In the United States’ Democratic society, we believe we have elected officials that are supposed to represent the majority of the citizen’s political beliefs. Many politicians do represent the voice of the people who elected them. When politicians give public speeches, their rhetoric can be quite intense. Sometimes, these speeches can get even more heated when it comes to ideas around managing the United States defense system and foreign policy. The combination of overly aggressive politicians and the stockpiling of government weapons such as nuclear bombs can be dangerous and lead to a more aggressive society. This heated debate often leads to violent attitudes in the country’s society.
During the height of the Cold War, in 1960 at a United Nations meeting in New York, Russian Premier Nikita Khrushchev grew impatient on the topic of Russian decolonization to fellow world leaders and representatives. Khrushchev banged his shoe against a table to silence the members of the United Nations. Khrushchev then approached a podium in a large room filled with hundreds of his peers. In his speech addressed to the U.S. and the Western world, he said “[the USSR] will bury you.” Although there is debate on the validity of the event of Khrushchev banging his shoe, this moment in history of Khrushchev with the shoe represents the beginning of an increase of foreign hostility in the Cold War that included the threat of nuclear warheads. It was Khrushchev’s line “We will bury you” that set forth the Red Scare and Cold War. Khrushchev’s speech is one of the main contributing factors to the increase of distrust and hate of the U.S.S.R. and encouragement to outdo the Russians in a battle for nuclear power. In the decade before Khrushchev’s speech (1950 -1959) the U.S. spent an average of 147.31 billion dollars per year on military funding and purchases. The average amount of military funding per year in the following decade (1960-1969) was 171.61 billion dollars and even more in the following decade.
In former President George W. Bush’s speech on the possibility of the presence of “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq, he provided several types of solutions to combat the potential threat. One of the solutions was to increase military spending for soldiers abroad and to increase spending for American nuclear arms. As part of the Bush Administration’s promise to keep the U.S. safe, they tried to increase funding for the “upgrading” of nuclear weapons for things like nuclear “bunker busters.” The combination of former President Bush’s on Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction” with attacks on the Twin Towers on September 11th that lead to an increase in military funding for nuclear arms and a vendetta among many civilians against Iraq and people of the religion of Islam. Shortly after the terrorist events on September 11th, Anti-muslim hate crime increased by over 1,000%. The amount of anti-muslim hate crimes per year decreased significantly after 2001 but have yet to get close to the numbers they were before September 11th, 2001.Funding for military research increased in the U.S. during the Bush Administration, at a rate comparable to that of the time of the Cold War, yet the war continued. Peace was not made with more bombs.
Based on a research study performed by Nathan Kalmoe, a political science doctoral candidate from the University of Michigan, found that violent political rhetoric does fuel more violent attitudes, especially in younger people. In Kalmoe's first survey, 412 adults read two political advertisement texts (one violent, the other non-violent) for two U.S. House candidates where certain words related to violence were changed in the text. During the altering of the ads, no person or group of people were targeted. Respondents were asked about their aggression levels and interest in violence against political leaders. It was found that adults who read aggressive advertisements had “strong predispositions to support political violence.” It was also found that young adults were more likely to adopt violent attitudes after exposure than older adults.
The results of speeches given by Khrushchev and former President George W. Bush resulted in an increase of public fear of an enemy of which little was known about. The result of the speeches lead to the stirring up of fear and encouragement for greater military funding especially towards development of nuclear arms. In more recent times, politicians have become more focused on reducing the amount of nuclear arms to create a more peaceful society; not just within their own country but globally as well.
Wittner, Lawrence S. "George Bush's Addiction to Nuclear Weapons."History News Network. History News Network, 4 Nov. 2005. Web. 17 Mar. 2016. <http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/11167>.
"Full Text: Bush's Speech." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 17 Mar. 2003. Web. 18 Mar. 2016. <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/18/usa.iraq>.
Wadley, Jared. "Violent Political Rhetoric Fuels Violent Attitudes." Phys.org. N.p., 5 Jan. 2011. Web. 16 Mar. 2016. <http://phys.org/news/2011-01-violent-political-rhetoric-fuels-attitudes.html>.
