GO WILDCATS!

    While drifting off into space a couple of minutes ago, I had a thought. That thought was about the movie we call High School Musical. Although I am finishes with AOTD, this thought seemed to fit as a decent example of how television affects us. When High School Musical came out, we were all in elementary school and it gave us (or at least me) a completely superficial idea of how high school would be. I knew that there wouldn't be people doing synchronized dances on the tables during lunch or anything but I didn't think high school would be so… high school. I went into middle school (not high school due to Mayfair being both middle and high school) thinking, "Oh my gosh! What if a senior puts me in a dumpster?!" "I be the cafeteria food is great!" "Nobody really does drugs" "I wander if my outfit is cute enough" "I bet detention might be fun". Unfortunately, none of this was true or mattered. I didn't make a difference to seniors, cafeteria food isn't that great, people do drugs, nobody cared about my outfit because contradictory to my former thoughts, no one payed attention to me, and detention wasn't fun, it was not The Breakfast Club. And guess what else? I couldn't find a single Regina George! I quickly got the idea that High School Musical, The Breakfast Club, and Mean Girls really were fake high schools. The expectations I had of high school were all shaped by these movies I'd been watching as I grew up. It's kind of weird to know that television really does effect our expectations of many things, high school just being one. 

-Camille Burrus

AF: Wow, you guys

Go nuts!  Keep writing.  :D

It's Funny, Isn't It??

I told myself that I would space my activity on the blog out a little bit, but now that I've started I can't stop! Anyway I really wanted to follow up on Monique's "Eye Openers" post because she had a good question.  Do we not realize the negative effects technology has had on us because it's always been there in our lifetimes?? It's funny, isn't it?? How different our childhoods were compared to those of our parents despite the mere few decades gap in between. When you put thought into it, most of our parents didn't have the internet growing up, but nowadays we literally can't even get through AP English summer homework without using the internet. Maybe that's why our parents get mad at us for being on our smartphones 24/7, or spending hours on social media. I believe that since they didn't grow up with this type of environment, they aren't blinded by technology like our generation is.  The world of technology is moving fast. What I've always wondered is whether we (as a generation) are going to end up like our parents; who weren't cast under the spell of technology, when we have children of our own, or are we going to accept technology with open arms and put it in the hands of our kids.

It's Not a Children's Game

I have finished reading Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman. As I was reading, I was partially reminded of the children’s game of telephone. One person thinks of a simple phrase and then whispers it into the next person’s ear. That person listens to the phrase and passes it on to the next person, and so on. The last person to hear the phrase says what they think they heard out loud. As you can imagine, the final phrase is often quite different from the original because words have been changed, added or lost through communication. This reminded me of how much America lost when television became an integral part of our lives. Books lost a lot of the importance they once had during what Postman calls “The Age of Exposition”. Voters lost their ability to separate a politician’s looks, personalities, and charisma from a politician’s political parties and foreign policy. Certain religions lost their sacredness when preachers’ TV shows became another form of entertainment. Hours of children’s lives were lost as TV was promoted and encouraged through the education system. In the end, because America treated television with the same kind of flippancy that an adult treats a child’s a game of telephone: harmless, amusing, and of no consequence, it allowed themselves to become ensnared in its entertaining trap.

This brings me to another point. As I was reading, I couldn’t help but think how accurate Postman’s theories were and still are. It was almost disturbing to see how fake and entertainment-centered our society has become. In the end, I was left worrying about what could be done to solve this problem. Although Postman offers a few solutions, even he does not seem very confident that they could be effective. He offers as his most plausible solution using the education system to inform the coming generations of the dangers of technology. What does everyone think? Is it possible to reverse our addiction to entertainment and reduce its prevalence in our society, or will America simply continue to become the world that Aldous Huxley predicted it would become?

Eye Openers

I read the second core text first, so when I saw the posts on the blog about how hard Amusing Ourselves to Death was I got a little scared. When I started reading it, I was really confused. Moreover because I was so confused, I was quickly irritated. I was constantly rereading just to grasp Postman's concepts. However, after the first few chapters it became easier. I don't know if it became easier because I was adjusting, or Postman began writing about his concepts in a  simpler manner. Whatever it was I was happy.
I am currently half way through the book, and I am finding a lot of similarities between Amusing Ourselves to Death and The Shallows. They are both talking about how technology has altered the way we think and act. The only difference is that one is talking about television while the other talks about the Internet. I just find it interesting that I never thought about the negative effects before. Is it because they have always been a part of our generation? Or has everyone grown accustomed to the negative effects and no longer care? Either way these books have been eye openers.

Imagine That

Hello everyone. I would just like to point out something that I noticed in chapter three of AOTD. In that chapter Postman tells about Charles Dickens' visit to America. The way that Americans treated the author is how young teenage girls react to their favorite boy bands. Dickens says that crowds would surround his carriage and follow him home. Is that not similar to how fangirls follow the cars of their beloved male singers?  Maybe Dickens experienced less screaming than some boy bands do, but still.

As I read this part of the chapter I was trying to imagine what it would be like if we reacted the same way to authors that we used to. The whole idea seemed so strange to me because our society has become so centered around movies and television, and now the Internet, that the newer generations are not  showing as much of an interest in books. Therefore they are not reacting to authors the way that they do to Youtubers, singers, or actors. I mean yes of course people still admire authors and would no doubt still want to take a picture with them if given the chance (J. K. Rowling, Stephen King, and now John Green are just a few examples), but now people are just not as interested. We don't close down stores when a famous author wants to shop somewhere, or if we do it is not that common, but we close stores for celebrities like Beyoncé.

My point is, imagine what it would look like if we still cherished authors the way that we used to. Thank you for your time. 
 

