improve your thinking, improve your writing

Pachabel's Cannon

typical, well known piece

What was the tied haired girl's piece?

plays on cliches of commercial

hair tied - hair loose

controlled - free

does this matter?

if you want your hair to look beautiful and free, use pantiene

violin is repaired

meant to plat

who repaired it?

her hair is repaired

lose hair is def and plays violin

she lacks something (...hair, hearing)

given her difficulty how did she learn to play violin?

she is determined

Twelfth Night and Trona

Twelfth Night does have a connection to Trona. How? because they are, indeed, quite different. They have different time periods, different kinds of characters, different humor. But they can be the same. In Twelfth Night, the story starts at a certain normalcy, and then things get twisted and turned so that the normalcy is no longer. At some point, a new normalcy is established and that becomes the sustained normalcy. Ray starts his life, at his form of normalcy. Everyday he sits in his booth reminding each person to "take a mint." He continues his ride home, pays his five dollars to get into his own home, greets his all to strange wife, eats the same food and goes to bed the same way. That's Ray's normalcy. Yet, he one day comes home to find his wife cheating on him. That is when his normalcy changes. He wifes leaves and his son no longer identifies himself as his son. Dirk further abuses the town, his mother dies and he finds himself alone. He decides to unite the town and over run Dirk, which is when their new normalcy is established. There is water in the town, no longer run by Dirk and Ray lives fruitfully with his new wife and child on the way.

small, yet significant lives

Smith mentions multiple times throughout his article, how he has trouble expressing his true love for the small forms of life he can observe for hours. He confesses that his wife becomes annoyed and frustrated with him when he attempts to share his enthusiasm. His nieces and nephews only stayed interested for roughly 30 seconds. He cannot find anyone who shares his intrigue for these tiny creatures and he cannot understand why. He finds them wondrous. They are the smallest forms of life, much closer than planets in space. They are live creatures that all you need is a telescope to see them and a backyard to find them. He finds them amazing and even notes that they have been described by Jennings as having higher life characteristics like showing fear or hunger and that they can even be conditioned. Although it is quite controversial, Smith enjoy's Jennings' notion.

Although Smith feels that he cannot successfully express his passion for the small creatures, he did. He describes them as "tiny angels hovering in the light" (265). That one drop is a "blizzard of life ... swirling and spinning like snowflakes" (259). The one drop is simply a drop to the naked eye, but under a microscope there is an a whole ecosystem of life that never sleeps and constantly moves--life that he can watch for hours on end. When he looks up, he sees the flowers as "ragged" in comparison to the "bright world beneath the lenses" (260). He finds it as a beauty. Cheap entertainment, nature is. The fact that "nature is everywhere, costs nothing, [and] requires minimal equipment" to observe and take pleasure in (262). In fact, he does express his love for the "little subjects" well through his appreciation for their small, yet significant lives.

self-inflicted extinction

Phelan in his piece, "How We Evolve" speaks of the new findings of evolution. Thousands of years ago, we stopped migrating and started agriculture with different food and started living in cities. This caused us to become a large population and allowed our numbers to grow. However, "our DNA is still catching up" (196). This means, that despite the wide spread thought that our evolution has stopped is false, it has nearly begun. In fact research has shown that the "maximum rate of change ... was within the past three thousand years, even though the gene originated eight thousands years ago" (197). As we evolve, we have the ability to create weapons and machinery that will help us with daily activities, in war and in the future. However, he points out that what we create could also harm us. He uses the example of CFCs in refrigerators. They were intended to keep fridges from over heating, but what was released over heated the earth.

Therefore, this evolution has caused what he calls 'self-inflicted extinction.' This can be applied to an array of things, however an urgent topic would be global climate change and pollution. We are quickly extincting ourselves. Our advances in technology and agriculture are leading to our earth's decay. Since we have come from monkeys, we have become more intelligent. We have adapted our environment to our needs instead of adapting ourselves. There is no need for change in our DNA, which is why it seems we are stangent, because anything we need we have the ability to create. This idea, though it is an advance in humanity, will ultimately lead to our downfall.

'Can't just sweep it under the rug,' says Broome.

Climate change is an ethical question, but a simple one at that. Reduce emissions = save the planet. The only problems is, it requires the populations as a whole to sacrifice a little to save a lot. Doing otherwise would simple be unethical because "you should no do something for your own benefit if it harms another person" (Broome 12). When put like this, no one wants to be called unethical, but it's hard to see the future that's centuries away and sacrifice what you have now for them.