Hadley, Stephen J. "The Iran Primer." The George W. Bush Administration. The United States Institute of Peace, n.d. Web. 19 Mar. 2016. <http://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/george-w-bush-administration>.
Ingraham, Chris. "Anti-Muslim Hate Crimes Are Still Five times More Common Today than before 9/11." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 11 Feb. 2015. Web. 19 Mar. 2016. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/anti-muslim-hate-crimes-are-still-five-times-more-common-today-than-before-911/>.
Part of our job as human beings involves mimicking. It’s hardwired into our bodies from evolution. This simple trait, or rather ability, allows us as infants to watch our parents and people around us talk and walk. Once we begin to learn how to talk and speak a language, our mouths just spew out all of the words we know; or for some only saying a few different words to mean various things. When we finally have passed our early stages of communication, we’re able to formulate and keep track of thoughts. And although each human is there own person, these thoughts aren’t really our thoughts. Like how we learn to walk and talk, our thoughts come from our family and reflect what they believe because most of us at that age have yet to understand who we are and what we think. According to a test performed by the University of Michigan, family influences the adolescent
My mother Angela Allen grew up in Plainfield IN, a town with very little diversity - religious, racial, political etc. She recalls a time when she was nine years old where her and her family are riding in their car from my mother’s hometown to where her Grandparents live in Clinton, IN. Angela sat in the back of the car next to her sister while their father was driving and their mother sat in the passenger. Angela noticed the daily newspaper that rested between the two front seats, the paper was the Indiana Star, one of the two newspaper businesses in the state. When my mother’s family arrived in Clinton, they first stopped at a family friend’s house. Here Angela played with her sister and her friend Mary Anne in the backyard while adults talked on the patio. Angela overheard the adults discussing political events. Angela was familiar with the topic and excitedly said “I know about that. I saw it in the Indiana Star!” All of the adults looked over at Angela and one of them chuckled and said “Only Republicans read the Indiana Star!” Angela was still very new to the world of politics and from her understanding, everyone in her, family was a Republican. Angela said “My grandfather reads it, he’s a Republican.” and to this the same adult responded “Paul Chilton, a republican?!” the adults then all laughed, including Angela’s parents. Angela was confused and it was here where she first realized that people do not have to have the same political opinions.
When we are young, all of our thoughts and beliefs from our family are our thoughts and beliefs. Until we become teenagers. Not always but usually at the age of 12 or 13, sometimes earlier sometimes later, kids start to create their own opinions. At this point most kids have already made their opinions on simple things like their favorite color and what music they like, but when tweens become teens they begin to form deeper beliefs especially about who they are. Later on in Angela’s life she began to think differently from her parents, especially her father who was a bigoted man and held prejudice against many minority groups. Angela recalls sympathizing with the groups of people her father spoke negatively about and she says that her interactions with her father “relate to what my morals and political opinions are today.”
Technology inside and outside the classroom is changing the way future generations of humans think. Despite what many people think, the use of technology for communication and education has negative effects on the way humans think. If children from a young age are overexposed to technology, they greatly affect the child’s ability to focus in a standard academic society. By looking at the overuse technology in young children, we can see a decrease in critical analysis and comprehension of literature, which most people do not see; this is important because it can be detrimental to the success of future humanity .
I sat in the chair as I chowed down on my dinner in the restaurant. Pineapple fried rice is pretty tasty, but there was something about my meal that was off. I could here the busty clanking of silverware on plates. I looked up and saw a small child at maybe the age of six performing a drum solo with his utensils on his food filled plate. The not-so-radical drum solo was interrupted by the child’s mother who told the child to stop. I was happy to see that child stopped the noise. The child took out a small portable video game device from his pocket and continued to play games on that, I went back to my meal but when I finished I looked up and noticed the child had still not touched his food.
