Blogging in Humanities 101 Class

Compared to writing traditional essays as you have in other classes, were the expectations of the blog assignment easier, harder or just different? In other words, was it clear to you what the format of a blog was and how to produce one?

Blogging is very popular today. It seems almost everyone, or every family at least, has a blog. To participate in a class with mandatory blogging was interesting. As I have never created a blog before, it was confusing to begin with. The actual essay writing was not easier or harder as the blog assignments were written in essay format. The documentation of sources was easier in some ways than an essay in a normal format. Since the required citing was in the hyperlink format, it was nice not having to worry about MLA or APA formatting. In ways the documentation was slightly harder; the necessity of using hyperlinks sometimes made choosing a subject difficult. It is not always easy to find reliable sources using the internet, as my third blog discussed. It was an interesting way to address the essay component to classes. In many ways, it was nice doing something different. So many college classes consist of essay writing. In this class, blogs were still written in the essay format, but the change to the blog format changed it up nicely.

Did the blog assignments, and the requirement to create a blog, relate to the class topics and course objectives? Why or why not?

The blog assignments did relate to the class topics. One of our purposes was popular culture. Blogging definitely qualifies as popular culture. We also explored the use of internet sources. Using hyperlinks to support my argument taught me a lot about what kind of information is out there. That is also another example of popular culture. Just searching for articles to support my argument taught me more about my own ideas and how to think critically than learning from the class. I had to ask myself, does this support my argument? Is this a reliable source? How can I use this to get my point across? I feel it was a very good exercise in critical thinking.

Did the non-text elements of the blog program contribute to your learning in this class? Did they get in the way? Or did they have no affect at all?

I am assuming by “non-text elements” you are referring to the Voice Thread option and perhaps Animoto. I did not try using Voice Thread. It was not something that appealed to me. I was unsure how to include everything in a Voice Thread type blog. I was unsure of the requirements. Because of these things, I chose to continue in the format that was most comfortable to me. I also have a limited amount of time for homework. I work full time (50 to 60 hours per week) and have five children. I did not feel I could take the time to try to figure out how to do something like that. I enjoyed using Animoto, however. It was very user friendly (which I did not find Voice Thread to be) and very easy to post to my blog. If do feel they were another interesting addition to the course.

Propaganda, or is it?

Propaganda is the stuff of communism, Hitler, and terrorist groups, right? Wrong. I believed that propaganda was limited to these groups, that it was not something we experienced here in America. Now however, I'm starting to think many commercials and political campaigns use propaganda every day. After reading a PDF on the Read, Write, Think.org website (click the third link down), I've discovered how close persuasion and propaganda really can be and how prevalent it is in our society.

The website Propaganda Critic says, "propaganda can be as blatant as a swastika or as subtle as a joke. Its persuasive techniques are regularly applied by politicians, advertisers, journalists, radio personalities, and others who are interested in influencing human behavior." This commercial is a public service announcement on wearing your seat belt. It shows a man in a car accident. The opening lines introduce the man and say he "didn't want to die, but he couldn't stop himself." It shows the accident step by step, shows his ribs breaking and puncturing his lungs. It then tells the audience what they can do to prevent this same thing from happening to them, "Think. Always wear a seat belt."

Some might argue that this is merely persuasion. According to Propaganda Critic however, this add uses a propaganda technique, namely the use of fear. It says, "There are four elements to a successful fear appeal: 1) a threat, 2) a specific recommendation about how the audience should behave, 3) audience perception that the recommendation will be effective in addressing the threat, and 4) audience perception that they are capable of performing the recommended behavior." Does the PSA include all of these four elements? The threat is the dying in a car accident. The recommendation is to wear your seat belt. It is believable that wearing a seat belt could have prevented the driver's death. The audience feels it is capable of using a seat belt. This is a successful use of the fear appeal.

Propaganda is also incredibly common in campaign commercials. I know this will be controversial, but I want to put forward two campaign commercials: one of President Obama and one of Senator John McCain. I'm not commenting on our current President, and I'm also not commenting on Senator McCain. In fact, these videos are not even from the same election. I'm just putting these forward as examples of propaganda techniques. One of the first examples these commercials use is the plain folk technique. Both Obama and McCain try to portray themselves as "plain folk." They try to make the voters believe they are just like them, that they've been in the voters' shoes.

Another propaganda technique they both use is Glittering Generalities. Some words used in these campaign videos are democracy, change, family, faith, courage, and strength.