If you think about it in a cost benefit standpoint, you would have to lose something now (cost) in order to help generations in the future (benefit). The Stern Review has found the benefits "gained by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases would be far greater than the cost of reducing them" (Broome 13). So why not? Why not cut back now and save later? Well, we are not those kinds of people. But that's the ethical answer. To not cut back now would be victimizing future generations and the only ethical thing to do would to 'compensate' those victims. However for the same reason that we don't think to conserve now, we won't be able to compensate them because the benefits will be "a century or two from now" (Broome 14). The fact that these benefits are "discounted" means that the benefits from now are worth more than they are in the future. When people borrow money and lend money, "they often give less weight to their own future well-being than to their current well-being" (Broome 17). Meaning, in economy, as in our culture, we value more what we get now than what will happen later. But not only is discounting unethical, so is the fact that when climate change is in full throttle, it will be our fault, we won't be around and we would have killed millions of people.

blogging.

I happen to like blogging. There's not worry as to getting to the lab to print out what I have to hand in. I can blog any time. I can even make my blog the colors I like. My WSC 180 class blogs, but we use the Colorado state website. I don't like it much. It's just one long list of blogs that the six of us just enter in. There's no order and we're expected to comment. This layout makes much more sense. Easier for and easier for Lay. I can look at what other people have to say and have them help me with what I'm trying to say... or with what I'm not. So yeah, I happen to like blogging.

"Take a mint"

Observe
Infer

"Take a mint"

Tries to add sweetness to everyday moment

Quarantined by booth

Quarantined in life

Sees nice cars everyday

In his face that he is not successful

Lives in desert

He is deserted

Drives old car

Just gets by with his income

Same routine

Not getting anywhere in life

Neat and organized in chaotic neighborhood

He was forced into this kind of lifestyle

Billboard of jumping fish

Decay

Always looks at the positive

Going to break soon

Shopping at supermarket is excitement for the day

Sexual tension between Ray and Nora

High school football field is used to ride dirt bikes

Education is not of value

Son is nonchalant

Family is not close and family is not a value

Drug deal/crack pipe

methane lab

Authority is drug dealer

Picked up litter

Tries to preserve where he lives

Charlene- half present, does not go outside, inactive, indecisive, smeared lipstick

She was different before marriage and she is promiscuous.

Penny tries to get her conscience enough to give her recipe

Dysfunctional family, financial gain, mother resented daughter and never gave her recipe?

Questions:

1. Why does the wife act so odd?

2. Was the wife different before they got married?

3. What is in the tin box and why are the contents so important to him?

4. What is Nora's situation? Is she married?

5. Did he miss out on opportunities because he married Charlene?

6. Are the son and the prostitute going to start a relationship?

are you a writer? no.

A writer is someone who can translate their ideas and thoughts effectively through ANY non verbal communication. A writer enjoys writing, maybe not enjoys, because some of them agonize over their writing, but they find something in their writing. Something that makes them passionate about their writing, something that drives them to write. I am not an excellent writer and I don't consider myself one. I write when and because I have to. I feel that school has tried so hard to make me a god writer that I actual despise doing it.

creative destruction

"Food miles" is such an appropriate term. The agriculture system causes more pollution than any other system. Food miles refers to the amount of distance a food product travels before it reaches its destination, which is a great amount of time. He reports that food miles in a supermarket are 27 times more than the food miles in a local grocery. The food makes a 15 hundred mile journey before it reaches the consumer. This great amount of distance causes a great amount of greenhouse gases to be released into the environment. It requires the consumption of fossil fuels and at one point required the building of highways so they can be easily transported. Greenhouse gases are linked to causing climate change because they are released into the atmosphere when fossil fuels are burned. To me, the quote "we are in an era of creative destruction" means that we have changed the way in which we define destruction. When one thinks of destruction, they think that bulldozers are involved or perhaps burning; destructions is a physical element breaking down a material to its elements. However, this creative deconstruction involves the use of technology. Thanks to our advancement in technology, we have developed a use for fossil fuels and inherently developed the deconstruction of the the ozone.
Do I feel personally responsible? We are all responsible. I can't say I have contributed. I use my air conditioner, I have left my lights on, I have thrown plastic bottles out in regular garbage among other things that waste energy. Do I feel personally responsible, you ask again because I never really answered. No, not personally. I feel my carbon foot print is quite smaller than others and therefore, I don't feel personally responsible for the destructions of the earth. However, I also feel that if there is going to be any change that everyone must participate. It is like when you have a group and each person must contribute their card to build the tower. If one person refuses to give their card, then the tower cannot be built.