Intelligence Built by Wisdom

I had a quick thought about one of Camille's posts where she writes about us "Drowning in information while starving for wisdom". It proved to be a little too lengthy for a comment, yet had me thinking enough for a post.

The internet provides us with a seemingly endless array of information, and this helps us accomplish an amazing multitude of things. It's safe to say I know and have been provided with far more than either of my parents when they were my age. While it's being proven iq's are getting higher, young people commonly hear millions of voices telling us that we are getting dumber. It's continuous, it's discouraging, and it's a drive to rebellion for many, that being something we see that firsthand.

I know without a doubt that I could take in all the information in every one of the textbooks Mayfair provided and recite it regularly, I could memorize every passage and answer every question in every test or quiz given if I had the desire to. But everybody could. We are usually no different from one another, and we all express impressive potential, whether we are taking 5 AP classes or are sent to a continuation school. We each posses an awesome intelligence that can only grow throughout our education. We all could bathe in information, and drown in our intelligence.

But what makes us different? Well, think about Shelden Cooper of The Big Bang Theory. He's seen as one of the highest minds of his time, he uses every resource necessary to expand his knowledge and is determined to be above all others. But what general vibe does he give off? For lack of better words, anyone who's seen his character portrayal would consider him the stupidest genius of existence. Why? Because he lacks intimacy. He lacks relations, experience, a broad-mind and humility. He does not know how to present himself because he believes his intelligence will take him further than his impression, because he gained all his knowledge by himself. It seems as if the information we receive by ourselves for ourselves is only providing our world another reason to believe we are becoming 'zombies' enslaved by our own pride. We will no longer ask our parents "where do babies come from?" and are no longer given the everlasting speech as to why it's important to have someone special, why we need to mature fully before we can help mature another person, and then eventually told where babies really come from. We now google a question, and are provided an answer.

But an endless lecture in reply to a brief question can give us a peak a what google could never enlighten us with; wisdom. Of course some people are matured enough to understand what to do with knowledge when it's presented to them, but most of us need guidance and a sense of direction and purpose when we gather our information. I believe without a doubt that when a teacher applies for a job, their knowledge of the subject they teach is not the only factor, but their ability to work with their students and their ability to recognize potential and advance it. I believe they are (hopefully) chosen because they know how to apply their intelligence to what is presented in an intelligent and understanding way. And if you replace a teacher with a technology that does not make relations and does not recognize how you work and think as an individual, attaining wisdom can become complicated.  How and when technology should be utilized is important, and it does make all the difference.

AF: Why I'm Nervous

The summer of 2012...

In June, there were 17 posts

In July, there were 50 posts

In August, there were 208 posts.

The summer of 2013...

In June, there were 19 posts

In July, 86 posts

In August, 229 posts.

The summer of 2014...

In June, 26 posts (I was feeling optimistic)

To date in July, there are 38 posts (8 are my own; my optimism has receded).

What's going to happen in August?  Will the blog blow up, or fizzle out?  Because it's been so slow in July, I am feeling nervous.  Really nervous.  Where IS everybody?

Television-based society

Hey bloggers
I have finally finished the nonfiction novel, Amusing Ourselves to Death, by Neil Postman. In this book, he is making strong points and generalizations. Television is not necessarily promoting education but amusement instead. Everything of public interest that is televised has transformed into something different from what it originally was. He stresses the point that educational programs change the traditional style of learning in classrooms. This reorientation of learning should not only be observed in the decline of influence in a classroom but that the learning environment tranforms into a place where amusement lives. Postman also adds that television determines our new definition of truth; it is based on the impressions that the teller provides. It keeps a tone of inconsistency and is full of discontinuities. This does not give people enough time to fully understand subjects. Postman admitts that television has its positive benefits but what makes it harmful is that people are so accustomed to its discontinuities. The fact is, they do not even care either. We find it difficult to distinguish what is show business and what is reality. This is connected to Huxley's prediction of society; that wisdom and truth will be discarded for entertainment. Postman agrees with Huxley and these ideas contradict Orwell because he predicts that society will be deprived of knowledge and reality. That what we hate will destroy us. No one can be certain about what the future holds for this culture today but all we can see is that it is a dangerous road to drive on

AF: Seven Bar Jokes

SEVEN BAR JOKES
INVOLVING GRAMMAR
AND PUNCTUATION.

BY ERIC K. AULD

- - - -

[Originally published November 8, 2011.]

- -

1. A comma splice walks into a bar, it has a drink and then leaves.
2. A dangling modifier walks into a bar. After finishing a drink, the bartender asks it to leave.
3. A question mark walks into a bar?
4. Two quotation marks “walk into” a bar.
5. A gerund and an infinitive walk into a bar, drinking to drink.
6. The bar was walked into by the passive voice.
7. Three intransitive verbs walk into a bar. They sit. They drink. They leave. 

AF: Dear Class of 2016 (Revised)

NOW IS A GOOD TIME TO START.  

If you review the particulars of the assignment, you will see that anyone who does all of their blogging in one week is penalized by 50% since it subverts the meaning and the purpose of blogging.

But there's a lot of space between 100% and 50%.  I do not appreciate your waiting until the last two or three weeks of August to begin the work.  We are only four weeks out.  The potential for an A on this part of the assignment is slipping away...I mean, I read the blog and evaluate the quality of thinking and writing, but I am also just looking for straight up participation.