"For our purposes in propaganda analysis, we call these virtue words "Glittering Generalities" in order to focus attention upon this dangerous characteristic that they have: They mean different things to different people; they can be used in different ways. This is not a criticism of these words as we understand them. Quite the contrary. It is a criticism of the uses to which propagandists put the cherished words and beliefs of unsuspecting people."

These are emotionally charged words. They are used in order to, again, draw the voters closer to the candidates. Sometimes they can twist the truth simply by meaning different things to different people.

There are many other examples from just these two videos I could list, such as the bandwagon, transfer, and testimonial techniques. Yet these are just two campaign videos, and both are positive. What about the negative political videos? There has to be some obvious propaganda in the negative political ads. One side or the other cannot be telling the full truth if they contradict each other on so many levels. So while the average person believes propaganda does not exist in the American society, it is actually alive and well.

Support You Local Animal Shelter

Create your own video slideshow at animoto.com.

Technology and Conspiracy Theories

The Apollo Moon Landing Hoax. Area 51 UFO Conspiracies. The Roswell Incident. The urban legend of the Kidney Thief. Chemtrails. The 9/11 Conspiracy. A person could spend all day researching conspiracy theories and “proof” of urban legends. There is so much information out there, and it's all available at the click of a button. It used to be that conspiracy theories relied on word-of-mouth to spread the story. Then it advanced to monthly newsletters and underground radio broadcasts. It has all become so much easier with the internet.

Many people do not see a problem with this. “What's the harm in speculation?” they might say. It seems to me that conspiracy theories are abounding now that we have the internet. My professor, Dr. Suzanne Waldenburger says, “The best thing about the Internet is that ANYONE can get their information out to millions of people. And the worst thing about the Internet is that any BOZO can get their misinformation out to millions of people.” The internet truly can be a great resource. It is easy to find information about just about anything. I use Google search all the time when I'm looking for any random piece of information. The information is well organized and easy to use. I can almost always find the information I need on the first page of recommendations. That nagging question of “who is that?” while watching a movie no longer has to be nagging. Just open up Google and search for the movie. It invariably takes you to IMDB which lists the whole cast of the movie. Ta da! Question answered.

So is this dangerous, this motherlode of misinformation at our fingertips? David Aaronovich, author of Voodoo Histories: The Role of Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History, says yes. “They divert us from real threats. Fruit-loop perorations about explosives concealed in the elevator shafts of the World Trade Center distract Americans from the "un"imaginary conspiracy by Islamic fundamentalists to destroy us. And if the feds really blew up the levees during Hurricane Katrina, there's no need to examine the emergency preparedness of New Orleans' government, is there?” When looked at it this way, these conspiracy theories can be dangerous.

I firmly believe in educating oneself, however. Knowledge taken from credible sources really can be power. It can give someone control, even if it's merely control over one's own decisions. This can apply to many things, but the main ones I've seen are in medical decisions and political choices. These are two places where conspiracy theories abound. These are also the same choices where being informed is key. Perhaps conspiracy theories can play a role in helping people to understand they cannot take anyone's word for truth. They must do their own research. Hopefully they will find their information from credible sources and not the links I've provided.

Healthcare Reform: A Gray Area

If you Google “there is only one solution to a problem,” hundreds of pages say just that. Google Many people cannot think about a problem without convincing themselves there is only one solution. This is false. There is almost always more than one solution to a problem. Healthcare reform is an example of people trying to find the one solution to the problem. The healthcare debate has been going on for decades. One side argues one thing. The other side argues another. Both sides feel they have the right solution. Despite promises of change, not much has actually been accomplished. The healthcare reform debate has grown to a monstrous size and importance in our current government. But has anything really changed? One side still argues one thing. The other side still argues another. They both feel they are right, but is either one truly right or wrong? This is not a right or wrong, black or white, decision. Healthcare reform is a gray area.

One of the biggest promises made about healthcare reform is the promise of a bipartisan agreement. How is this possible when both sides are so stubborn and will not agree on virtually anything right now? President Obama was quoted on CNN's Anderson Cooper's 360 as saying, “This is an area where we are going to have to have a 60% majority in the Senate and the House in order to actually get a bill to my desk. We're going to have to have a majority to get a bill to my desk, that is not just a 50 plus one majority.” Anderson Cooper 360 This is what was promised in 2007; however, President Obama is now in support of just that, a 50 plus one majority called reconciliation. He believes this is the only way the new healthcare reform bill will be passed in the House.

The Democrats have been trying to push their healthcare reform bill through for months. Why is it taking so long? It is taking so long because neither the Democrats or Republicans will compromise as much as they need to. The bill the Democrats have put forth has some troubling issues. The Republicans do not approve. However, the Republican bill also has many holes in it. Unfortunately, both sides can only see the problems in the others' bill. They both feel there is only one solution, and they have the right one. Because both sides feel they have the right answer to America's problems, their stubbornness is not allowing them to see the flaws in their own plans.

