Rupert Sheldrake: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg
Graham Hancock: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b6-0yW7Iaw&feature=youtu.be

While this is not by any means a neutral or unbiased source, the information is there. TedTalks, a trusted and well respected means to innovation and thought sharing, is not a free flow of information as it seems.There are scientist with some pretty out there ideas, and they have the evidence to back up their claims. But there are always people in charge, serving their own agendas, no matter what the source of information. That is the conclusion I reached as to how total censorship arises; it starts, becomes possible, when a society fails to recognize its own ignorance. It starts when we think we have found all the answers, or even the means to finding all the answers. It starts when we think of ingenuity as a linear function. Progressive information, ideas, and thoughts are free flowing and free forming, and can come from anywhere or anyone.

V for Vendetta

Something I found interesting about the film V For Vendetta was that the media would lie to the people. The news lied about V being killed, and also about how the man that V killed later on in the film died. People will usually believe what they see in the news without questioning it because they seem trustworthy and they should be reporting the truth. In reality the media will lie a lot, if not they just don't tell the whole truth. Sometimes they will report things that are true, but they have so many wrong details about it.

 

V for Vendetta

In the film, “V for Vendetta”,  the movie portrayed a powerful sense of hope by showing the ability of the people with a little hope, great changes can be made. As in such situation as back in 1989 the Tienanmen Square Protests, where Chinese students were taking part of Political Demonstrations in Beijing. Protesting against the corruption of the Chinese government, unarmed these students were taken action upon by use of military force. Even though the Chinese government denied that the incident ever occurred, proof of the revolution spread by photographs and recordings. Thus showing the world, but mainly the people of china that it was indeed time for a change.

V for Vendetta: The Limited of Freedom

Censorship is a word that is usually associated with a negative meaning behind it. People away complain about the censorship place on the news, games, and internet from the governments or some corporations. In V for Vendetta there presented amount of censorship and tons more other crap that shouldn’t be tolerated, they feed their people with lies and blind them form the truths. Don’t get me wrong I don’t believe censorship is all bad there some good in them like banning child pornography is consider a censorship. It’s just that if we let it get out of hand is when thing start that when issue arise how much is too much and what is right and wrong is the fine line that must be drawn.  People fear that if too much power is given then they’ll lose it all but if none is give a certain structure a society will fall. Protecting the people may sound like a noble cause especially when it about the negative thing of the world but people has to know and understand the really important of truth. That what hurts the most is that people in V for Vendetta have lost is the truth and the desire to find it.

V for Vendetta Supplementary Source

In V for Vendetta people do not act against the government to change what is happening, but why is that?  Mainly due to fear the people are afraid of their government and do not want to be tortured or killed.  V said at the start of the movie, “People shouldn’t be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people.”  One person can’t always make a difference but with a large group of people they can change the world.  People are afraid to take risks even if they have a firm belief in something, they don’t act always.  This can be related to William F. Buckley’s “Why Don’t We Complain?” People choose not to complain about things because they know better to or are too polite too.  It is just like in V for Vendetta with no one standing up to the government, but V inspires the people of Britain to rise up against their government.  The people don’t want to be oppressed any longer from the government but haven’t done anything about it until V acted.  

Strength Through Unity

The dystopian society that the movie V for Vendetta depicts, is similar to that of George Orwell's novel 1984 which is is set in the future in a dystopian society called Oceania. Ruled by an oppressive government always surveilling it's peoples every action and thought, the society finds itself broken apart from fear. Unity is non-existent in both of these worlds, all caused by fear and/or ignorance. In 1984, the people are watched by a figure representing the government called "Big Brother". In V for Vendetta, the people are ruled by the leader of Great Brittan called "Chancellor Sutler". It's not known if Big Brother is real, but Chancellor Sutler is an actual person and yet they are both effective in making sure there is no unity among its people. I think the main theme both these stories share is the power of unity. In both, the people don't question the government, work together, or even seem to care about their freedom and well-being. The only way to change the society they live in is to unite and fight. the governments in both dystopias know there is strength in unity, they may not show fear of that, but they do everything they can to stop the people from becoming united. If the people came together to fight for the same cause of social change, there would be nothing the government could do to stop them.

V for Vendetta- The idea of Freedom

http://www.cato.org/blog/obama-reagans-speeches-about-freedom

A major theme that I have been focusing on while watching the movie V for Vendetta is the idea of freedom.  This link that I have shared as my outside source lets us as citizens of the united states think about the freedom that we have in our daily lives, and in comparison to the movie, it helps us to see how every country/ peoples' circumstances are different when it comes to freedom. Thus, the purpose in comparing the speeches of Obama and Reagan are to impose the idea of how freedom effects us in our daily lives and as we live as citizens.  This adds to our understanding of the movie because in the film, Evey Hammond, the protagonist who is captured by V is essentially held hostage but Evey soon learns that V had staged her imprisonment and torture, putting her through the same experiences that shaped him, and thus she comes to understand and accept her identity and freedom.  Also, the idea of freedom is reiterated through which the town has a curfew where no one is allowed to leave after hours.  Moreover, the idea of freedom is a topic that is focused on in the movie, and as viewers this speech evaluation by Obama and Reagan helps us to evaluate the freedom that we are given, thus giving us a more personal connection with Evey and the townspeople in the movie.