----------------

I’d like to remind everyone that the assignment is not to like (or dislike) the assigned books, or to be entertained (or bored) by the books, but to comprehend what the authors are saying. When I see the phrase, "what the author is trying to say...",  I will sometimes point out that the author IS actually saying something; thousands of people have engaged with it, the work has been peer reviewed, and it's the READER who is trying to figure it out.  Your boredom is not the fault of the writer.  That disengagement resides within the reader.  As your teacher, what I want to know is whether you can understand and work with what they are saying. There is a place for personal experience in argument, but personal experience is not enough. What I am looking for is analysis, evidence, engagement with the ideas at hand.

To those who are having issues with vocabulary: I strongly encourage looking up the meaning of the words you do not know. Learning new words and incorporating them into your repertoire will help you throughout your year in AP 11 and the rest of your life. Diverse language is a virtue in all academic fields.

I hope to see more thoughtful blog posts in the very near future. It’s the end of July. Time to get it together. Again, thank you to the people who have participated; obviously, I am not talking to you.

Counterproductivy

So, I've been reading "The Shallows" and after finishing with chapter two I can say that it is one extensive and deep discussion pertaining the brain and multiple fields of study pertaining it. But, there is one problem, the entire chapter feels like one long lecture. Not to say that this isn't particularly bad, but it makes Carr's main goal of the book (explaining how internet is turning us away from books and long articles) seem futile if he is, so early on in the book, going to turn people away from it. Because if people are not thinking deeply, as Carr argues, does he really expect people, without any real necessity to read this book, to make it through this phycology crass course?

Utopia or Dystopia: Where Are We Today?

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley is a much easier read for me (I kinda started while I was reading AOTD). It's really weird in the beginning but once I started getting towards the end, it became very interesting. I believe that it's a little more difficult to find Huxley's main points because it has a story to it, unlike Postman's where his ideas and beliefs are simply stated.
   Huxley describes a perfect world in this book; a place where there is no sadness, frustration, or pain. This is all because of the advancement in technology. I noticed that in the book, there was a part where someone wasn't part of the society but when she came back she completely envelops herself in technology and that was the death of her. This could be seen as an example of one of Huxley's main point: If we surround ourselves with nothing but media, we wont live robust, productive lives.
   Also Huxley demonstrates how technology keeps us captive denying us freedom to truly live. In the book, the people lost the ability to react and relate to all situations and they can't properly express their emotions. It's possible that we can end up like them if we don't have enough resistance.
   The last point that he makes is that we must persevere through our trials instead of ignoring them. I especially liked this point because the people take soma whenever something goes wrong, so that they can relax their mind and forget about the problem, but they don't have enough strength to overcome their struggles. It seems easier to find comfort through technology but that doesn't mean the problem is going to go away. There are so much more to get from this book, but I found those points most relative to me.

My POV on Carr

I will soon finish The Shallows by Nicholas Carr (probably tomorrow). I found this book difficult to read because I do not share the same views as Carr. I do believe that the Internet is changing us, but not as much as Carr argues. Carr makes the argument that information and books can now be found online and is easily accessible. More people are reading ebooks instead of using physical books. So why didn't Carr publish an ebook? Carr repeatedly exemplifies that people spend a majority of their time online whether they realize it or not. Carr uses his entire book to argue that the Internet is changing they way we read and that it is difficult to think deeply while reading a book yet he writes and publishes a physical book that demands deep thinking and expects people to read and comprehend it.

Our Choice to Think

Hello, I am writing today to discuss part one of Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death.  So far, this has been difficult to read and follow along, however it is extremely interesting and has opened my eyes to things I had not yet thought of.  Postman gets to his points quickly and uses examples familiar to me which makes it far more engaging.  He starts off by introducing the many forms of public discourse, or the way our society communicates through; which are print, speech, and the media.  Right at the beginning, Postman claims American television is not used to inform us but instead entertain us with irrelevant information and please our eyes. I agree with Postman on this and I believe his claims are far more relevant now in 2014, than when he published his book almost thirty years ago. Now television and especially the internet have transformed serious topics such as political elections and social issues to a form of entertainment and “show business”.  Unfortunately, we as the audience watch this and encourage this further.While I was reading I realized everything Postman emphasizes, such as the lack of thought and reason our society has or when he says we see “through” things and do not analyze what we see or read, is sadly true.  I do not think our ability to think, analyze, or form opinions by ourselves have been drastically affected, we just simply choose not to like everybody else. Please comment your opinions on my post or if you agree/disagree.  Thank you for reading!

It's Easier to Think it Than Write it

Hello, everyone! I am in the middle of reading Smarter Than You Think and the author, Clive Thompson, makes multiple valid points about how people think and act. Something that he mentions is when people write, they are pulling "half-formed thoughts on the page," and they are able to evaluate how they write more efficiently which is why that when writers begin writing, they usually figure out how to write their thoughts without it sounding confusing. For me, this is pretty accurate, to some extent. While taking written exams, I usually start actively jumping from idea to idea and just write. However, sometimes as I am writing I write exactly what I think, which might just end up being scrambled words. While taking written exams, this usually isn't a problem, I can just erase what I wrote and rephrase it! We've all had that moment where we say something out loud that doesn't quite make sense then quickly say "It makes sense in my head!" to save ourselves from embarrassment. That has been happening to me quite a lot, even right now as I type these words, as a matter of fact. Oh, the wonderful use of a backspace button! Now, where the trouble comes in is writing our summer homework in pen. I've noticed that yes, I can gather my thoughts pretty well and write it down without a problem, but then there comes that one word that I misspell from writing to fast, or I start a new sentence with a word that I didn't want to use, like "They" instead of "The". I hate being the messy type when it comes to pens, so I won't scribble it out. Instead, I just sit there thinking "What have I done!?" and try to regain my thoughts and how I could rephrase the sentence. Hopefully as I write more in pen through out the school year I will write more professionally. Is anyone else having this problem? I hope I am not alone on this!