Although there are some positive sides to learning with technology, our familiarity with technology and desire for quicker knowledge is reducing our ability to do critical thinking and analyzing, especially of literature. As we become more technologically literate, we become less literate with literature. The effects of being overly dependent on technology can especially be observed through younger generations who are often referred to as “digital natives.” These digital natives have also been referred to as people of the “app generation” a phrase coined by psychologists Howard Gardner and Katie Davis which describes the generation “which grew up with phones in hand and apps at the ready. It tends toward impatience, expecting the world to respond like an app, quickly and efficiently. The app way of thinking starts with the idea that actions in the world will work like algorithms: Certain actions will lead to predictable results.”
As the student assistant tech helper at my middle school, I had several duties. One of my main duties was to assist the children in lower school classes with any questions they had with the computers or tablets. During the silent reading portion of the class a young girl came up to me and asked for one of the school tablets. When I asked her why she needed the tablet, she said it was to look up the meaning of a word. Generally kids are not allowed to be on technology during silent reading time, so I suggested that young girl should use a dictionary to look up the meaning of the word. I was then surprised when the young girl claimed that she had know idea how to use a dictionary and that nobody uses them nowadays anyway. It didn’t make sense to me, a fifth grade student not knowing how to use a dictionary.
When reading literature, one must be able to comprehend and react to it, this is what literacy is all about. If some explanation to the meaning of a word is needed the reader will attempt to find the meaning of the word. Using a search bar on an online search engine gives almost immediate solution to any inquiries and chances to do independent thinking. Of course, if a person, especially a young person, has difficulty understanding or analyzing literature through traditional methods, it may be a result of the overuse of digital learning and literature. According to an article from Brockport College on Effects of Technology on Literacy Skills and Motivation to Read and Write “Results from Grimshaw, Dungworth and McKnight’s (2007) study provided data on the effects that digital texts have on comprehension and motivation compared to traditional texts. According to Grimshaw et al., participants came into the study with a strong background knowledge in technology navigation. According to Grimshaw et al., children who read using digital texts were not able to manually follow along while they were reading.”The ability to be technologically literate is important for preserving literature and communication but traditional communication and education that is taught with people and traditional, unabridged texts opens up more chances to interpret different meanings to expand and provide greater variety for literacy. With a greater understanding and variety of literacy people can make connections with fellow human beings and have a greater ability to do independent analysis of literature and communication.
Fox, Leah C.C., "Effects of Technology on Literacy Skills and Motivation to Read and Write." Education and Human Development Master's Theses. Paper 522, 2014. Web. 18 Nov. 2015
Turkle, Sherry. "Stop Googling. Let’s Talk." The New York Times. The New York Times, 26 Sept. 2015. Web. 20 Nov. 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/27/opinion/sunday/stop-googling-lets-talk.html?_r=0>.
It happened just last week. I heard two of my peers bring up the debate on who should really have ownership to the Modern day land of Israel. “Yea that’s true but it was ours first.” I’m not a very religious or spiritual person. Which may be a large part of the reason why I find the dispute over who should be in control of the modern day land of Israel to be silly. I see no reason why that today Palestinians and Israelis cannot live equally together in the same state without constant attacks on each other's cultures. I don’t necessarily enjoy talking about the disputes in the Middle East, specifically in Israel, but hearing my friends bring it up reminded me of a time where I witnessed young Israelis, Palestinians and Christians, all peers of mine, come together briefly bond with a mutual interest and non-hostile discuss the events of tension they witness in their daily lives and how it upsets and affects them. The Jerusalem Youth Choir, a choir made up of “Palestinian” and “Israeli” teens, had come to visit Philadelphia and the Keystone State Boychoir and Pennsylvania Girlchoir would be hosting them. I remember how I wasn’t looking forward to the discussion workshop we were going to have about race issues in America and Israel, I didn’t think much would come out of it.