v for vendetta Cody Long

When things aren't going good for you and you are being pushed around enough is enough. You have tried to play their way because you are afraid to stand up to them but you need to stand up for what you believe in. In the movie V for Vendetta the character V is tired of the government ruling him and decides to do something about it. He needed to make the people believe that they could stand up to the government. It may not be the thing he wanted to do but when your back's against a wall sometimes it's okay to fight back. One person can make a difference in the world, they just need the courage to stand up for their fellow people and what they believe in. Just like the video I chose to represent what I'm trying to say Martin Luther King Jr. is one man making a difference. I feel that this video shows us that the actions taken by the character V in V for Vendetta are justifiable because V wants to see change just as in MLK's video. It may not always be what other people think is right but under the circumstances these two men are in something had to be done

 

V for Vendetta= Ignorance, Censorship and Power

O

 I used this video of drone attacks to almost showcase a form of censorship that is happening in the USA media.  The fact that the drone attacks killed many Innocent children is not in fact know by a lot of Americans. I also think its to keep the American citizens ignorant and stupid to the fact that America does have blood on their hands. This relates to V for Vendetta because censorship and ignorance of the common people is used as a form of control. We see the news being censored and  bad guys who kill people being shown as hero's. I mean their a possibly a few paralelles in our US government to the film which is why I decided to pick this clip. The US government does things every day that we don't know about and this shows they are taking lives of innocent children. So like V for Vendetta we see a nation trying to blind its people of the truth because keeping them ignorant will in fact keep them blind and in turn give their government power.

V for Violence

For my supplementary source I found an article called "Violence: The Unrelenting Assault on Human Dignity" by Huber Wolfgang and Ruth C. L. Gritsch. The article discusses how violence has become such a huge part of our culture that its starting to desensitize us. It has become somewhat of the norm. This issue appears in V for Vendetta. The citizens have either become so used to the violence or they are too scared to stand up to the government . The media in V for Vendetta also controls how violence is perceived and in the article Wolfgang and Gritsch say media is a main contributor to how people see violence.


http://www.questia.com/read/120555833/violence-the-unrelenting-assault-on-human-dignity

No Blindspots

In V for Vendetta, I find that the state or country, uses mass surveillance. They have people everywhere, and many, many cameras. Also, the ability to turn one channel on around the state/country. This reminded me of the movie Eagle Eye, with Shia Lebeouf. In the movie, the government has full control of surveillance in any part of the united states, as if to say there is a possibility we are all being watched. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wkqo_Rd3_Q

Censorhip

One of the obvious focuses of V for Vendetta is censorship. In the plot of this movie the government is in control of everyone's censorship it seems, in both a private and public sense. Public censorship is the only thing the government should even slightly have a hand in. When it comes to conducting oneself in public if there were no guidelines there would be a lot of interesting things going on, this is where the government can have a say with simple laws to avoid things like streakers, which most can agree isn't a bad thing. In the film the government tries to take control of people's private censorship, being the way one would act when they are in the comfort of their home. In the film everyone must follow outlandish laws that give the government too big of a hand in their private lives. The article attached below asks the question "Who is the censor, who is the censee, and how do they interact?" In a perfect world everyone would be their own censor and censee. In a real world like the one we live in the government is our public censor, and we are our own private censor. In the oppressed world V lives in the the government is the censor of both the people's public and private lives to such an extent that I hope the world never reaches.
http://ehis.ebscohost.com.mantis.csuchico.edu/eds/detail?vid=5&sid=f5af3d6b-3791-4363-967c-c8460a60f73d%40sessionmgr14&hid=2&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#db=hia&AN=85293842

Let them eat cake?

 http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/biography/marieantoinette.html


When Eve is first kidnapped in V For Vendetta she is hesitant to be calm at first. But when V gives her some huggy toast made with real butter, she begins to warm up to V. When she is eating the toast though she exclaims it has been ages since she has had real butter. Like butter has become too expensive and sparse. Earlier in the movie new reporters also say that water coupons will become more expensive. It seems that the citizens in this era have begun to mirror a darker time in Europe's history. The age of France’s King Louis XVI and his bride Marie Antoinette, who famously said "let them eat cake" to her starving citizen who could not afford to by bread, which is a staple to the french. But the Queen always had enough money to through lavished parties and buy the most current fashions. She ate feast and help parties as her people died of starvation. Like the infamous chancellor who has armored trains delivering his food to him or is nightly milk and cookies. The higher ups are using the money they have obtained to buy all the good food and supplies while the common people are left with poor substitutes. The people deserve better then scraps and substitutes of real food. Like the french people of old, so do the English citizens rise up against there horrible rulers who think that because they have a fancy title, that they are better then the people they serve. True rulers do not need power to become great. All they truly need is the love and support of there people to become great. Without the support of a nations citizens the mighty will fall and the palaces will crumble to dust.

