Week 14, responder 1

Jacquie Ok so i listened to the song ‘Rinse’ by Vanessa Carlton…it’s amazing if you haven’t heard it. And then i wrote a poem that expresses how the song reminds me of some personal experiences. Hooray for music and poetry!

A Lesson Un-learned

 

Her pillow is stained with eye-makeup again,

She lets the tears flow and waits for the sorrow to end.

The emotions that pierce her heart are not unfamiliar,

They flood the thoughts in her brain like a dizzying blur.

She welcomes the sting like a back-stabbing friend,

And knows that her heart needs to feel it to mend.

The anger and passion is always the same,

For this, she knows there is but one person to blame.

She recognizes that the fault belongs solely to her,

And understands that there are consequences she must endure.

Unfortunately for her, she knows no other way,

She’s been bearing her soul to all from her first living day.

Her faith in mankind may be a bit too strong,

For she’s let anyone and everyone into her life for way too long.

They all tell her not to wear her heart on her sleeve,

When you do, getting it broken is never hard to achieve.

But this is the way that she chooses to live,

Always understanding and kind, and quick to forgive.

She doesn’t ask for much, just someone to care,

Yet when she turns around, there’s never anyone there.

When will the love that she gives be enough?

The continuous heartaches and let-downs get tough.

Each time she gets hurt, she breaks down and cries,

And falls into her bed where she currently lies.

But the pain fades away as the tearing stops,

And a bit of the anger dies with each drying drop.

She knows when she wakes that she will once again be,

Smiling with that wide-eyed glimmer of hope and opportunity.

So she’ll dive head-first into all the same mistakes,

Because the risk of getting hurt is one she’s always willing to take.

As she barrels onward with emotions that are all too sincere,

She hopes and prays that her reward will one day appear.

 

 

Week 14: Developing Voice

My task to you this week is to choose a song–any song–and listen to it. Then I’d like you to write about whatever comes to mind when you listen to this song. What you write might be technical, might be a rant, might be a memory, might be poetry. It’s up to you.

 

Week 13, Responder 1

Brittney

 

“Good” writing can be defined in many different ways and depends on the genre of writing that one is judging.  When looking at argumentative, educational writing, then good writing would be writing that includes factual information.  It would include writing that presents a strong argument and does not falter from it.  When looking at creative writing, “good” writing would consist of stories that are creative.  It should catch the reader’s attention, drawing them in to the point that they fee like a part of the story themselves.  When I think of writing in the form of poetry the cliche line “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” comes to mind.  Poetry has so many different forms and each form appeals to different type of people.   Some people may love the playfulness of e. e. cummings or the darkness of Edgar Allen Poe.  Both are amazing writers of poetry, but everyone has their own taste.

 

Another way to define writing that seemed to be used in the episode of My Name is Earl deals more with how the writing helps and affects the author.  In the show, Earl’s friends used writing to help themselves.  An example is when his friend, who is a cook in a restaurant, wrote about protecting meat.  He used writing to let out his problem and to write on how he felt about the issue.  This could be looked at as good writing because it helped the writer express himself in a way that brought awareness to his problem.

 

To define good writing is like saying define a good piece of artwork.  There is no set rule on how to write.  I think that good writing depends on the new ideas that are presented, and how the writing makes itself different and unique from others.

 

Week 13: What’s Good Writing?

Seeing as how it’s near the end of the semester, it might be nice to talk about writing in a different context. The question I’d like to you to think about is: what constitutes “good” writing?

To help you think about this question, here’s an episode of My Name is Earl for you to watch (please watch Episode 305: Creative Writing).  Now, it’s not required that you watch the episode in order to respond to the question, but it might help you think about writing in a different way. (I also have no idea when NBC will take down the episode, so if you can’t find the episode after Monday, then you’ll just have consider the question without the sitcom goodness.)

 

Week 12: Ghosts from Assignment 1…

WASHINGTON – It’s a fight that has the nation’s largest chicken producers squabbling, Big Sugar and Big Corn skirmishing and Sara Lee mixing it up with Farmer John.

Lawmakers, too, have joined the fray, which already is thick with dueling petitions and at least one lawsuit. Meanwhile, government food regulators are uncertain how to proceed.

The question is at face value a simple one: When can food products, from chicken breasts to soda pop, rightfully be labeled as “natural?”

ad_dap(‘250′,’300′,’&PG=NBCBZ2&AP=1089′);

Wrapped up in it, however, are some far trickier questions: Is it ethical to charge for saltwater that increasingly pumps up supermarket chickens? Is the sodium lactate used as a flavoring and preservative in sliced roast beef “natural?” How about the high-fructose corn syrup that sweetens sodas?