Lost in Literature

Hi everyone! So I have just finished reading Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death.  Although I found this book extremely stimulating there are still some topics I quite didn’t comprehend.  I do have to admit I had to keep a dictionary on hand for some of Postman’s rather complex vocabulary.  Postman brings up epistemology (the study of knowledge and justified belief) often throughout most of these chapters. I quite don’t understand why Postman ties together epistemology and the media. Is it because some people have a justified belief that media is just has effective as reading a book or the fact that we take in pointless knowledge brought to us by the media? I must say chapter 8 “Shuffle Off to Bethlehem” was quite eye opening the fact that religion is now brought to us in the comfort of our own home. I might have been a bit optimist to think that religion wouldn’t be changed with today’s advances in technology. So I ask the question are we still preaching to God or technology?

AF: Thoughts on thinking, reading, writing

Maria inspired this post...this started out as just as a comment on her post, but as I got into it, I saw that there was something bigger that I wanted to say to all of you.  So I rewrote, and here I am.

First, two by Zinsser, one of my favorite writing teachers:

Writing is not a special language that belongs to English teachers and a few other sensitive souls who have a 'gift for words.' Writing is the logical arrangement of thought. Anyone who thinks clearly should be able to write clearly, about any subject at all.  

and

Writing is how we think our way into a subject and make it our own. Writing enables us to find out what we know -- and what we don't know -- about anything we're trying to learn.

Thinking and reading and writing in a complex manner takes practice. No one has to be amazed or intimidated or rendered silent by uncertainty or shyness. You are young, and you need lots of opportunities to think and read and write about complex things.

Technology has little to do with that capacity. You can build the discipline to stick with something when it gets hard.  This has to do with distractibility -- and distractibility can be overcome, even while using technology -- or at least distractibility can be factored in, or mitigated.

For example: I know that when I read an e-book on my iPad, if the book starts giving me any trouble, I am more likely to bail out than when I am reading the same book in paper-and-glue format. When I'm reading on my iPad, I often get the sudden urge to see whether anyone liked the photo I posted on Instagram. Then I might read Twitter for a minute or two or five, and then I'll just quickly check Facebook. Before I know it, 30 minutes are gone. However, if the same book is giving me trouble in paper-and-glue, my options are fewer. I may fall asleep, or I will just put the book down and go do something else.

Technology hasn't limited our ability to think. It just makes bailing out easier. If you want to be a deep thinker, you can, whatever format you work in.  You train yourself to hang. with. it.

Changing formats up works best for me.  Keyboard...pen...ink...digital media...traditional media...I want to know how to use it all.  I am fluent in all of it.  Literacy today means being able to work well in all formats.

The secret is to learn how to PERSEVERE, to stop flitting from thing to thing, like a moth. Learn to go slow.  Technology speeds us up, has our heads swinging back and forth, "what should I look at next?"  But as ideas become more complex, thinking and learning require that we go deep into a thought, persist, consider implications, reflect on what we are doing.  And then to write about the work.

Multiple studies affirm what Zinsser said,  that WRITING "our way into a subject [makes] it our own", helps us to apprehend what we are learning.

[Notice, I used the verb "apprehend" instead of "comprehend," "understand," etc.  Why?  It is a conscious decision, the use of that particular word.  I point this out because this is the level of attention that I bring to this task.  I want you to be more CAREFUL as you choose words, to stop grabbing a close approximation, while at the same time learning to use language in ways that are a little wild and rebellious too.  Break a few rules.  Write something surprising and risky.]

Anyway.  Want to learn to amaze yourself? Write about what you are learning and thinking more.

One last thing:  Clive Thompson talks about this in STYT, (so did Socrates -- I mean, this is a fundamental truth of rhetoric):  the AUDIENCE matters.  An audience shapes writers.  So many people haven't started writing on the blog, or they hold back, because suddenly their writing has a wide audience.  You are not just writing for a teacher.  The unseen audience can motivate some people; it silences others.

(And writing for teachers can have a strange effect on a writer's development.  We'll talk more about this later.)

Anyway, it's not just writing that is going to help you learn to think more deeply.  It is writing for an audience.  Why not say something today?  It's July 23.   Today is a good day to get started, if you haven't already.

Apropos of Something?

     Hello, and happy summer to you! I would like to talk about all of the books collectively and compare them with some movies I've watched this summer. Have any of you seen the movie Transcendence? It was spectacular.

-SPOILER ALERT-

     This movie is about a scientist (Rebecca Hall) and her husband (Johnny Depp; also a scientist) who was mortally wounded by anti-technology radicals. Hall uses experimental technology to import Depp's consciousness into an AI program. Hall then builds a science center and supercomputer in the middle of the desert so that Depp can commence research on experimental nano-technology, which we (the viewers) see used to repair/rebuild solar panels, kill bacteria, destroy pollution, and even cure blindness and cancers. However, when the nano-technology is used to heal humans, Depp gains the ability to hijack the person's mind and use the body as his own. Other scientists, the anti-tech radicals, and the FBI are highly disturbed by this ability. They kidnap Hall and lead an all-out attack on Depp and the research hall. In the fight, Hall is mortally wounded. Depp tries to save Hall by uploading her consciousness into the AI with him, but the radicals injected a virus into Hall that would shut down the entire network of nano-technology, and all of the other technology on Earth. Depp, Hall, and all of the nano-technology are shut down, except at Depp and Halls' old garden, which was spared from the virus due to signal-blocking materials. The section of the garden that was shielded was shown flourishing due to the healing nano-technology, and the credits roll.