WC

I really did love my experience at the writing center. When I got there, I sat my assignment paper down and expected the tutor to read it and help me brainstorm. Instead, he pushed the paper back to my direction and asked ME to tell HIM what my paper was on. Important to know my assignment. So I did and it helped me think about what was expected from me on this paper. We brainstormed for a bit and then he left me to start writing. I liked that he gave me my own space to write it and then after 15 minutes he came back to look at what I had written. He said I was headed in the right direction and corrected a couple of things that I warranted my reader would understand. I was in the first stages of writing so I don't think that he could have helped me more than brainstorming ideas and mapping out my paper. The thing that helped me the most was the fact that I had a conversation with someone else about what I wanted to write and the appointment was very helpful for that reason.

who came first?

“Do we create what we observe through the act of our observations?” (230)

I'm not sure how I feel about this article and this question besides the fact that I did not like this article. It is an interesting question to pose. It's like saying when you look at a color, it's really every color except the one you're perceiving which is why we perceive that color. I'm going to have to say no.. simply for the sake of my sanity. Things are there and we perceive them because they are there, not they are there because we perceive them. It is comparable to Brufee's article, which claimed that thoughts are not thoughts until they are externalized to a counterpart. Things are not things will we observe them. It's a never ending argument... who came first? the chicken or the egg?

I think his weakest argument was his progress throughout the discovery of quantum physics. I took physics in high school, but I'm coming into this as a reader who is not very educated in physics. Since this is not a physics textbook, you must understand that some readers do not understand these physics terms. Although the entire article goes through this process of discovering knowledge, it made my head spin and devalued his argument because I was no longer interested. His argument fell apart to the reader who knows little about physics.

It's like...

Excess waste is like a person who eats too much; who eats more than they need to survive and then when that excess is no used it collects as fat. If you continue to eat more than you need the fat in your body collects and collects. Eventually the body cannot handle it anymore and organs will begin to not work properly. Arteries will clog and the desire for physical activity will diminish. Consuming more than you need leads to excess waste. And excess waste is never a good thing.

I have separated excess waste and greed because although they are related, they are two different terms and can infer two different meanings. Greed is a desire for more and more and getting it by any means necessary. Greed is like a weed. It might start as a small desire that grows and grows. It finds it's way to water or sunshine, what ever it needs and it doesn't care about the plants it might kill on the way. It is usually much uglier than the plants it kills. Although there are some weeds that can disguise themselves as flowers. It will even go as far to strangle plants and grown on them and use them for their benefits, despite the fact they could very well kill the exact thing that's helping them survive. in that case, they will move on to the next.

an artist's limits

Berry makes a very good point when he mention the term: limitless. We have believed that we are a higher species and our needs are above all others and therefore we will use things to our benefit with little or no regards to anything else. We have thought that these materials that we do use have been limitless in the sense that we can use it as much as we want and there will always be some of it readily available. But that unfortunately is not the case. And now we realize as we have moved away from coal to oil. But what will happen when we are forced to move away from oil? Where will we go from there? He makes the point to quote words that are supposed to be comforting, that we have "250 billion tons of oil reserves" that will "last us 100 years" (Berry 2). But this fails to recognize the fact that "we have inhabited the earth for many thousands of years" and although it is comforting to hear that it will last us a bit longer, in the context of how long we've been on the earth, it's not enough time at all (Berry 2).
We want solutions that will be the most efficient and the least invasive. Ones that require a certain amount of technology. Yet we still choose to believe that everything is limitless. Berry blatantly calls this "fantasy" because we are "entering a time on inescapable limits" (Berry 4). We can no longer be so stupid to think that we can solve the problem of technology abusing the environment with more technology. Perhaps there is no such thing as "clean technology" that the only true answer to preserving and saving the earth is to start to live with limits. They way we live now it limitless and but using more technology to solve our limitless amount of problems is only aiding us in the continuation of living limitlessly.
Berry suggests that the only way to "recover from our disease of limilessness" is to come to the realization that we are not a species above the rest sent by god. It is sort of this Christian belief that we are above all other creatures because god has created us in that way. We should take the reliance off of science and technology and have a "new look at the arts" (Berry 9). His prior reference to art was that they have limits depending on the size of their canvas and therefore must choose what to depict on their limited frame of art and he again closes with this idea that artists know limits far better than scientists could understand.