 

Read the rest of Battle over ‘natural’ food designation at MSNBC… 

 

Week 11, Responder 1

Brittney

The National Broadcasting Company has begun providing pro-environment ads and raising awareness about conservation and important environmental issues. Unfortunately many American citizens have a lack of knowledge and participation in societal issues. For example, Americans have a very low voting rate for presidential elections, as well as a small knowledge about ecological problems. Many people who aren’t as in tune with the environment don’t realize what danger planet Earth is in and continue to pollute it. The public service announcements and environmentalistic aspects that have recently been incorporated into the television broadcast of NBC raise environmental awareness and helps to better the environment.

I know that today in class watching videos and discussing whether or not NBC’s new stance on the environment was beneficial, lead to some heated debate as everyone has their own opinions and personal ideologies. Many people argued that NBC was being hypocritical because they themselves don’t use energy saving products, but I disagree. If NBC were saying that everyone who doesn’t conserve is horrible and that everyone absolutely needs to conserve and make the environment a better place that would be very hypocritical because they themselves may not be practicing these environmentally friendly ways of life. However, they are just trying to raise awareness and are trying to show people how simple everyday actions, such as turning off appliances and taking shorter showers, can help save the environment in large ways. NBC is merely teaching people that otherwise wouldn’t be environmentally aware, about small, easy things that can be done to conserve.

There is never going to be a time in our lives where the planet is free from environmental problems. The fact that NBC is taking an initiative at all to try and promote people to be environmentally friendly is a great thing. It seems to me like NBC would be in a bad position whether it made a green week or not. They are getting criticism from people for having green week saying that it is “fake” and “hypocritical”, yet if they did nothing they would still be looked at as the big corporation who doesn’t care about the environment. If the workers at NBC are spending the amount of time and money that they are spending to create public service announcements and to incorporate green ideas into their weekly shows, they obviously care about the environment, and I think that it’s horrible that people can’t see that.

Al Gore making An Inconvenient Truth does not appeal to everyone. Not everyone wants to sit down and watch an hour and a half long video about a power point presentation by someone who they might not even care for. The fact that NBC has incorporated friendly environmental values into their television broadcast means that it will affect many more people. Those who are affected by things such as An Inconvenient Truth can be inspired by that, while those who watch NBC television and are less aware about the environmental challenges Earth is going through today can be influenced in that way. With the wide range of people who live in the United States and all over the world, there needs to be different outlets and different forms of media and information to promote the same idea or value to the entire population. “YEAH! I’m am extremely excited to see these topics being discussed on mainstream media!” This is a comment that was left by a young adult book author responding to a post that Tom Brokaw left on the Green is Universal website. This quote proves that popular media such as NBC and public figures influences certain people, and pushes them to pursue the environmental movement. We live in an extremely diverse place where people have different beliefs, different emotions, and different ways of being appealed to. That is why it is important to have different outlets for people to get information from. The environmental movement that NBC is pursuing is important and will be effective because it will appeal to those who understand and enjoy that type of setting.

 

Week 11, Responder 2

Kevin

Advertisements always have a double meaning. They may appeal to one end of the spectrum, but in the end all the really want is your money. This can be seen especially with the “Heroes” episode where Micah pours bottled water (a huge polluter) onto a tree. The producers were just advertising the bottled water, while appearing to appeal to the environment.

I noticed that many people were getting heated over the hypocritical argument. However, isn’t this true with most of life. It is rare nowaday to find someone who will actually say that they do not like you. Instead, they will manipulate you and get the most out of you. They will sweet talk you in person, then go and talk behind your back about how much they despise you. Advertisements are the same way. They will appeal to your senses, but they secretely have a hidden agenda of just taking your money.

Unfortunately, Al Gore is even hypocritical. He claims to be an environmentalist and he even won the Nobel Peace Prize for his environmental efforts. However, he tells others to save gas, while he flies on his private jet. Also according to the Wall Street Journal, Gore is one of the biggest polluters of Tennessee. So, how did Gore win the Nobel Prize again? I guess words speak louder than actions.

In the end, you really have to evaluate what people say. It may be wrong and it may be hypocritical, but ads are just bending the rules to appeal to you. People always use double meanings, but it is up to you to figure out what they really mean.