After reading many articles on both sides of the problem, I've come to the conclusion that both sides are right; both sides have some great ideas. I've also come to the conclusion that both sides are wrong as well. Both plans are incomplete; therefore neither plan will work effectively. However, the main problem is not that the bills are incomplete, but that neither side is truly willing to work together for a feasible solution. The one thing both sides can agree on right now is that healthcare reform is necessary. There are too many uninsured Americans. Too many people go without help when they are sick, and too many people are being pulled down under the weight of expensive insurance and medical bills. The only solution to this problem is to understand there are many solutions if both sides are willing to work together.

Is Technology Making Us Smarter or Dumber?

Is Technology Making Us Smarter or Dumber?

There can be no argument in the statement that technology has grown leaps and bounds over the last few decades. We do things today that people in previous generations would not have thought possible. The science and technology of medicine has advanced remarkably. Diseases are being found and cured. We have knowledge, of varying degrees of reliability, at our fingertips twenty-four hours a day. Our children are more comfortable with computers than adults used to be twenty years ago. The question is: Is this easy access to technology making us smarter, or are we getting dumber as we rely on computers to do the thinking for us? There are arguments for both viewpoints. Technology is a great thing, but we need to use common sense in how much we rely on it.

In an article called, “Are We Getting Dumber or Smarter?” by Stephanie Olsen, staff writer for CNET news, she interviews Dr. Mike Merzenich. Dr. Merzenich states, “Over the past 20 years or so, beginning before the Internet really took hold, the standard measure of 'intelligence' (cognitive ability) has risen significantly (well more than 10 points). No one really knows what to pin this on, but it is a well-documented fact” (1). This statement seems to say we are getting smarter, or at least more intelligent. Dr. Merzenich also goes on to describe how intelligence comes about. He says we need three things: genetics, the learning of basic skill, and the “load[ing of] our brains with hundreds of thousands of words and little episodes that we associate with one another in millions or tens of millions of ways” (2). He says the internet is a valuable tool for this. To support this claim, he states, “In my use of the Internet or any other reference source, I do not turn my brain off. I'm gathering information and associating it in my very own computer, right along with my desktop computer and the Internet. If anything, these aids are helping my brain gather more information to get more answers right, and to see more possible associations than would otherwise be the case” (2). The internet is a useful tool to increase our knowledge. A person searching the internet may come across facts and ideas they may never have thought to learn about otherwise.

In an NPR interview, author Steven Johnson also argues that popular culture is raising IQ's. In the interview he gives the example of a few different televisions shows, and how the popular shows on television today are much more complex than the shows shown in previous generations. Johnson says that one of the important changes is in the social network of the television series. Series in the past had fewer main and supporting characters for the viewer to follow. The series today have many main and supporting characters and story lines the viewer must keep track of to understand what is going on. Johnson says this is important. “This is an important part of what it means to be intelligent, your ability to map a social network. When you go in to work and you're keeping track of who's feuding with who and who's making nice with the boss and who's maybe flirting with you a little bit. People who are good at that kind of social network mapping tend to be successful in life” (“Everything Bad is Good For You” 1).

Not everyone is of the opinion that technology is making us more intelligent, however. New York Times journalist Richard Bernstein interviews English professor and author Mark Bauerlein in the article “Don't Trust Anyone Under 30?” Bauerlein is concerned with the upcoming generation, those under age thirty. He says, “We're about to turn our country over to a generation that doesn't read much and doesn't think much either” (1). When you think about this, it seems to be true. More children and teens are spending time texting and social networking on the internet than doing homework or reading books. Bernstein includes statistics in the article to support this. “A survey by the National School Boards Association indicates a very large number of students spending around nine hours a week doing computerized social networking and another 10 hours watching television. Other surveys show a majority of high school students doing an hour or less of written homework a day” (1). These are rather scary statistics and should make people, especially parents, think.

We cannot turn back the hands of time to those days when there were only books to read and time spent playing outside; in fact, we shouldn't want to. Technology is increasing IQ and assisting us in so many different ways. We do, however, need to be cautious. Our brains require more than sitting in front of a computer screen or video game to grow and develop. As far as technology is concerned, the old saying, “moderation in all things,” may be important to remember.

To find our more about these articles:

Are We Getting Smarter or Dumber?
Everything Good is Bad for You
Don't Trust Anyone Under 30?

Test Post

I'm hoping this works to resolve the problems you've been having.