derrida's fear

Derrida's fear of writing occurs to him when he is in a half sleep half awake stage. At that point he feels he sees the truth more clearly than ever and the part on his brain he names vigilance tells him that what he is doing is crazy and this "gesture," which I think to be his writing, is crazy and might offend people. But when he is awake, vigilance is asleep and he no longer thinks about if his writing is acceptable, he simply thinks about his writing and says what he wants to say.
I have a similar fear, but not quite exactly what Derrida is describing. I always have a good a idea, but I fear the correct way to articulate my thoughts into comprehensible writing. It goes along with Derrida's fear because if I fail to articulate myself well, then what I'm really trying to say won't be expressed to my reader and then I have failed as a writer.
The motivation of this fear is really the proper way to go about communicating with your reader. Writing is indeed a conversation and if you fail to express your thoughts clearly and understandably, then the reader has no way to accept the ideas you intended to communicate. Derrida feels that his written word is what he wanted to say and therefore will not fail to communicate his point.

but why is all the rum gone?

How do both of these poems address the nature of making meaning?

Both of the poems tie back to the idea that was mentioned in the Bruffee piece; writing is a conversation and thoughts aren't really thoughts until they are externalized. It gives the image of throwing something out there and allowing the reader to make something of it, like the rum was thrown into the ocean and came back oh so sweet. Or in the poem by Hass when it seems he agonizes over how to describe the tree move in the wind. He finds it hard, because he realizes there is a difference in each word he uses. But he leaves it open to the reader when he ends the poem with "he did something in the wind."

How is language a slippery vehicle?

Language is present as a slippery vehicle in both poems because of the choice of words. In Hass' poem, he fights with himself as presented in the poem, about which word would be appropriate to describe the tree's motion in the wind. It proves that there is an heavy importance on the words in which a writer chooses because it effects the meaning that the reader will perceive and the message he or she will walk away with. The idea that what a writer create will be thrown into the ocean of the readers and the idea will come back to you slightly different, as in the Jones' poem.

collaboration and conversation

Bruffee didn't structure his piece like I'm choosing to explain it, but it makes more sense to me. I had to read his piece in a previous class and the focus was a tad different. But, what I got out of the piece was that writing is a conversation. First, thoughts are internalized and through writing, it becomes externalized. Writing is a conversation that you have with a reader in which you have the ability to give them your thoughts, opinions and arguments. It is one of the only ways you can communicate with another human being with out opening your mouth. Respectively, collaboration works well BECAUSE of the fact that writing is a conversation. When you collaborate you are forced to talk things through. You are forced to verbalize your thoughts that you wish to put on paper. You get to "try them out" on a reader, before writing them down. When you write, you must understand who you're writing for and therefore you must understand what your intended reader will know and what they won't know. This is why it is very helpful to collaborate--when you collaborate conversation happens. They found that in collaboration, it didn't change what the student learned, it changed how the student learned it. The argument is that learning should be shifted to these new understandings and successes of peer education through collaborative work and through simply having a conversation about material. To perhaps think of learning as a "social process" and to teach it in that manner. Although collaboration is a slippery slope and can quickly become the general group with one hard worker, one who tries and one who is disengaged, teachers must familiarize themselves with such work and form tasks in which collaboration can flourish.

Shakespeare Play

This Sunday I went to see the Shakespeare's Play in Adam's Playhouse. I thought it was really good. I liked the scenery because it wasn't cheesy at all, which is the way you would expect unprofessional plays to be. I like watching what I've read come to life. The play was comical and interesting. I loved Sir Toby, Sir Andrew and the Fool's parts in the play. They really made the whole thing so funny even though they rarely had large parts. The second half of the play was funnier. I didn't really like the live music on stage. It didn't add to the show at all. And I think the music in between the scenes was... interesting. I didn't enjoy that much at all. Otherwise, it was a good show and kept me entertained. The cast was wonderful.

language is a slippery vehicle...