-END SPOILERS-

     I feel like this movie can connect with all of the books that we are reading for this course. The message I perceived from Transcendence is that technology can be wonderful, productive, and used without problems when we control it. But the moment we let it roam free, let it take over our minds and alter human nature itself, that's when the problems will start. If anyone else has seen this movie or just has something to say on this topic, feel free to drop a comment below. Until next time, have a good summer.

Technology: Erasing and Replacing

          I'm on chapter five of Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. He makes a point in chapter four that I found very interesting. He theorizes that before the age of television, people willingly read and participated in social activities because it was the only way that they could connect with the world. He mentions that during colonial times and much of the 1800's, people were much more interested in debates and written works. Books comparatively sold more in those times than they did when this book was published in 1985.
          He goes on to say that during the later years of America, when television and faster forms of communications came along, they brought along their own means of connecting with the world. As more and more people started to shift toward telephone conversations rather than real-life conversations and watching television shows rather than reading books, it became evident that technology was slowly erasing the old ways of connecting with society and replacing them with new ways. Even after Postman's book was published, people continued to use technology to interact with others on an even wider scale rather than using old methods such as written word or spoken word.
          With that being said, do you think that these new methods of reaching out to society foreshadow a bright future or a grim one?

Can We Think Like We Used To?

Hello. I have been reading Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death for a while now and althoigh I have been struggling with the vocabulary I must admit I find this book very interesting. One of my favorite parts is when he talks about the way people spoke in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Honestly, looking at the workd today, I would've never imagined anyone capable of speaking with such complexity. He actually made me want to go out and find the Lincoln-Douglas debates to be further amazed. I suppose what I have realized with all this is that technology has actually limited our ability to think, and I think this is because we now own items that we can work with the simple push of a button, they don't really require much thinking. Now I'm not saying that technology has brought us all bad, in fact it has allowed many people, whether they be disabled or elder, to do many things without requiring much work but the lack of critical thinking has brought a negative effect to our mental abilities. If you disagree with me I would really like to know. Thanks.

      -Maria C. Gonzalez

AF: I can't talk about it

I am serving jury duty -- After a day and a half of jury selection, I was inches away from being excused when I got called out of the peanut gallery to be an alternate jury member on a criminal trial in Orange County.  This means I will hear the case and consider all of the evidence, but unless one of the 12 jurors gets sick or abducted by aliens or something like that, I will not deliberate in the jury room.

This is fine with me.  I've been on two juries in the past -- one civil case, and one criminal -- we deliberated both times, and we reached verdicts both times.

Lots of people complain about jury duty and do whatever they can to avoid it.  Serving is disruptive, but it's summer and I have some time right now. A trial by jury is an important American right, so it is my civic responsibility to participate, if I can.  Freedom isn't free.  And besides, the lunch breaks are always very long, and I like wandering around downtown Santa Ana, peering into all of the quinceanera shop windows and eating Salvadoran food for lunch.  There's also a big fancy public library nearby.  So it's not terrible, and sometimes the cases can be interesting.

I can't talk about the case though.

I will say this about the experience because of our summer homework:  the internet does make many things quicker and easier.  And, the internet can land you in court, facing criminal charges.  There are many ways to be dumb in this life, and the internet makes dumb behavior quick and easy too.

Once a verdict is reached, I can speak about the trial, but I won't, especially here on the blog.  The whole thing is icky.  But I am here to warn you:  be good citizens online.  Don't do anything online that you wouldn't do in person.

AF: Lurkers, July is not late

I have been getting messages from people, and there have been comments on the blog, suggesting that mid-July is "late" for starting summer homework.  This is just silly.  Just jump in.  There are six weeks left to go. Honestly, do you usually take six weeks to complete even the most daunting assignment?

If you are out there thinking, "Gosh, I'd like to start posting and talking about the books, but Ms. Fletcher is going to judge me because it's July," that is simply not true.  I am working very lightly myself right now.  I am a big believer in rest and recovery.  We work hard all year long, and summer is supposed to restore us, and get us ready for another busy year.

So start when you start.  Don't sweat it.

And to the kids already blogging -- don't be snarky about people starting later than you did.  There's not necessarily any virtue in starting in June over July or even August.  Some of the most brilliant and creative kids I've ever worked with started late.  In fact, I have no data that correlates an early start in AP English summer homework with better grades, higher test scores, fewer cavities,  better personalities, or more overall happiness.  We shouldn't even call a July-start procrastination.

Which is not to say I'm not proud of you kids who are blogging.  I am.  Bless you.  The blog would be a ghost town without you.

BNW and Things Fall Apart Connections

            In the increasingly odd book, Brave New World, I found that the latter half, starting at part two, had a plot quite similar to Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe. The fact that they have very similar themes suggests that this matter is pressing, important, and needs to be addressed.

For those who did not take Mr. Eastham English class, Things Fall Apart tells the story of Okonkwo, an African man forced to deal with the invasion of “civilized” European people. With them, the Europeans bring foreign concepts that reshape the lives of people from Okonkwo’s land. He is unable to adjust to the more powerful and dominating culture, and the differences result in an extreme action.

In Brave New World, someone from the Savage Reservation, a piece of undesirable land reserved for the “uncivilized”, is brought to London, the major “civilized” place in the book. He too does not mix well with the culture and activities of the dominating civilization. The people treat him like a circus monkey, thinking of him as nothing more than a source of entertainment. Just like Okonkwo, his beliefs are disregarded and mocked. He too takes extreme action because of this.

If it has not already, it could easily become a problem in reality again. More powerful civilizations have to be careful to not be so self-righteous as to impose their culture upon those with the lesser guns. Although the type of the imperialism the Europeans used may be dead, a new type has already spawned and must be kept in check.