Rebellions are Everywhere!!

What I chose to relate to V for Vendetta is a video clip of Star Wars Episode 3. These two things are related to each other because in both movies there are rebellions happening. In V for Vendetta, V thinks his side is the "right" side to be on and that all the citizens should join him. While in Star Wars Anakin has turned to the dark side and is now convinced that his side is right and that the Jedi are corrupt. Anakin has his army together and has started taking over the capitol and V is trying to get his army together while slowing taking over the government himself. Overall these movies are very similar because they both have to do with political rebellions and with two sides that both think they're right and sides that will fight until the very end. 

Declaration of Independence

I have to say V is certainly an interesting individual, if not right up insane from a certain perspective, but he makes very valid points through out the film. One in particular, I could not agree with more.
"People should not be afraid of their government, governments should be afraid of their people."
It reminded me of another very quote by Thomas Jefferson, about liberty and tyranny but ultimately they are the same message. What I feel gives this message further power is the fact that, if history teaches us anything, besides that it repeats itself is that tyrants don't last. Some where along the line they always push too hard and start off a spark, either from their own people or another nation that forces action.

My supplementary source for this is the Declaration of Independence, it complements this message nicely because of its famous content that a large part of this country is based on. To paraphrase, it states that should a government ever fail to do what it was formed to do, serve and protect its people, that it is up to the people to abolish and replace it. In the film, V sends out a message to England reminding them of this truth. He scolds them at first, but later offers them a chance to take back their country by setting of a chain of events that can end with the people ruling once again without having to look over their shoulders for a black bag.

Declaration of Independence
Thomas Jefferson's quote

Supplementary Source- V For Vendetta

http://ehis.ebscohost.com.mantis.csuchico.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=f5af3d6b-3791-4363-967c-c8460a60f73d%40sessionmgr14&hid=3

The name of this article is Overt Censorship: A Fatal Mistake? The article gives two examples were censorship in social media by a country's government has taken place. The first example was in Germany were the German goverment asked twitter to block a noe-Nazi page, making it unavailable to all German residents. The second example was in China were they blocked access to a New York Times article that invested assets accumilated by the prime minister of China. In both cases the governments of each country blocked information in order to prevent anti-government ideas. This is much like V For Vendetta were the government also censored all information pertaining to anti-government actions and ideas. Reading this article has given me a better understanding of why a government would bann certain ideas that could negativily influence citizens of that nations. Although I don't agree with these actions I understand from a governmental stand point, that it is easier to govern and police a nation when they control what the public is able to see and not see.

V for Vendetta supplementary source

V for Vendetta has made an impact on our pop culture and has played a significant role in politics. The hacker group Anonymous has obviously taken ques from V for Vendetta, and regardless of your opinion of the hacker group, Anonymous has done some incredible things in the political arena. Anonymous has taken the idea of not having a leader or an individual to be the face of the group and has been able to make such a big impact they have become a household name. They played a big role in the occupy movement and have really gotten people to think differently about corporations and the government. I think that Anonymous is an interesting group and has given me hope that individuals can organize themselves and have the power to change the world for the better. The article i found gave some insight to what Anonymous has done and how governments see them as a huge threat.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/ff_anonymous/all/

We are Anonymous

    This article is about an anonymous hacking group that targets websites and anything online that they feel needs attention. They have been know to target government websites and other high security websites, for the most part they will hack a website and replace the content with there own logos and their message. They are not violent and use the internet to go about there attacks. This recent article is about how they got involved in the issues in Syria and attacked Israeli websites. They blamed the Israelis for having a helping in hand the the 9/11 attacks. They attacked the websites and stole Israeli credit card numbers and threatened to post them online. This relates to the movie V for Vendetta in the way that an anonymous group is trying get a message out to the people for change. They want the average person to believe they have power and go against the government and stand up for themselves. This connects so perfectly to the movie so much that the group anonymous uses the same masks that are used in the movie. I believe that this group is the real version of the group in the movie and most likely used tactics from the movie to help with their missions.

http://freebeacon.com/anonymous-syrian-hackers-target-israel-on-911/

Blowing up a building can change the world.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/09/08/us/sept-11-reckoning/towers.html#48

What really piqued my interest in the movie was when V is speaking with Evey about blowing up Parliament he says, "Blowing up a building can change the world". This was interesting to me because, especially with all the recent bombings, it is very true that blowing up a building could change the world. Remember 9/11, the devastation the entire country felt, the heart break within every home regardless of if you knew any one who fell victim to the horror or not. It changed Americans outlook on everything, we were no longer safe like we thought, any town or city could be the next victims. The nation as a whole was turned upside down, sending troop after troop to Iraq to fight for our country and to save our people. One family after another got the unfortunate calls that their son, brother, or father had been killed in war. Our fear took over, doing the same to a country that they had done to us. Soon after, the entire world was in turmoil. Now, years later, Americans every where feel heartbreak even after the war is at a calm but it seems as though their pain will never end just as with this war. I believe as V said, Blowing up a building can change a world, is absolutely true, we have plenty examples to prove the extreme changes bombings of caused.