...and most writers choose their words very carefully. They agonize over every and each word in which to lay their meaning and hope that it will convey the message they've intended it to. Speaking is different from writing, because when you are speaking and you say something you wish you didn't, it cannot be taken back.

"Academic writing is writing about other people's texts."

-Ethna Lay

in class thematic strand

1. greedy, envy, want, desire, grow, thumb, money, Ireland, rain, shamrock

2. public, structure, citizens, community, norm, stagnant, want change, laws, rules, controlled.

3. plant, grow, harvest, plow, dig, water, cut, weed, control, have patient

4. His argument is that the tree is hard to describe because all of them are so different. The motives for the trees swaying in the wind are all different and it is hard to describe. Does it simply sway? Does it dance? Or are the branches moving only because they are dying and are easily pushed by the wind? It is hard to articulate the words because there are no words to describe nature. The author has trouble finding the right words and he fights with himself to express what he sees in the poem.

5. Dear Professor Lay,

My argument in Paper II was that Malvolio is presented as a fool in the play and can be applied to the sonnet CXXIX. It stresses the fact that others made him look foolish--that Maria understands the desires of humans and their instincts and she plays on that until Mavolio takes the bait. He becomes so engulfed in his desires that he would do anything and does do anything, until he realizes that he only looks like a madman and that he is still left with no one and nothing.

I liked the way I kept relating Malvolio to the sonnet. I kept taking quotes from the sonnet and incorporating it into my own language. I think it flowed nicely--so nicely that it sounded like the sonnet was actually made for Malvolio instead of me just relating the poem to him. If I do say so myself =]

-Jeanmarie

don't be a fool.

The words that I chose to look up in the concordance were variations of the word, fool. They included foolish, fool and fooling. I got a lot of hits and it totaled about 7 pages of quote citations.

2. Where is the data you retrieved found? What is happening in context when Shakespeare employs this particular theme or image?

Well the word fool appeared may times. In general, it is often characters calling other characters a fool are describing them as foolish. The Feste's name came up the most and he is not usually referring to to himself. Malvolio calls others a fool a couple of times, which is ironic because he's being made a fool of my Maria. Sir Andrew and Sir Toby say it once or twice, that is also ironic because they make fools of themselves. Olivia and Orsino talk of being foolish, which is ironic because Orsino is being foolish because he loves someone and is pursuing someone that has no interest in him. And Olivia is being foolish because she is in love with Cesario, who is really a woman. Finally, Maria says it, which is fitting because she is making others look foolish *cough cough* Malvolio. In short, Feste and Malvolio have to most hits.

3. How does the data you retrieved support your first thoughts on Shakespeare’s obsessive use of a particular image? What can you argue about Shakespeare’s figuration?

In every Shakespeare play I've read, I've found the the Fool or the Jester plays an important part. For example, he is the voice of reason or the character that knows what is going to happen and tries to warn others when a plan will go array. And he is often over looked because the characters believe him be there for shear entertainment. So I think a motif of the play is the fact that every character is foolish in some way, accept for the fool, which is really ironic because... I mean his name is the fool..

4. I cannot answer because I have not met with my group...

lunacy, instability and delirious musings

Viola: I am the man (II.ii.25)

This is just plain comedy and it is seems to be the biggest joke in the whole play. Viola is not a man, actually. She is a woman. The audience knows that, and we know that... But the other characters don't know that. I can already predict this is going to cause a lot of mayhem throughout the closing of the play.

Malvolio: ...and yet to crush it a little, it would bow to me (II.v.143-145)

Malvolio is reading the letters on the post script, whicih are MOAI and he says that if he were to rearranged and change his name just a little, they are the letters of his name and therefore it is referring to him. It shows his desperation and for his "lady" and his delusion of how he can fit into the equation, when in fact the equation has no answer and equates to nothing.

Viola: Then you think your right. I am not what I am.

Olivia: I would you were as I would have you be. (III.i.148-9)

Olivia does not know that Viola is really a women so when Olivia tells Viola she isn't what she is, Viola replies, 'you're right, I'm not what I am.' So Olivia doesn't know what what this exclamation really means, which is that she is really a woman. She claims that she wishes Viola was what she wants her to be. This is very ironic because Olivia is talking is the correct context, but she doesn't not know the truth. Unfortunately, Viola could never be what Olivia wants her to be and Viola does not in fact know who she is.

freewriting royal.