I’m entering the church I’ve seen a dozen times before but this time there’s something different. I can hear what sounds like mumbles and the clearing of throats move past my ears. I awkwardly lean against one of the walls in the hallway as I search for my Jerusalem Youth Choir buddy. I couldn't see Muhammad, no, I saw Mohammad but not the one I was looking for. The wave of kids from the three choirs somehow molded into one at the double doors of the church. The idea of ditching Muhammad slipped into my mind and left in the blink of an eye as it occurred to me that my mom would kill me if I was not glued to Muhammad. The large mass of children had all entered the church and I decided it would be best for me to simply join and blend in with the amoeba of my peers that was heading to the dining hall, perhaps I could find Muhammad there. The amoeba was making it’s way into the dining hall of the church, but I had managed to get just a bit ahead of the group. Before me were seven cream colored tables surrounded by metal folding chairs and a few other fellow singers who also managed to get ahead of the group. When the rest of the amoeba fully entered the room I had already found somewhere to sit down at. I began looking for Muhammad as the crowd dispersed. Then I saw him heading towards a far away table and then I noticed he saw me to. One… two… for two seconds we made eye contact and he continued to walk towards the table 40 feet away from mine. At that moment one of the chaperones called out and said that each table should have a mix of kids from each choir and all JYC singers should be with their assigned PG or KSB singer. I moved over to Muhammad's table. I thought about asking him how he is enjoying Philadelphia, but his lack of knowledge of english and my lack of knowledge of Arabic and Hebrew would have made our conversation too short.
The Jerusalem Youth Choir holds cultural workshops after every concert and rehearsal they have. These "workshops" were just discussions and sharing sessions on what the Israeli and Palestinian singers wanted say about local conflicts they may have witnessed or been a part of in their communities. While the Pennsylvania Youth Choirs were hosting JYC in their first tour in America, a select group of singers from the Pennsylvania Youth Choirs would take part in a cultural workshop. The singers from Philly would use strategies JYC uses in their discussions to help discuss the problems of racial discrimination and hate crimes in the United States.
The twelve of us sat down in the small plastic chairs. Around me, 13 other people gathered in a circle. Five other of the Philly singers, six JYC singers and one adult monitoring the discussion. The adult began to present a discussion for us to talk about. “What issues have you noticed in your community between people.” None, as far as I knew, I don’t have much to say. I looked down at my feet. I began to zone out as all objects within my peripheral vision became a eye-straining blur of colors. Then time went so fast, what was feeling like one minute was actually ten. Suddenly my field of was disinterest was broken. One of the JYC singers had brought up how she always found that more conflicts between Israelis and Palestinians come up in less diverse neighborhoods than in neighborhoods than neighborhoods that are more diverse with Israelis and Palestinians. At that moment I was able to connect in my mind how Philadelphia has a similar type of problem, not with daily race based attacks but with the separation of of race through neighborhoods and how some are predominantly black while others are predominately white and with a few in between. It wasn't much to contribute to the discussion but it was something, something to show I was engaged and that even though the conflicts in Israel my not be connected to me that they mean something to me. I looked up from my shoes, but I stayed silent. I sit there looking up and the discussion slows down to a point where the subject is dropped and a new one is brought up.
After the culture workshop ended, I felt like I had not learned much and the mixed feelings of apathy and concern for the people in conflict in Israel were still at conflict with each other, I just wish that I had said something in the meeting.
George Orwell’s Animal Farm is a story about The Manor Farm, a farm where all of the livestock are tortured and their goods are taken by humans. At this farm one animal named Old Major, a boar, suggests to the animals on Manor Farm to take up his philosophy of Animalism (humans are bad, treat all animals as you would yourself, and don’t engage in human activities eg. drinking alcohol, trading etc.). He wanted to stage a revolution against farm owner Mr. Jones to achieve a state of equality amongst all animals. Old Major passes away and the farm is taken over by a power-hungry pig named Napoleon. Napoleon is a formidable dictator who rules the animals of “Animal Farm” by oppressing and controlling them along with his right hand man (pig) Squealer, and a pack of ferocious hounds used to protect Napoleon and strike fear into other animals.
The events in the story are narrated in third person by an unnamed omniscient being. Narration of the third person is very important in general to the reader because it allows us to see all of the crucial moments going on at animal farm. In first person narration, readers sometimes only see events when the characters (narrators) witness an events. Orwell’s use of narration in the third person from an omniscient being allows us as readers to be put in the place of uninformed (unintelligent or naive) animal and figure out on our own what the Pigs’ motives or ideas are. As readers of this voice we have to make up our own minds about what is happening, what it means and how we feel about it all.