V for Vendetta Supplementary Source

This movie does a great job of seeing what people really stand for and what they feel deep down in they're core. The first scenario would be the contradiction of taking the law into there own hands. Is vigilantism right? Or should it depend on how bad a situation is going. Everyone has their own opinions about this or how the situation should be handled. V is doing what he thinks is the best for society, but many people view him as a terrorist. He is thought of this because he tries to change society by violence. On the other side people also view him as a hero because he is trying to take down a government that is very controlling and immoral to their people. The choice is up to you. V believes that, "The government should fear the people, the people shouldn't fear the government." This is happening in modern day society in North Korea the government is horrible to their own people, but the people are too scared of the government to do anything about it. When in all actuality if all of the people teamed up together the numbers are on their side.

V for Vendetta Supplementary Source

What piques my interest in the film is the fact that we cannot see V’s face because he always has a mask on. An outside source that relate to this is the movie The Purge. In this movie, the use of masks is prevalent and the purpose of these masks is to hide the identity of individuals so that no one will know who they are. Either heroic or evil, masks are used, usually in television or movies, to escape from one’s identity. In V for Vendetta, V is never seen without a mask on because of all the violence and terror he is causing. Being referred to as a “terrorist”, V is hiding who he really is. Although, I feel as if his only use of the mask is to cause fear. I believe that if V were to be revealed, it would not matter to him because he still obtains the skills to kill and terrorize society. This adds to the understanding of the film because the film is meant to have a mysterious aspect and the mask perfects it by hiding who the terrorist is. 

Why don't we complain?

William Buckley touched on some very interesting points about society these days not having the nerve to complain and then getting rejected when they do complain.  As some just want to make their voices heard, sometimes people choose to ignore what you have to say or don't acknowledge it at the moment and that becomes very discouraging for people to continue to speak how they feel.  I was very  interested in everything that Buckley had to say especially when he mentioned how years ago, if there was a problem, we would fix it ourselves. Nowadays, we call the plumber or the technician or whoever to come and fix our problems and I think that that says a lot about society and how their priorities of skills has changed over time.  I know personally, whenever my parents would complain to a waiter or whoever, I would always get so embarrassed, but in reality, maybe complaining or saying how you feel is worth it, especially if you are investing money and time on something such as going to a restaurant, or staying at a hotel, etc. Moreover, I enjoyed reading what Buckley had to say as it opened my eyes to the fact that we should be able to say and speak what we want and feel without any sort of intimidations.

Why Don't We Complain?

Why Don't We Complain?

I find the reading insightful and beautifully written. I particularly enjoyed the ironic and funny parts of this piece but I also appreciated the underlying  story, the point of his article. Society has become an institution where people are afraid to voice their complaints because they believe that someone else would do it for them, they don't want the hassle, they don't want to be marked as a too assertive, or a nuisance to the community. Many people believe that being assertive is being rude, however sometimes this is the only way to get things done. You can't be afraid to fight or speak out for your rights and you can't be afraid to want to change something even if everyone else seems to be fine with the problem. Basically, in the words of The Beastie Boys, "(You've gotta) fight for your right (to party)". 

Why don't we complain?

This article makes me think back to all the times where i choose to suffer in silence instead of possibly being a bother to someone else, but for the most part i tend to think i am willing to complain in a respectful manner. There is a fine line between being assertive and being a dick, or an assertive dick. Sometimes you need to be willing to come across as a jerk, and this is hard for me and many others because we worry we will make people mad at us. I will keep this article in mind next time i feel that i am suffering silence to preserve others opinions of me.

Why don't we complain?

I found William F. Buckley Jr's "Why Don't We Complain?" to be very interesting. He talks about different situations that he has been in where it would have been better if he had spoken up and just complained. A lot of people don't like complaining for many different reasons. I am one of those persons that hates complaining about anything, it just feels kind of uncomfortable. I feel like I'm being annoying or like other people will judge me. During certain situations I don't complain because I expect somebody else to do it or I just think there isn't even a point in complaining because I'm just one unimportant person and complaining would just be a waste of time. However, complaining will probably fix your problem and if it doesn't it's still much better than not doing anything about it. When you think about it, you have the right to complain and it's kind of dumb not to use that right when your'e having a problem.      

Why don't we complain?

I found this reading very interesting and very true. Most people are reluctant to speak their mind and scared of what others may think of their opinions. No matter how uncomfortable the situation, there are few that would speak up. In my opinion I believe that all people should speak their mind no matter what the situation may be. Overall, I think the writer wanted to let people know that it's ridiculous to not say what is bothering you and to just fix it!

Why Don't We Complain? William F. Buckley Jr.