Technology's Hold

After reading the The Shallows by Nicholas Carr, my view on technology will never be the same again. I know it is kind of a cliche to say at this point, but it's the truth. Before reading Amusing Ourselves to Death or The Shallows, I have just seen technology has helpful pieces of equipment that are meant to improve our lives, for the most part. Postman's television and Carr's internet arguments that technology is making our thinking patterns into quick, entertainment-based, fragmented, thought-less tools quickly cut a chord with me since my whole life had revolved around technology, especially music which I am starting to question is part of technologies' grand scheme. In respect with television, all we are hoping to get out of it is entertainment instead of reliable, in-depth information that is not just quick pieces of meaningless information that several times does not even affect us directly in the everyday decisions we make. The internet is basically the same thing but on a whole other platform, since several thousand links of information promote us to skim information and not deeply think about the subject, giving our brains the workout they should by incorporating more of its regions. I am not directly attacking the internet and television, because they do offer a lot of advantages in the way we live life in the modern world. Whenever it serves television news programmers, they do report information they we should definitely take into consideration such as storm warnings, dangerous criminals in surrounding regions, or touching stories how we can help people in need. The internet, for its part, promotes communication over large distances and organization in our increasingly hectic lives. 

Our busy lives might put an emphasis on people to just get the gist of information by scanning and skimming to increase efficiency, but at what costs are we doing this by easily losing our brain's ability to concentrate and reflect as more and more pieces of information flood our brain's each day, making us forgetful of other news and preventing us to come up with creative thought that we never have time for anymore.There are so many arguments to be made concerning technologies's benefits to its negatives that I often find myself confused on which side to take or even to be concerned about it all since it looks like our lives will just become consumed by technology as we grow older. Our lives will only get more busier from here on out and our reliance on technology to decrease the workload which will come along with new technologies that are meant to improve our lives, no matter the consequence that they would have on our ability to deeply connect and think of many new ideas. As a current student, if anything, I am concerned about technology's role in shaping our education and as Postman has argued, the introduction of visual aids has not helped very much and through several experiments, showed that we actually retained less information and did poorly on exams given afterword. But then again, nowadays, all we students want is to at least to be somewhat entertained through lecturing, all as a result of television at home entertaining spin on even the most basic matters. Technology's hold on us is nothing to take lightly as Carr and Postman have definitively argued so with all of this in mind, will society ever take into question technology's role in their lives or is to late for people to do anything about it? In my opinion, we are already accepting technology with open arms to the point that are no longer in control of the technology we have created. Like both author's have said, we are now being controlled by the technology we created to help us.

Internet and Activism

In the middle of chapter nine in Smarter Than You Think by Clive Thompson, he states that some people think that one of the concerns of online conversations is that the conversations may never turns into action.  Complaining about an issue online is easier than doing something about the issue in reality.  This could be cause for concern because if we simply toss around an idea online or just click "like" on Facebook, we think we are doing something when in reality nothing is getting done.

These fears are being put to rest because studies show that people who are more socially active online are more civically active offline.  That means, those who converse about an issue online are more likely to actively pursue change.  Also, when people post or talk about issues online it attracts others who have a similar point of view.  As the group of people grows larger, they may form a coalition or activist group or encourage people to volunteer for a cause.  The internet can be great at connecting people!

Technology and our education

In Amusing Ourselves To Death Postman mentions that computers are the technology in the future. Postman states, "We are told our children will fail in school and be left behind in life if they are not 'computer literate.'" I feel like this is true. In this century schools are now transitioning to more computer work other than writing. I believe this is called common core. Even though people use the computer for a lot of things I feel like this transition will make this difficult for many students and parents. If the whole world eliminated typography and moved on to more efficient stuff like computers, it may cause problems in our society. This may be the twentieth century, but not everyone knows how to use a computer. Some adults even struggle using an iPhone or iPad. What I'm trying to saw is that I don't feel like the world is ready for this big jump. It may be simpler, but it'll cause difficulties for many people that aren't use to computers.  

Drowning in Information, While Starving for Wisdom

  Hi people :) ! I'm currently reading AOTD like most of you and Postman very briefly brought up our utilization of technology then I got thinking. I think someone posted a while back about the same topic I'm going to blog about but oh well! Anyways, I can't seem to take a definite stance on if the advancements in our society are more positive or negative. They are perfectly bittersweet. However, at the current moment, I am leaning more towards them being positive. I think people are the problem. We have all this information at the tips of our fingers and we just don't use it! We could use technology to be so much more productive but instead our best use of technology is to play Flappy Bird and that new Kim Kardashian app thingamajig. Honestly, it's just ridiculous. Now I'm not saying that this is how everyone uses their devices and such but how many of us have really done something significantly productive with technology? For most of us, the most productive thing would be typing an essay and even then we only did it because whoever our teacher was required us to do so. I am also not saying that if we blog hard enough for 5 minutes we can solve all the world's problems or anything but we most definitely can utilize what we have better than how most utilize it now.

  There is also a flipped side to this whole "Drowning in Information, While Starving for Wisdom" thing.   While we do have lots of information, sometimes it still feels like it's not enough. There is a ton of things that people wish we all knew. We all want to know the cure for cancer, how to accomplish world peace, how to end starvation, and so on. Technology just might be thing that will help lead the world to accomplish these things and it's frustrating that with all this information, we haven't found any way to achieve these kinds of goals yet. In a way, we hold technology on a pedestal while thinking, "Technology can do anything!" and it's very disappointing to know that as much information we do have, we aren't even close to the amount of wisdom we need.

I really hope this post makes sense to more people than me!