At the beginning of the story, the narrator presents as any typical unnamed and omniscient being would, by narrating descriptions of the setting and characters as well as the thoughts and feelings of several (sometimes all) different characters. As time goes on, the narrator tends to speak about events in a very naive way, almost as if the narrator has become one of the less intelligent animals in the book who are unaware of their oppression and who disregard Napoleon’s evil doing. Jason Black is a developmental editor for novels and is the author of an online article titled, How Your Novel's Point of View Affects Your Characters. In this article Black says that “[Third person narration] is ideal if your goal is to allow the reader to watch everything unfold even though the characters aren’t aware of all that’s going on.” This is exactly what what Orwell does by writing in third person narrative in Animal Farm.
The narrator starts to fall for Napoleon’s propaganda early in the book. One example of this naive point of view is in Chapter Six; pages 26-27 where the character Clover is skeptical of Napoleon and the other pigs for sleeping in beds when she remembers one of the Seven Commandments stating that “no animal shall sleep in a bed.” “Finding herself unable to read more than individual letters, [Clover] fetched Muriel. ‘Muriel,’ she said, ‘read me the Fourth Commandment. Does it not say something about never sleeping in a bed?’ With some difficulty Muriel spelt it out. ‘It says, ’No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets,’ she announced finally. Curiously enough, Clover had not remembered that the Fourth Commandment mentioned sheets; but as it was there on the wall, it must have done so.” If the reader falls for the ruse of an unbiased third person character, this moment could either have the reader go along with what the narrator is thinking (“if the commandments say it, it must be right”) while a more skeptical reader could have gone back to check the Seven Commandments when they were first made. This decision on whether or not to believe the statement of the narrator affects their trust of both Napoleon, the narrator and even Clover.
The third person narration style is slowly revealed in Chapter Eight, page 41. The reader doesn’t immediately know what caused the sound, the narrator describes a scene occurring one quiet night when a loud crash came from the large barn and was heard by all of the animals. “At the foot of the end wall of the big barn, where the Seven Commandments were written, there lay a ladder broken in two pieces. Squealer, temporarily stunned, was sprawling beside it, and near at hand there lay a lantern, a paintbrush, and an overturned pot of white paint. The dogs immediately made a ring round Squealer, and escorted him back to the farmhouse as soon as he was able to walk. None of the animals could form any idea as to what this meant, except old Benjamin, who nodded his muzzle with a knowing air, and seemed to understand, but would say nothing.” In this paragraph, Orwell has had the narrator give very important clues to help readers figure out what the loud noise was. The narrator does not ever say specifically what happened that caused the noise. The reader has to figure out on their own what happened.
Orwell also uses the third person to paint a picture of the farm’s condition as well as it’s residents. In Chapter Nine; pages 43-44 he writes; “Besides, in those days they had been slaves and now they were free, and that made all the difference, as Squealer did not fail to point out.” This particular statement sounds like it could have been said by either a pig or a non-pig animal, which either way brings the reliability of this statement into question. Since the narrator and Squealer both agree that “in those days they had been slaves and now they were free” anyone who trusts the narrator may also start to believe the things Squealer preaches.
If Orwell were to choose another form like first person narration from the view of a character like Boxer, the strong but foolish stallion, the story would not include the events not witnessed by Boxer. Due to Boxer’s thick-headedness, the narration of the book, if it were told from Boxer’s perspective, would include bias on what the animals think about Napoleon and crucial moments would not have been explained in full detail. In Black’s article he refers to the to third person narration as if it is “jumping into and out of different character’s heads, giving the reader a much more difficult job in forming any close emotional ties with the characters.” In this case, having Boxer narrate the story in first person has the potential of the reader connecting with Boxer. A reader seeing Boxer as the trustworthy protagonist would believe what he says about Animal Farm and would have a very skewed idea of the plot.
York Notes, an online study guide program for English literature, says the third person narration in Animal Farm provides “the animals’ interpretation of events” and the narrator is “detached.” The York Notes also point out, “Orwell is careful to use phrases that leave us in no doubt about what is happening. . . the animals might not be aware of what is going on but it is obvious to [the reader].” It is this usage of bread crumb trails that allows the reader to figure out on their own what they personally feel about the story, the animals actions, Napoleon and what everything means.