This reading was very interesting and I liked it a lot.  Why don't people voice there opinion about things that bother them?  I think it's really do to the way people are raised and it's people being polite.  There are right times to voice someones opinion and then other times when it isn't okay.  For instance we don't voice our opinion if someone is where something or doing something we don't like.  Generally we just smile, but we are really thinking, "What the heck is that person wearing?"  This I feel is similar to Ken Robinson's idea that he brought up about people not taking risks.  If someone makes a remark that is a negative they are sometimes stigmatized by someone else and then don't want to voice they're opinion again.  Overall I think the guy wanted to tell the reader to take more risks and voice their opinion about anything.

TED Talks and Complaining

I liked the topic of this week's Ted Talk, and agree with it. Comedy is a very effective tool for communication and learning. I'm glad that Chris Bliss brought up the Daily Show in his talk, because its the first thing I thought of when it was clear what the topic of the talk was. It wasn't exactly eye opening news because I thought that it was kind of common knowledge but I'm glad the idea is circulating.

As for "Why Don't We Complain?" I found very entertaining. And I get that, a lot of times people won't complain and while there can be many variables at play the end result is still nothing, even when saying a word or two could potentially solve a problem quite easily.

Why Don't We Complain?

Why Don't We Complain?

It is obvious that many people are scared to act out towards authority, even when they know something is not right or something should be done. This is all a feeling we share. Buckley explains this concept with the fact that many people think that their voice and their actions will be judged and hurtfully dealt with. All of us have power within us, thats how people become leaders. It is about becoming confident in yourself and letting go of your shyness. Buckley wants us to speak out when there is problem, because if no one does then it will continue to Happen. There is a chance that when you speak out that people will instantly judge or stare at your creating a sense of nervousness and mortification. Buckley says that this is caused by helplessness that we all have. We should not be waiting for people to do things for us. Our generations have become more lazy and dependent on others for services and comfort. When society becomes so reluctant to having no complaints, then our emotions and who we are in a society cease to exist. Buckley wants us to realize that by speaking out on what you believe in will cause a change in the world, it betters our world. Don't be afraid of being who you are and speaking up for what you think is right. 

Comedy is Translation

I found that Chris Bliss had a very interesting way of looking at comedy. It never occurred to me to look at laughter from a scientific standpoint. As Bliss puts it, when we laugh our body releases endorphins making us feel good causing us to lowering our guard around strangers. I think he made a good argument for his point and supported it through his presentation. I especially liked his statistics on the John Stewart's show and how it showed that people retained more information about news everyday than people who watch normal news channels. However he did not tell us where he got this information from so I would be curious to see how true these statistics are and who conducted the tests. But I did enjoy the presentation and will try to add more laughter to a conversation when trying to make a point.

Comedy is Translation

Self Reflection

I really enjoyed the Ted talk this week. I have always been a huge advocate for sarcasm or better known as Comedy. Chris Bliss explained how comedy is a translation of words. At first, when engaging in a conversation, if you use a comedic attitude towards another person then it will increase their endorphins released in their bodies and will generally make that person more acceptable of you and what you are saying. Using comedy in conversation also leaves people feeling better than they were before they engaged in the conversation with you. I can completely understand what Bliss was explaining because i have a good friend who is an all around comfortable person to hangout with. People love him because of his attitude towards others. He comes off as very easy going and uses comedy to lighten the mood of the conversation. Plenty of times i have seen people walking away from him with a big smile on their face. Another issue that Bliss brought up is how since you are comfortable while listening to comedy you can retain more information mentally through comedic acts. He used the example of how John Stewart's viewers are more updated on the world's news, than just regular news watchers. Overall the Ted talk was very intriguing to me.  

Comedy is translation

Watching Chris Bliss talk about comedy really opens my eyes to great ways to use comedy so that people will really listen to your point of view.  I think comedy really loosens the mood for any subject. I enjoy how Chris really went through examining joke by joke and really showed how each joke can really be a great way in communicating different controversial subjects. He also brought up the that comedy is the first viral profession which I really didn't know. Comedy can really change the world by making people pay attention to controversial issues and sometimes even act on them. It lightens the mood and is a really great way to communicate.

Comedy is Translation.

Chris Bliss is looking to explain the value of humor in portraying a point. Every knows just through first hand experience that it is easy to hear, and remember information that was received through a funny manner.  What I thought was particularly interesting was his physical description of that phenomena; adrenaline vs dopamine.

Reflecting on Stedman's "Annoying ways people use sources"

While reading the article, "Annoying ways people use sources," I found it very interesting the way that Kyle Stedman used the analogy of driving a car.  At first when reading the article, I was very confused by the analogy, it then occurred to me that analytically; the annoyances of driving a car compares to the annoyances of using sources incorrectly.  This article was actually helpful because it opened my eyes to the faults of using sources incorrectly, in fact, I can admit that I have incorrectly used sources the way some of the examples in the article did.  Whether it be effectively using quotations, or deciding whether each quote is even worth having in your paper, this article definitely enlightened me on the importance and effectiveness of using sources correctly.