-Camille Burrus

Decanting For Deltas

     The book, Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley uses a process to condition babies for different purposes. Delta's for example are conditioned to hate flowers and books. They are put into a "Decanting Room," where the babies familiarize themselves with the items before receiving an electrical shock. This gives them a subconscious feeling that books and flowers are bad. The one thing that struck my mind the most though was the word Huxley chose to describe the room: Decanting. 

     Decanting is the process of drawing off (a liquid) without disturbing the sediment or the lower liquid layer. This can correlate to why Huxley chose this word. The World State uses punishments as a way to draw off human curiosity to abide to their society. In this society, there are three different social levels. There are the Alphas and Betas who hold the highest roles, and the Gammas, Deltas and Epsilons who hold the "peasant" class. They are all bred carefully into each of their roles. Deltas must hate books because books create curiosity and individualism which is the World State's enemy. The World State decants the Deltas without disturbing the sediment. The sediment being in question, is the Delta's brain. Trying to destroy something psychologically can be devastating to the human brain. Yet the World State succeeded in only taking out the "books and flowers" from Deltas and other classes in Brave New World. 

      Huxley provides another supporting fact that this society supports the thought process not unlike other communist countries where individualism is hated and the sake of the society is greatest. Brave New World's society did the one thing other countries couldn't do today. They genetically and psychologically created the citizens.

AF: Sorry kids

I'm super busy having fun lately.  I looked at my email, and there's about ONE THOUSAND kids who need blog clearance.... minus nine hundred sixty... but FORTY.  But I'm not going to do it right now.  It's late, and I have jury duty in the morning.  Hang in there. You'll be all clear by Friday.

:)

Print vs Showbuisness

     Wow, I've just finished Amusing Ourselves To Death by Neil Postman. He makes some very good points and actually, I think it had an affect on how I see media now. Throughout the book, I've noticed that Postman explains the differences of a print dominated society and a television dominated society.
     In typographic times, it seems that people were more aware of each situation and had more understanding on a subject. Postman describes this time as "serious and rational," because print encouraged people to express their ideas through communication with one another creating discussions and opinions. Through newspapers, books, and education, everyone seemed more intellectually and socially stable.
     Through television, people think and react less causing the subject to become incoherent. Television wasn't created to make people think, but to create excitement, entertainment, and drama. There are programs for religion, education, and politics, but if it's not presented in an entertaining manner, its considered boring or a waste of time. Nothing that is portrayed on TV can ever really be meaningful or important because it lacks the ability to make people react and take action.
     Postman encourages his readers to not be controlled by media and to have some resistance. Though he mainly focuses on television, he refers to the internet, phones, and games too. He also believes that freeing yourself from media can open your mind to be more aware of a situation and react to it using your own knowledge and experience.

- Jenascia Wilson

Disbelief and Eventual Intrigue

Hello, future classmates! I've been reading Nicholas Carr's The Shallows, and I must say, I approached the the book with a grain of salt. Personally, I have disliked the argument that the internet is the main factor that has been draining modern-day youth of creativity and intelligence. I would often provide the counter-argument that I feel I have improved my knowledge through research online. Even though I now continue to stand by my opinion, this book has allowed me to rethink my mindset, and even change it. Carr, on page 10 of the book, says "Calm, focused, undistracted, the linear mind is being pushed aside by a new kind of mind that wants and needs to take in and dole out information in short, disjointed, often overlapping bursts - the faster the better." This statement has really forced me to stop and think. Though I have gained a plethora of information from online sources and articles, I have been much more impatient in how quickly I gain the information and put it to use. If I don't employ the new knowledge as soon as possible, I very easily forget it. I have never experienced this with books; if I read something, I can retain it for months, even years to come. Taking in information from online is often cluttered, disjointed reading, and I don't often allow whatever I have learned to properly sink in. This epiphany has caused me to rethink my previous opinion, and I had to decide whether or not my argument still stood.

However, I am still an adamant believer in the fact that the internet has allowed our generation to come into contact with new information and knowledge that we would not have been previously exposed to. While the way we take in these things may have changed, the fact remains that, without the internet, we would never have been exposed to it in the first place. While Carr may have caused me to revise my stance on the internet versus books debate, I must still stand by my original opinion: the internet may change the way we think, but it has yet to ruin it. And if the way we have been thinking is destroyed, is it irreparable? Are there any other ways we can revert out thinking to absorb information, instead of letting it drain from us the moment it is soaked up?

The Clock

I am currently almost done with Amusing Ourselves To Death, but while I was reading the beginning of the book, I wrote some things down. One thing I found interesting was when Postman talked about clocks. He said that the clocks shaped everything around us. Postman used the clocks as a metaphor which I found pretty interesting. He believed that the clocks created the idea of "moment to moment." I never really thought of a clock being so technical, but Postman used his ideas and also hard vocabulary to show the greater background. There are plenty of thoughts that Postman talks about that are kind of hard to read, but while I continued to read, some of the ideas started to not be as complex for me. Some of the vocab that Postman used through out the book were also very hard to understand, but thankfully I had my mini dictionary next to me the whole time! AOTD might not be the most fun book to read, but I am learning about so many things that I would never think about.

Will we ever change?