I sleep 20 hours a day on weekdays. On weekends, I sleep anywhere from 10 to 18 hours a day. But I always can tell what you're doing. Do you always feel like somebody's watching you? Because I am, I’m watching you Ethan, (Heavy breathing, sounds like XHXHHHX) and listening, listening to what you’re doing But are you listening to me? Ha! course not- (rythmic) you just let my beat go on and on without any thought, ya don’t even know, how high the volume is on your stereo. You let it all go (pause)... to hell... yo... I know I’m not the only one. Just a few days ago I heard you complaining about the cell phone. You and that cell phone have done everything together and after 2 years you’re just gonna replace it for the next upgrade! I heard you saying… I heard you saying that (breaths deeply XXHHHXH) your planned on breaking the phone so that your mom would get you the gen 8. I (starts crying) I-I don’t even k-know (breaths deeply XHXHXHXHHH) what’s so great li-iike. It’s like (XHXHXHHX) what’s so great about having a thinner screen… You used to say live and let live. Ya know ya did, ya know ya did, ya know ya did. (Sniffle).
Ok, um now back to the subject at hand. My speaker: why it’s broken, what you can do to fix it and what you can do to make sure this does not happen again. The reason why speaker my speaker is bust, is because of that dubstep. Please stop listening to the dubstep, it makes me vibrate so much I think I’ll explode. Please turn down the volume and listen to quieter music so I don’t explode, or worse. Now, in order to fix me you need to take out the broken driver and then place a new one in. It’ll only cost $20… maybe. You could always buy one of the internet from the computer. Hey, there’s another example of something good gone to waste. Remember your old computer? You used to spend hours on that thing, but then one day you put it in box, tossed it out and got that fancy computer. Anyway, buying an entire new stereo would be around… uh, eight thousand dollars! So just buy a driver for me that’s all you need oh and stop mistreating me and your other- Hey uh Ethan, what are you doing with that remote? Ethan (stern) listen to me don’t turn me on. Ethan, (worried) Ethan wait! Ethan- (screaming) CALL 911 NOW BWAWAH REEEEEEEEEAHHHHHH dududu REEEEEEAAHHH dududu WOOOOOooooowXXXHXHHHHXHHXHXHHXHXH. (pause) XHXHHXHTHIS GIRL IS ON FFFIYYYYAAAAAAHHHXXHXXHXHHXHXHX.
[INSERT TITLE HERE]
One day I was in Chinatown with my parents. We were waiting for a table at a restaurant called Penang which serves really good Asian food. As we were waiting, an Asian man and white woman came in after us, their name was taken by the hostess for their table. They would be waiting with us.
There was an awkward silence in the waiting area. My mother, Jennifer, opened her mouth. I cringed. She always does this. We call it “public talking.” It’s when someone feels that they need to start a conversation with some random person they see in public. My mom’s mouth was flapping away at lightning speed talking about “The great egg noodles” and how “Downtown Philly is really busy on Friday nights. . .” and making sure to not leave out that her son sings in a choir that travels the world. That’s when she said something that really stood out to me.
“Yeah, we love coming here, the food is amazing and mainly locals eat here, so it’s not full of tourists like us.”
At which point the man said
“Oh, where are you all from?”
I was just standing there internally face palming, laughing and screaming all at the same time. I knew what would come next. She then said,
“Oh, heh, no. We’re from Philly, just ya know.”
At which point I leaned over to my other mom, Angela, and whispered,
“We’re from Philly… ya know, the eh, white part.”
Angela chuckled then made her usual annoyed face. The man looked confused. The woman still had the mannequin-esque smiling face she had when I first saw her. The man responded slowly with,
“Well, we are from Washington state.” said the man.
“I’m from Quebec.” This was the only thing the woman said before my mom went back to workin’ her jaw. When the couple was seated the waiting area became quiet again until I said,
“Yeah, we love going here, the food is amazing and mainly ASIAN PEOPLE go here so it’s not full of WHITE PEOPLE like us.” Angela started to laugh louder now and Jen, realizing what she said chuckled and looked a bit embarrassed.