Kin Jaxon's Peer Responses

Through the years of writing many essays, teachers would always have that one day where we would "peer edit" each others papers. Unfortunately I always found these peer edits to not be very beneficial because many of my fellow classmates would never take the time to thoroughly help improve my paper.  Students would always "edit" my essay by fixing grammatical errors.  That's very helpful and all, except for the fact that I want pure commentary on how my essay could truly be improved, and Kim Jaxon definitely focuses on these points that make peer edits actually worth while. Thus, I loved that Jaxon mentioned in this article " peer response is all about the content and ideas of the draft essay." I like the idea that 2-3 helpful suggestions are a good idea when reviewing, also to come back to the paper because more often than not it gets very overwhelming working on an essay and taking a refresher and coming back to the paper can help spur other points that you want to focus on in your paper. Moreover, Jaxon's tips on peer editing was beneficial to myself as a peer because now I know more ways to be a better editor to my peers, as we all want that extra insight to improve papers.

TED Talk- Texting

After watching the TED Talk today on how language and speech is evolving to a more casual tone due to "writing the way we speak" instead of "speaking the way we write," it made me think about the way society interacts on a daily basis.  The speaker in the TED video showed examples of LOL and how when people are texting it is thrown around very causally to set a certain tone for the conversation even if what is being said is not funny.  I see my self do this when I am texting as well, and I almost wish that technology wasn't changing the way that we interact so much because it is evident that as the years go on, people are becoming less communicative face to face and more so through technology which makes it very impersonal and harder to understand what is being communicated. I do like the idea of writing the way we speak because it makes what we write more personal and self reflective rather than BSing a bunch of words on a paper to seem more intelligent. But, I think that technology is weakening our sense of communication and strength in speech and language and it will be very interesting seeing what we will be talking like in many years to come.

I really like Kim Jaxon's  approach on peer reviews. Back in high school I hated peer reviews because they were usually useless. We only read it in half an hour and had to write it in the same class period. But the way she suggest is wonderful. Giving a copy to another student and let them read it over a good amount of time is brilliant. I also believe it is a lot more useful and effective to the writer. Schools should be using this method. Yes it might be a little more time but it is worth the chance of improvement.

Peer Review

 One Approach to Guiding Response by Kim Jaxon seems to be a much effected method that is being used to help peers among peers to not only improve the writers ability but also the readers. I myself never really like peer review maybe because I myself wasn't very good at writing. But the way to improve on a skill is keep on practice really hard on it by continues doing it. So I find the way how she place all these steps down in how to review another person work seem a great way to self improvement in one among writing through the helping of others.

Peer Reviews

Peer reviews have always seemed like a little bit of a joke to me. Typically it has consisted of me trading my paper with someone as uninterested in peer reviews as the rest of the class. Te reason behind this universal apathy towards peer reviews was the content of the reviews. I would give my paper to a students who's comments I was already bracing myself to ignore, if I got around to reading them in the first place. There were some valuable ideas in Kim Jaxon's "One Approach to Guiding Peer Response." First I appreciated the idea of taking the paper home for an extending period of time. This allows actually thought to go into the comments instead of filling reviews with pointless fluff. I was also drawn to the triviality of grammar. I don't want to sit and read about missed comas. If that's the case, I'm not going to read. The most important thing I got out of this paper is raised expectations. Jaxon does a good job making peer reviews sound helpful and almost necessary. Instead of expecting crap for my peer review, I am expecting some quality comments. So now I have to reciprocate and provide thoughtful and insightful comments as well. Hopefully our classes culture regarding peer reviews is changes by the expectations put upon us by this article.

Reading One Approach to Peer Response, I think Mr. Jaxon had some really good ideas. One of them, being not correcting grammar when reviewing a peer's paper is something I've always felt distracted them fro the content of the assignment, and so I'm glad someone else thought of it too. Some of his other suggestions were really creative too, such as giving a second copy to peer so that you get back two reviews to later incorporate into your second/final draft. The rest was kind of like the standard though, I mean, most of the time I write an essay we are given guiding questions in some way or another, and if not, they are kind obvious.
As for Stedman, can I just say I have enormous respect for anyone who incorporates Max brooks into what is suppose to be school work. Just saying. So aside from that, it was amusing, (Armadillo Drop, Dating SpiderMan?! who comes up with this?) but relatable since I nearly always misuse sources unless I follow a strict guide given previous by a professor. I'm just not very good at listing references. The article helps though.

In, "One Approach to Guiding Peer Response" by Kim Jaxon peer reviewing actually sounds like its a good thing.  The peer reviewing that I used to do sucked people would give the writer advice that they would never use.  We also had to comment on the persons grammar and spelling errors which was just as bad.  We were given 15 minutes to review a persons paper and I would barely get through half the paper.  This approach sounds a whole lot better and I like the idea of having the paper for a few days to review it and make suggestions.  Now I can take my own time in reader a persons paper and actual give some good advice!