Act II sc. iii line 170: "Sport royal"

Maria is referring to her letter that she fooled Malvolio with. A sport is a game, in which two entities compete for a prize and for the entertainment spectators. Although Malvolio does not realize, his prize has been made unattainable by his deceiver, Maria. He also does not know that Maria is a player in this sport and that she and other characters in the play are spectators. They are watching this game unfold as Malvolio tries desperately to win his prize, and they are thoroughly amused by it--as if it were a real sport.

small essay, BIG REACTION

After I finished this essay, I'm going to be honest. It wasn't my best, nor my favorite. I feel like I had a really good plan and I mapped out my plan of attack nicely. But it didn't translate as well as I thought it was going to. I started it early, but I finished it late. It was one of those essays that you just can't wait to be done with. Do I think I did terrible? No. Am I proud of it? Well, I'm not ashamed of it, if that answers my own question... I did rest on the fact that we can rewrite this. So I didn't type my fingers off. However, I don't want to make it seem like I just did it because I had to and handed it in. Well, I did. But I did put thought into it as well. I did work on it. I did go to the writing center. I just couldn't find a passion for it to make my writing outstanding. Maybe next time.

blood, sweat and ink.

"BG's" quote:

From: Act 2, iv 80-85

Said by: Feste the Fool

"Now the melancholy god protect thee, and the tailor make the doubtlet of changeable tuffeta, for thy mind is very opal. I would have men of such constancy put to sea, that their business might be everything and their intent everywhere..."

The fool is comparing a man's changing mind to an opal and changing taffeta. He says he will put them to sea. He begins by wishing him luck, because a changing mind is a dangerous one. By stating the mind is like "tuffeta" and "opal" he identifies it as changing. I think he puts them to sea, because that is where they can go with their thoughts and sort them through. Those kind of men with changing minds should be put to sea. They can do anything and go anywhere with their wandering minds and make "a good voyage of nothing."

Seeking Six Shakespeare Answers

Six Questions:

1. What kind of significance does the Fool hold in the play? Does he foreshadow events? Or does he serve as an omnipotent character?

2. Of what status is Viola?

3. What is the point of the hair and languages conversation on page 19, line 91-98?

4. Is there a double meaning to the conversation of dancing on page 21?

5. What is the Fool saying on page 29, line 40 in plain English?

6. Are there multiple places where foreshadowing of what will happen to characters later on in the play made by other characters?

cut and paste.

I do revise. I don't always save that process to be the last thing that I will do. When I get done with a section of my essay I will go back an reread that one section. I usually leave out words or make silly grammatical mistakes. But sometimes I also find that I got lost in a certain thought while writing, and I have left out something vital to the meaning of my passage. Sometimes I realize that I have to explain something that makes sense to me but perhaps not to my audience and sometimes I need to move paragraphs or sentences around. After each section I usually repeat the process and then read it through again when I have finished the whole thing.

What figuration...? Well, it's like when you play music. You start to play the whole thing anticipating to get to the end. However sometimes, you mess up and go back to play it slower or to break it down until when you play it at full speed again, it sounds like it should. And then you move on to the next part.

poor torreya tree

The increasing climate change and it's effect on the Torreya taxifolia is the main thesis in Michelle Nijhuis's article, "To Take Wilderness In Hand." She claims that although the tree is extremely small and scrawny and literally means "stinking cedar" it is an ancient tree (Kolbert 181). It is even considered an "ancient relic" and because of the changing climate, they are hard to find and are "reduced to a handful of mossy trunks, rotting in riverside ravines" (181). One solutions she recognizes would to be uproot the plants and transport them to a climate that would better support their growth and expansion, better known as assisted migration. However, this is costly and indefinite because the tree would be entering as a new species and cause a dangerous affect. As the riverbanks slowly erode away, another solution is brought up. Nijhuis interviews David Printess about "burn boss" which are controlled fires that he believes would bring "some sunlight back to the steep ravines where the Florida torreya once grew" (184). However the disease killing the trees has not been identified and therefore there is not definite that it will not sprout up again when the trees relocate. Sometimes, she identifies that meddling must take place in order to save a species although must practices have many negatives.

what's up sue halpurn

...I forget what the first question was! My paper was collected and I can't find them anywhere, so I don't remember what the fist one was.

Active Verbs:

"It was a quiet, undemanding job, intended to allow him to decompress from combat" (117).