I have found that the ideas of both Amusing Ourselves to Death and The Shallows very similar in both Carr's and Postman's agreements that technology has changed the way we process information and translate it to affect our lives directly, although AOTD deals more with television and how its entertainment is changing our public discourse (way of living). Both authors use the invention of writing to demonstrate how our brain's way to interpret information starts to change. In The Shallows, Carr discusses the process of reading and writing (Ch. 3) requires our brains to perform many functions at once, linking many areas of our brains together as shown when we analyze what we read, interpret the symbols that make up our reading, and memorizing the various letters and patterns that allow us to write down our ideas. Postman extends that point by saying the transformation of different medias affects the way we think and connect and is shown in chapters three to five, when he explains how a literate society is able to function and what the results are. Postman explains that along with writing, comes rational thought and perspective as people are able to challenge one another or a whole entire audience on the basis of the truth. Both arguments and their viability are challenged when it comes to discussing technology. Whether one is talking about the Internet or television, both forms of technology make the access of non-stop information or entertainment very easy which affects our ability to think and question. We are constantly going back and forth between several ideas that are mind has almost no time to process them deeply, much less get anything useful from them or discuss them in great detail at that moment. Later, we would probably just forget about the topic that we wanted to discuss because of all the extra "information" that we absorbed throughout the day would interfere.

My concern is whether this can be changed. I am definitely reeling from the effects of technology of what both Carr and Postman discuss. I do find myself often lacking focus on a particular activity in that Carr argues and I find myself watching T.V. and laughing it up while thinking about absolutely nothing. Reading is definitely a refreshing experience because it allows us to focus on ourselves and investigate different ideas in detail, as I have found out during this summer when I spend four hours a day reading. I hope to further try to change the way I look at television and internet, and I hope most of you guys are doing the same thing.

The Medium (The Media) is the Metaphor is the Media is the Medium is the Metaphor

     Hello, all of you out there in ReaderLand! I would like to start my first post by asking how everyone's summer is so far. Good? Good? Okay. Now, there are some things I have noticed about Chapter 1 of Amusing Ourselves to Death. In it, Mr. Postman uses former President William Howard Taft as an example of how TV has affected our mindsets. William Taft was over 300 pounds, but was elected to office because of promises he made and reforms he showed. Postman says "... It is implausible to imagine that anyone like our 27th President... Could be put forward as a presidential candidate in today's world." I would assume that as a President, Mr. Taft put out eloquent speeches and took interviews. People heard and read his words. They didn't necessarily look at the man. Today, however, we have grown superficial and use visuals to get our information adequately. In order to be elected in today's world, Mr. Taft would have to do public events, kiss babies, etc. Today, the superficial Americans that we are would not want to let an obese, multi-chinned man kiss their baby, even if he is important in politics. The point is, television and other visual picture media forms have made us (as a society) superficial beyond belief. If anyone disagrees with this point, drop a comment on it below. Otherwise, thank you for reading and have a good day, my friends.

Television: ENTERTAINMENT ONLY?

(Finished the book, but wanted to say something about this particular chapter) Chapter 8 of AOTD basically says that religion on television isn't really religion, but it's entertainment disguised as religion. I dislike religious shows (for my personal reasons), so I wouldn't exactly agree nor disagree, but documentary's went through my mind, and they're similar in a way right? If not I'll just attempt to get my point across. Anyway, the other day, I was watching a documentary about wild animals, and the only reason I actually watched it from beginning to end was because of the crazy thing the animals were doing. Not about the information that was being said by the narrator. Is it true that we only see things as entertainment rather than informal? I've probably battled myself on this one way too many times to count. I can watch a documentary, sure. But am I paying attention to it for what it's actually on for or am I watching it because of the visual image I will be receiving?
I don't know, maybe its just me that sees it this way: watch it to look at it or watch it to learn from it.
-BabyLika F. ☺

AF: OK then, that's settled

Has the Internet Ruined All Interest in Reading?

In chapter one of The Shallows, Nicholas Carr makes a point of saying that the Internet has caused people to become easily unfocused while reading a long book. Carr claims that the Internet is making our brains accustomed to short texts and it is now more difficult to stay focused while reading longer texts. However, I find this to be untrue. I can easily spend a long period of time reading a good book without stopping. I also read long texts on the Internet. I use an app called Wattpad. Wattpad, in my opinion, is an interesting app. It allows anyone to write their own story and upload it to the app so anyone can read it. Wattpad contains a variety of stories that vary in length. Readers can also save these stories to their library. I have about fifty stories saved in my library and most of them are quite long. Once I start a story, I obsessively read it until I finish it hours later. One can see how many people have read a story and a lot have over two thousand reads. I think that instead of reading a physical copy of a book, people are now just reading on the Internet. Now when they actually have to read physical books it just seems longer than what they were reading on the Internet because I know when I read something on the Internet it seems shorter than it does on paper. Does anybody feel the same?

What would Postman think about our society today?

Hello everyone I have just recently finished reading the book Amusing Ourselves to Death and although it is nothing like what I have ever read before, I found it very interesting. At first it was a little difficult to understand because of the vocabulary, but it later became easier. One of the chapters that got me thinking was chapter four, The Typographic Mind. Postman refers to the Lincoln- Douglas debates and how people were able to listen to them for hours because the audience had previous knowledge about the topic being spoken, and the speeches were written in advance with thought. Today, in our society people wouldn’t be able to focus on anything for too long without getting bored or distracted. Postman also says that the Age of Exposition is being replaced by the Age of Show Business and I find this entirely true because people no longer want to use their heads to think, they just want to be entertained.

Another point that I want to address is in chapter nine, Reach Out and Elect Someone. Postman discusses the way candidates use television to make their image look better to voters, so that they can be elected. He says it is impossible to tell who is the better candidate with television. This has definitely persuaded me to be careful when I get old enough to vote because I wouldn’t want to make a mistake in my vote because of a commercial or show that the candidate was on. Overall, I have really enjoyed reading this book and it makes me wonder what the world will be like later on when technology advances even more. This book was published in 1985 and if television was a problem back then I can’t imagine what Postman would think of America now. 

-Jocelyne Vasquez