Peer Review

I have never really liked having my peers read my work, it just makes me feel uncomfortable and they don't give me very helpful advice about what to fix. The way Kim Jackson has her students work on the peer reviews seems like it works well and the students actually do find it helpful. I like how she has her students take their peers papers home to have time to read over and review them more and think about the ideas on it so that they can give thoughtful and helpful advice. Reading this article has somewhat raised my expectations about what to expect from peer reviews, and I hope that whenever we do them in class they will be much better than they have been in the past.    

In the reading, Annoying ways people use sources by Kyle D. Stedman I found it very interesting.  First off I wanted to say that I love the way he writes it draws me in and I want to see what he has to say.  I myself find that I run into these issues since I do not read over my work sometimes as a rush to get things over with.  Seeing some of his "fixes," I will try focus on correcting them in the future while I am writing.

In Kim Jaxon's article "One approach to guiding peer response" I learned that you need to give some guidance when someone is peer reviewing your paper or they will just look and comment on grammar and small errors like such. You must let the responder know which sections you would like them to put extra time in to make sure you get the most out of the peer review. Also it gives the reader more time if they can take the draft home with them and read it as they please and have time to formulate ideas just as a writer needs time for the ideas to flow. It really helps if both parties are into helping themselves and each other.

peer review/response

In Kim Jaxon's One Approach to Guiding Peer Response, explained how when she had done the peer response exercise with her students, they expressed that they actually liked the peer review because they felt that it helped them. I completely agree with this, in that it is very helpful to get someone else's perspective on the assignment to help understand it better. Sometimes your peers may have a better understanding of the assignment, so being able to look at the format they used or what other topics people used. Although, sometimes having your peers read your work is a little nerve wrecking because you are unsure of what they will think of it but at the same time you have to think that most people in your class are most likely at the same writing level as you. Peer response has helped me in the past with my essays as well and do think it will highly benefit other students.

Peer Edit

In the past I have never found it very helpful when my peers give feedback to me on my essays. Either I get a dud of a partner or they just don't put in the time to give me useful advice. Perhaps with this more indelpth way of peer review I will gain more useful information on my papers. I really liked how the teacher has the students bring the paper home in order to spend more time reading and formulating ideas on how they could improve. This could alleviate some of the issues I have had in the past. Also, just focusing on a few main areas to improve on instead of every small detail could make it much easier to edit the paper and move on the another draft.

Wolff, David_Newstand Reflection_September 11th 2013

As I stepped into the aisle of magazines in Safeway it is hard to say whether I was more blown away by the sheer quantity of faces staring down at me or by the enormous amount of unwaveringly similar of messages being thrown at me. The first and foremost of these messages was the massive importance of sex appeal. Everywhere I looked were gorgeous people; beautiful women, buff men, and of course, a barrage of celebrities. There were differences in how men and women were portrayed. Men were portrayed in front of either a solid, black or white background, while women’s backgrounds bright, exuberant, and flashy. The lettering surrounding most women was multiple different colors and fonts while men’s lettering rarely wavier from one font and the color scheme was black, white, or red, with little variation. The result was the men seemed much more stoic and intense, whereas the women tended to seem bubbly and fun. The major theme would be the value of good health. Admittedly this is almost entirely portrayed through sex appeal. Of course there were more than a few images of delicious and health conscience treats and goodies. The significance of good cooking is another main theme that ties in nicely with the previous. Soups, salads, sweets, and seafood stood before me, each one claiming to be tastier, healthier, and easier to prepare than the last. Almost as important as cooking, is proper home care. Having a perfect bedroom or backyard has never been so easy, not to mention keeping them clean. Lastly there were magazines for all sorts of things I don’t have; cars, guns, motorcycles, cameras, tools, bikes. One interesting consistency between all the various genres of magazines was the allure of secrets. I was promised secret sex tips, 10 day diets, survival tricks, power workouts, crocheting techniques. Every message seemed to have a really low opinion of me. I needed to get hotter, healthier, homelier, and a whole lot more money. It can be argued that the media causes this type of negative self-evaluation among the population. It can also be argued that this type of negative self-evaluation among the population is the reason the media publishes this type of material. Or you could cop-out like me, I consider it a circular-paradox.

GO WARRIORS!

The Sentence of the Future?

  The Ted Talk presented by John Mcwhorter brought up a very interesting subject in today writing in a form called texts. I, myself have never really got into texting till last year until then I also though texting was killing today’s generation of languages. But after watching him talk I’m inclined to think differently. There many people I know out there who texts their whole life and are still acing English writing classes. Like how he said texting is a new type of style or way of expressing how they write in today generation. As I believe our world has never been more literate than ever, with the world begin connected with modern technology and texting is merely one of the many new methods in doing so.

Texting is Killing Language, jk!

I found this video very intriguing, as I it was the first time I heard an argument implying that texting wasn't dumbing down our language. Although I don't entirely agree with this idea, he still had many points in his talk that were very valid. I'm more inclined to believe that texting has made our generation less capable of communicating well with one another, as we are constantly creating shorter ways to describe what we are attempting to communicate to another.