"It dropped viewers into one of two scenarios..." (118).

"...its rotor whirring, body casting a running shadow over rice paddies..." (118).

*this can be considered figurative as well*

"It was the first assessment of of mental-health problems emerging from service..." (122).

"...increases the likelihood of evoking the patients actual experience while engaging the patient on so many sensory levels..." (123).

Figurative Language:

"... they worry it might be cruel to immerse a patient in a drowning pool of painful memories" (119).

"A sandstorm could be raging..." (123)

"...he pick through a jumble of cables searching for the one that was live" (125).

"Even when the guy in the seat next to me was shot, and his shirt sprouted a red bloom..." (126).

Leave with a Quote:

"It showed me that they were motivated to do game tasks and that the more they did them the better they got, and it hit me that there could be a link between cognitive rehabilitation and virtual reality" (123).

abstract numero tres

Sue Halpern's article, "Virtual Iraq" is one that aims to describe a new method of treating post traumatic stress disorder, better known as PTSD. PTSD is hard to treat and many "therapies that we've seen don't seem to be working" (Kolbert 118). With almost 20% of war verterans from Iraq and Afghanistan suffering from this disease, the need for a successful treatment is eminent. Halpern offers this new kind of treatment that is based off of old psychological theories and the Virtual Vietnam, which was the first program of its time invented by Jarrell Pair. The Virtual Iraq, created by Albert Rizzo, is a simulation, video game-esque alternate reality that allows a patient to experience a time of trauma over and over again until they have been desensitized. Halpern notes that it must be supervised by a trained therapist who will warn the patient when they will deploy more sounds or more airplanes. This process is called habituation and the video game aspect of this treatment places the patient in a more comfortable environment in which they are not embarrassed, ashamed or overwhelmed. However, it still forces them to face the fear and anxiety that lie in these events. Halpern tells the story of Travis Boyd as an example of a PTSD success story who at first, could not even drive off base by himself. Although the road to creating such a treatment was difficult because of funding and skepticism, it has helped those like Travis Boyd enjoy life again. Halpern makes a strong argument in favor of Virtual Iraq, however she assumes that because of culture today, that a virtual reality treatment would be acceptable. However, this "video game" may only attract younger veterans as appose to the older ones aversive to the idea of a virtual reality.

small object, LARGE SUBJECT [in process]

Sugar substitutes are found a major part of our everyday culture. They have become so widely accepted, that they sit beside regular sugar at coffee shops, restaurants and even at home in kitchens. The belief is that the sugar substitute has become the answer, that it can sweeten anything with no worries about calorie intake.

In a world in which dieting has become so popular, this idea has caught on. So if tastes like sugar and looks like sugar then it must be sugar, right? Wrong. You can't have your cake and eat it to. It seems like the perfect answer. However, debatable research shows that it could possibly cause many health problems later on, although many of us do not worry about the future because if it is out of sight, it is out of mind. The product that was originally created for diabetics is now used by everyday dieting people. It is a chemically created substance that can be added too and cooked in food and although it is very similar to regular sugar, it has a distinct after taste that assures the consumer of its unnatural qualities.

Some warrants may include that a large majority of people use them and they use them on everything. However, there is a good percentage of people who also stay away from such products because they are unnatural.

e-waste abstract

The thesis of the article, "High Tech Trash" by Chris Carroll is that the U.S.'s current policy of dumping electronic waste, or e-waste oversees is not only harmful to the countries in which they dump, but to the U.S. as well. He begins his argument by addressing that software engineers constantly create new programs that cannot be supported by older computers, therefore they must be thrown out which creates 50 million tons of waste a year. However, Carroll states, the by-products from this techno trash, which includes lead and mercury among others, is toxic to the environment and to humans. He points out that instead of letting it sit in a land fill in the United States, companies ship them over seas to countries like Ghana, Nigeria, Ivory Coast and China where sit in landfills or are burned down to their marketable components. It seemed like a "win-win situation," because "huge volumes of scrap electronics were shipped out, and the profits rolled in." However, he notes the process of exposing the materials is very toxic to the environment and to the humans. Governments and have tried to ban the e-waste with the Basel Ban that "forbids hazardous waste shipments to poor countries." Yet, it has not been issued into effect. Carroll cleverly mentions that the U.S. is one of three countries that did no ratify the Basel Convention that also attempts to employ green-design of electronics and the take-back strategy. Not only did the U.S. ignore legislation but it also refuses to have machinery that will clean up the e-waste in an environmentally safe process. Only a few more and the U.S. would not have to ship it out to other countries. However "under current policies ... it is still more profitable to ship waste abroad than to process it safely at home." Therefore, he concludes, the United States disregard of the legislation and unwillingness to build these machines, might work against them in the end as more and more lead is showing up in products that are shipped from China to the U.S.; lead that can extracted from e-waste. Carroll makes a very important case although he seems to assume that the Basel Ban will not affect the way in which these products are disposed of in the near future.