 

Week 11: Go Green With Heroes

Please explore the Universal is Green website, then watch these two videos:

1. Green is Universal: Behind the Scenes (1:50)
   
2. Go Green With Heroes (0:19)
   

(If for some reason the links do not work, you can go to the Universal is Green website, click on Videos and watch the videos with the above titles.)

Taking the readings associated with A4 into consideration (particularly Green Screen: Environmentalism and Hollywood Cinema by David Ingram), I would like to know what your reaction is to NBC Universal’s marketing campaign–especially if you happened to watch Heroes tonight and experienced the green tint to the solar eclipse, as well as the commercial where the “heroes” are on The Today Show and Sylar says, “My character wants to destroy the world, but I want to save it,” then Micah pours bottled water on a potted tree–how do you interpret and respond to this marketing campaign?

 

Week 10, Responder 3

Katie

Every year when these wild fires occur, the media focuses on how unfortunate it is for the homeowners in these areas.  There is really nothing else on the news during these couple of weeks every year and it raises a lot of sympathy for the people who are required to evacuate, wondering if their home will be standing tomorrow, and for those who actually watch their homes burn to the ground.  After seeing so much of this, it is understandable for those who are not experiencing the affects of the fires first hand to become bitter and angry towards the residents of the cities being affected. However, when these angry observers are only sharing how they feel about places like Malibu, there is a problem. In Steve Lopez’s article, FastFred’s “DEAL WITH IT!” and Mike Davis’ “Let Malibu Burn” are directed at the stereotypical citizens and homeowners of Malibu.  They are upset because they feel that the citizens are of Malibu are getting special treatment due being “white, rich and famous” (Lopez). And in some cases this is true, for example in Irvine, California, where the mayor’s home was in an area that was being evacuated and because of her status, the city made sure that they evacuated her family before all the others. However, people of many different economical statuses were affected.  This Fast Fred and Mike Davis should have thought about all of the people who are being affected before they were so insensitive to what was going on.

Steve Lopez also talked about how the counties and cites that were affected could have done their part to prevent the fires. Many of the homes that were destroyed or were in danger of being destroyed were built on hillsides wear landslides are known to occur and the land is dry.  Citizens of these areas are aware of these risks but they convince themselves that money, as Kevin said in a post, can help them overcome these problems and justify living in these areas.  This is one part of the problem.  The other contributer is the cities and counties who approve homes to be built in these kind of areas.  I was not aware of these factors of the wildfires destruction of homes, but now that I have been informed, I am appalled. The cities and counties know about the different types of land in their area, they don’t change over night. If they know that these homes could be in danger if another wildfire was to occur in those areas, why would they let the citizens build there.  Plus, in the end, the homeowners complain to the city and county about how they believe that their home should the maximum protection from the firefighters when the fires are getting worse.  These people need to face the facts and understand that they are not going to be able to get special treatment when they knew the risks going in to this.  They are not the only ones who are being affected by the fires.

 

week 10, responder 1

When reading this article, I was specifically interested in the last
quote of the posting. Steve posts that one blogger named Kevin said,
“Living on hillsides that are proven to be future landslides and
combining that with living in a dry area, comes down to not rich or poor
but smart and stupid. . . . These lands were not meant to be built on
but some people think money can overcome that. Good luck, you should
have moved to the Valley.”

By choosing to live anywhere, we are putting ourselves at the mercy of
Mother Nature and fully accepting any consequences that may ensue due to
our location choice. Whether it is the threat of tornadoes, floods,
blizzards, earthquakes, or fires, no one can claim to be naïve to these
deadly environmental forces when we chose to live in any given area.
Although the occurrences of such deadly crises are tragic, they are also
to some extent expected. As Kevin says, if you’re going to build a
couple million dollar mansion in an area prone to fires and landslides,
you have to know going into it that there is a chance such a crisis will
occur. Kevin says that these people think that money can overcome that
but clearly Mother Nature does not know the value of houses before she
burns them down. Natural disasters don’t skip over certain geographical
areas because of how expensive or important they are. It is selfish to
believe that your house burning down is any more tragic than the
thousands of acres of surrounding nature that have been completely
stripped and burnt to the ground. What also upset me about how the media
(internet, newspapers, and broadcasts alike) chose to report the
specific celebrities’ houses that had been damaged in the fires as if
the loss of these peoples’ property was significantly more tragic than
any other house that had been burnt down in the 17 California wildfires.
One CNN online news report even quoted the director of the movie Titanic
saying he had lost a significant amount of his movie memorabilia in the
fire before the article mentioned that the San Diego Zoo was forced to
evacuate its endangered species from the park. It’s sad how we as a
society align our news priorities.