Txtng is killing language. JK!!!

I found this Ted Talks very interesting. John McWhorter is spot on with his explanation of how texting is an evolution of language in which we write how we speak instead of speaking how we write. All I could think about is how "do'h" is in the dictionary and how "ya'll" is not. Language is what you make of it and how you use it. Poetry is regarded as a beautiful, artistic, and insightful use of language, yet poetry doesn't give a damn about grammar, spelling, and classiness, poetry does whatever poetry pleases. Communication is the key, that's why languages developed, so we can talk to each other. As long as you can get your point across to the other party then you're using language just right.

Literacy Crisis I Dont Think So

While reading Why Johnny can never, ever read I really like what Bronwyn Williams was saying about How there seems to be a literacy crisis in every generation and the society blames it on stupid things like movies or video games. People think that writing is just a set of concrete rules that must never be changed when literacy is involved, for fear of children becoming stupid. But when each generation's children grow up and become adults they have gained the knowledge to write and read and are then become people running this country. So what if a child messages people around the world. I think instant messaging is a legitimate literacy practice and should be taught how to be used. I'm not saying to abandon the paper and pencil but we should embrace the new ways of learning and not fear that something is going to dumb down literacy itself, but to allow literacy to evolve with that generation and the next generation after that. In a never ending cycle of learning.

Why Jhonny Reading Response

For a text that didn't have college students as its audience, I still found it easy to understand. This text talks about the literary crisis in America that relates to students ability to read and write. It first states that Americas ability to read and write has been declining since the 1800s. People think that pop culture, poorly constructed assessments just to name two, are to blame. A proposed solution is to stop scaring people with the literacy crisis itself. I found this text simple, easy to understand, and infirmaries. I agree with the author and have an additional comment for the solution. I believe the teachers themselves should be taught how to teach and also earn more salary as incentive for them to perform better. Although this text doesn't teach you how to read and write better, its a good context for learning more about the literary crisis and the history of it.

Texting is killing language, jk

I found this Ted Talk to be eye opening, and got me to think about the differences between writing and communicating. Technology lends itself to different styles of communicating, and effects our language. Back when letters were the main form of communication there was a completely different approach than texting today. The amount of time it takes to give and receive packets of  communication affects the way we choose the language we use. texting is a more efficient way communicating because we are able to streamline what we are trying to say. I also found it interesting how every generations communication skills are lacking compared to the way they learned.

Ted Talk Michael Brambila

So watching to the ted talk about texting  really opened my eyes to the fact that people are overeating when it comes to the idea of language being dumbed down. I thought his strongest point was when he showed the little excerpts from teachers of different time periods. I mean I feel like we never really write a real paper like the way we text. I think its just a short cut to write people in day to day conversation and nothing more. I think it was also great when  he talked about stereotypes in terms of what amazing language sounds like. This whole idea that people talk like the show DownTon Abbey show all the time is very silly to me. I mean I know I don't but I have a very interesting speech pattern. All in all this ted talk opened my eyes to why this idea is so false. I mean I have heard this argument time and time again and it was nice to see a guy find reasons why this is so false.

In this weeks TEDTalk John McWhorter talks about how writing has developed throughout the years. He talks about how writing and language are not the same thing because nobody really talks the way they write. People only write in the same way that they actually talk while texting. I found it interesting that through all of history people complain about other people's way of writing because it has developed into something else than what they're used to. I also like how he mentioned the way people use 'lol' in their conversations when there isn't even anything funny like, "Hi lol". So, I guess this kind of contradicts what he said about talking the way we text, because people don't usually start laughing right after a simple greeting.  

Finally an adult who doesn't bad talk texting and understands what the real point of it is.  Someone who actually understands the meaning of texting an why this generation does it.  A lot of adults think that texting is destroying language but it clearly isn't their just annoying.  Every generation adopts  something new and different but its always taken as a negative, no matter what it is.  We as humans have made it this far so I think we are doing okay even though our elders think otherwise.  Anyways the talk was amazing by John McWhorter, him talking about the difference between writing and casual speech was very interesting.

The beginning of the Ted Talk really stood out to me because my dad is always talking about how us kids and teenagers aren't going to know how to communicate in ten years. He thinks that we are just going to be talking with technology. But when you really think about it, our texting has gotten way better than it used to be. We used to text with missing letters and random acronyms that nobody but us middle school texters could understand. Honestly, how we text now are actual sentences with proper grammar and even if our parents don't think so, we text WAY less than we did back in middle and high school. Lyke Oh em gee how did we used 2 tlk lyke dis and not get annoyed with each other??

Reading Reflection Blog: Do-Over

So, I really hate the BBL blog functions. Apologies for subjecting you to that. I don't know what I was thinking. To make amends, I've created this blog.  From now on do your Reading Reflections here.

For next class, read this article (you may have to be logged-in to your portal to follow the link) and watch the following TEDTalk:



I hope this works out better.

Athena