abstract time.

so i got my ass kicked the other day in class for not capitalizing anything. my bad, really. I'm sorry to those of you who were a bit agitated while reading it. Nancy's totally got my back and that's how i felt. this is more of a conversation, so i write it like this. ANY WHO! abstract time.

the article, "is google making us stupid?" by Nicholas Carr his main thesis is that google has not only changed the technological world but it has also changed the way in which we think. His first argument is that the internet compromises our ability to concentrate--that because of the convenience of the internet, we now search for convenience in everything that we do and find it hard to concentrate on mundane tasks, like reading. he uses evidence from the study of the brain to demonstrate that the brain is constantly changing and morphing the existing synapses and making new ones. his next argument states that because of the way technology works, in a system of algorithms, that is the way in which we think. like Frederick Winslow Taylor's system in which he divided the work of an industry into small jobs so that each employer only had to complete a small task. the person doing the job is limited and so are we as users of google because our opportunities of learning are limited. he assumes, however that this applies to everyone--this google epidemic. it's a cultural assumption that everyone has access to a computer and to new technology. his final argument is that although these new technologies have changed the way in which we think, they have not been malevolent and there is a inherent value we gain from them. the outrage over the printing press was outweighed by its benefits and helped the world move towards new technology, as will google.

i'll tell you what's stupid.

the funny thing is, as i went to read the article, my roommate, who is also conveniently in my class said verbatim, "let's read cosmo instead of the article." i agreed. the confessions portion was interesting, but i have submitted my attention to the article. it is cleverly titled, "is google making us stupid?" i found the full version on google. ironic. i did have a point to why i started off my blog in such a way. i think there are more distractions laying around than just the internet. and you can find tons if you really don't want to do something. i have no problem finding them.

but before i start, i'm going to look for the books on amazon.

the way i see it is a fluctuation or as carr puts it, a "midst of a sea change in the way we read and think" and i honestly don't think it's a bad thing. we need more information now and we need it at our fingertips.

i 100% agree with the point carr makes with his anecdote of Fredrich Nietzsche. the tools that we use to write with absolutely directly affect the language and style that gets written. the essay i had to write and hand to the professor in class is less dense and intricate than the essay that i wrote at home on my laptop. i am able to just cut an paste the paragraph that really belongs in the beginning rather than brackets and an arrow that presents my writing to the professor as messy and unorganized.

why would you want to sit around and read information that you don't need, when you can sift through it to find the core of the information you can use. even if you wanted to go to the library, you have to first use a search engine that will direct you in the right location--a search engine that works the same way google does. like my mom the other day. it was my cousin's birthday, i know he's not much of a talker, so i just texted him. my mom argued with me that i should call him, that "back in her day" if she wanted to talk to someone she had to call them. so i, being the witty person i am and loving to argue, responded that in the past if she said that, i'm sure my grandpa would have said, "well back in my day we had to write letters if we wanted to wish someone a happy birthday." and before letters, there was visiting a person. my point is, she thinks that a phone call would be better than a text message. i argued that well in her time, a letter would have been better than a phone call. but it's just how time changes. a text message is faster, more efficient and to the point. our thought process is constantly shifting and fluctuating, as is technology.

perhaps Carr is right when he claims that the adoption of "new intellectual technologies is reflected in the changing metaphors" we use to express ourselves and our thoughts. and perhaps the internet is "programming us" which makes sense when he begins his article with The Space Odyssey, which is a movie about a computer on a space ship that gains so much intelligence it becomes smarter than the passengers and begins to take over.

the example of the outrage over the printing press reflects my mom's dislike of my text message and the dispute over the internet. i'm glad i can be skeptical of you skepticism, Carr. i'm not disagreeing, maybe it's just not such a bad thing.