I don’t like to take myself too seriously. I usually try to come up with ways to get my point across or carry on conversations with humor whenever I can. Sometimes this “humor” is snarky, sarcastic, or ironic. In the case of “The Great Penang Incident”, I used sarcasm to point out to my mom that she was being an annoying public talker, and saying something that could be mistaken for racist. If I had been too blunt or too serious in pointing out the problem with what Jen said, she might have gotten too focused on me being “too critical.” By using humor, I was able to get my point across in a less threatening way which ended up opening up more dialogue in the end. If I had bluntly said exactly what I was thinking it might have been something more like, “Hey mom, you're embarrassing me and yourself and I think that your comment could be taken as racist.” This sentence might have hurt my mom’s feelings and lead to an argument. I am pretty sure that softening it with the use of humor was a better way to go.
A couple of years ago I saw my friend Elogio at a friend’s 16th birthday party. We see each other only occasionally since we both graduated from our old school in 8th grade but we still do things together from time to time. Elogio is still a good friend of mine for over 5 years now. We’re both pretty chill with each other but one thing we both enjoy doing is saying stupid stuff to each other. When he saw me, he walked over to me and said,
“Hey Jake, wow, you’ve gotten taller.” It would make sense that the guy who hardly ever grows would notice my height. Elogio, when I first met him in 5th grade, might have been 4’ 5” and I was maybe 5’ 1”. Going into 9th grade he was probably 4’ 11” or 5’ with me at 5’ and 8”. He was the shortest person my age that I knew. I responded to him in a cheerful tone,
“Yea, I guess so. I wish I could say the same about you.” Then I let out a cheesy laugh that would make Mike Brady cringe. One might think that after knowing the guy for so many years I would have laid off the short jokes. The Mayor of Munchkinland looked at me disapprovingly, I just stared back with a smug grin on my face. A grin twice as smug but not as yellow then formed on Elogio’s face, and he said.
“I guess the lack of oxygen up there is already starting to do damage to the brain cells.” There was a second of silence and then we laughed, we were probably over laughing. I then grabbed his shoulder and gave him a sideways bro-hug. I held my nose in the air, and in the most pompous voice I could muster said,
“I don’t take too kindly to that sir.” We chuckled a bit and then caught each other up on how life was going after graduating from our old school.
It was by jokingly insulting each other with sarcasm and campy dialogue that we were able to connect as friends. Most of our conversations are through jokes, but we are still able to remain friends and talk about a lot of different things.Of course, not all people take too kindly to snarky comments. Some people can’t tell the difference between something being said sarcastically and something that’s said out of genuine resentment. When people misunderstand my attempts at being a jokester, it isn't exactly good for me - even when their reaction is priceless. My use of humor can be risky and sometimes backfires. I see the world as a funny place. I include humorous comments in my daily language as a way to share with others that the world is a strange, ironic and entertaining place.
- A. What is negative space?
- B. Explain how you found negative space in 1. your cut out?, 2. in your stool drawing?
- C. Why does it help an artist to see in negative space?
- D. How is negative space useful in creating art?
2. By learning how to draw windowsills and add detail to them, my picture looked more realistic.
3. If I did this assignment again, I would draw in more objects to make my picture looked more realistic.
4. My advice to someone who has never drawn a one point perspective drawing before is to always use a ruler when making lines and check the orthogonal lines to see if they all line up at the vanishing point.
5. The resources that helped me the most were the in-class tutorials because they allowed me to practice for what I would need to draw.
This is my Media Fluency slide. This slide displays my greatest passion, music. I like most music genres but I really like rock and classic rock, my favorite band is The Beatles.
First I looked for an image of The Beatles that was not to crammed. I decided not to place my text inside of the only empty space because personally, I think more empty space on a slide looks nice. For the text, I wanted to make sure that it had a good color contrast and stood out against the black and white so I used a bright color but not too bright. I determined the size and placement of the text based off of the image, I wanted the text to be seen but I did not want to block any important parts of the image. Sense I wanted to have same empty space, I used the rule of thirds to find out where the best location for the text could be.