After reading the article called War and Piste - the battle between skiers and boarders at, http://blogs.smh.com.au/travel/archives/2007/06/war_and_piste_-_the_battle_between_skiers_and_boarders_bitch_fest_or_love_in.html
This question arose,
“Which team do you bat for - Knuckle dragger or double planker? Ever been cut off by a boarder, abused by a skier? Is it a modern day love in with past ills forgotten or does the war still exist?”
This question has so many different answers depending on who you are and who your friends are. Although for someone to say that the war does not exist, they are mistaken. Skiers and snowboarders will always have a bit of a disagreement about the two sports. It could be about the difficulty, the fan basis, or even how cool they each are. Sure, snowboarders have the much more hip look, but you can’t knock the skiers completely. There is that select few of free ride skiers who rock the same outfits as the boarders. At my school the boarders and the free ride skiers would train together and go to events together. They never treated each other different based on what equipment they went down the hill on. Now for racers, that was a different story. The snowboarders always gave the ski racers a hard time for their outfits. They were always black and actually fit around their wastes. But, if a ski racer were to wear a coat or snow pants of a snowboard company they would be ridiculed even more. So in the sense of clothing a ski racer couldn’t win with a boarder.
The argument of what sport is more difficult often comes up. The snowboarders would argue that going twenty feet in the air upside down is much harder that just going down the hill. Then the skiers would argue that going around 70 mph down a mountain on a certain course is much more difficult.
These debates are always happening on the mountain. Friends or not so good of friends will argue about this issue. This argument can be seen as a war because it is one side against the other, trying to be the victorious one, with the idea of victory knowing that they are the better sport. This victory will never be able to be accomplished. The idea of one being better of the other is only an idea, an opinion. There is no facts that will ever be able to prove. Although the sports are similar in the fact that they consist of some sort of long board on your feet while you go down a mountain, which is the only similarity. The technique between the two is completely different. What I am trying to say is that this war should no longer exist. People need to take each sport for what they are individually.
This is a tough thing to do for anyone who skis or snowboards. Skiers will always fight for skiing and boarders for snowboarding. This war is a never-ending war. No persuasion will ever be able to stop this. There simply is no correct side of the argument.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Global Warming: rhetorical situation
I read an article in the New York Times called Global Warming. The article can be found at, http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier
The article talks about how global warming is becoming a larger issue and the “very likely” force that is driving the issue is human activity in the last 50 years. The article goes on to talk about how the average surface temperature of the earth has gone up 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1990. They also mention that the debate of humans cause to global warming is no longer the issue but rather how to go about fixing the problem. The article never suggests a way to go about fixing it but it gives good information about how the greenhouse effect works and how it has been changing through the years. When first reading this article, it may not seem as though it is trying to persuade people into believing something. I think the article does so without have to actually state what is being persuaded. The article makes someone think about global warming and realize that it is an issue that does need to be addressed and worked on. For this reason, I believe this article can be considered a rhetorical situation by the definition that Aristotle gives.
The article is interacting with people. For example, I was able to read it and write this blog, which is an interaction. It is not necessarily directly between the writer and myself but it is about what the writer wrote and for the others to discuss. The persuasion that is being done can be difficult to see as persuasion right away, but can be seen because of the reaction the article has on people. The persuasion is about a larger issue. The issue is global warming, which is affecting the entire world. What is being said in the article is that humans are contributing to the cause and that is what needs to change. The change is not something that can be done right away or over night. It is going to take time. This is also part of Aristotle’s definition; it cannot just be done, for example if someone were to tell you to wash your hands. The article is backed up with proof. The author explains how the surface temperature of the earth is rising. He goes on to give predictions if this life style of ours continues. According to Aristotle’s definition I feel that this article is a good representation of a rhetorical situation.
Something that would not be considered a rhetorical situation by Aristotle would be if someone where to just tell someone to do something and the person can just do it on the spot. The example I gave was to wash your hands. You could try to think about it as a rhetorical situation because if you don’t wash your hands, sickness tends to spread. Sickness can be considered a larger issue that would need to be dealt with, but because a person can just wash their hands without thinking about the greater issue, I don’t believe Aristotle would consider it a rhetorical situation. Also what was said was more of a statement rather than a persuasion. It was simply do this. The article in the New York Times, was a statement but it was not telling someone to just do something it was giving facts which then made people realize something needs to be done. I feel this idea is a big difference between the two ideas and what makes something a rhetorical situation according to Aristotle.
The article talks about how global warming is becoming a larger issue and the “very likely” force that is driving the issue is human activity in the last 50 years. The article goes on to talk about how the average surface temperature of the earth has gone up 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1990. They also mention that the debate of humans cause to global warming is no longer the issue but rather how to go about fixing the problem. The article never suggests a way to go about fixing it but it gives good information about how the greenhouse effect works and how it has been changing through the years. When first reading this article, it may not seem as though it is trying to persuade people into believing something. I think the article does so without have to actually state what is being persuaded. The article makes someone think about global warming and realize that it is an issue that does need to be addressed and worked on. For this reason, I believe this article can be considered a rhetorical situation by the definition that Aristotle gives.
The article is interacting with people. For example, I was able to read it and write this blog, which is an interaction. It is not necessarily directly between the writer and myself but it is about what the writer wrote and for the others to discuss. The persuasion that is being done can be difficult to see as persuasion right away, but can be seen because of the reaction the article has on people. The persuasion is about a larger issue. The issue is global warming, which is affecting the entire world. What is being said in the article is that humans are contributing to the cause and that is what needs to change. The change is not something that can be done right away or over night. It is going to take time. This is also part of Aristotle’s definition; it cannot just be done, for example if someone were to tell you to wash your hands. The article is backed up with proof. The author explains how the surface temperature of the earth is rising. He goes on to give predictions if this life style of ours continues. According to Aristotle’s definition I feel that this article is a good representation of a rhetorical situation.
Something that would not be considered a rhetorical situation by Aristotle would be if someone where to just tell someone to do something and the person can just do it on the spot. The example I gave was to wash your hands. You could try to think about it as a rhetorical situation because if you don’t wash your hands, sickness tends to spread. Sickness can be considered a larger issue that would need to be dealt with, but because a person can just wash their hands without thinking about the greater issue, I don’t believe Aristotle would consider it a rhetorical situation. Also what was said was more of a statement rather than a persuasion. It was simply do this. The article in the New York Times, was a statement but it was not telling someone to just do something it was giving facts which then made people realize something needs to be done. I feel this idea is a big difference between the two ideas and what makes something a rhetorical situation according to Aristotle.
Join the Army
The movie I am discussing can be found at: http://youtube.com/watch?v=AwS1bmggoZ0
This movie is a normal commercial for the army, but in the end they add reasons why someone should not join the army, possible injuries that may occur including death. They make it seem like pharmaceutical disclaimers. The message the movie gives off is very strong. It is basically explaining everything that goes wrong in war and all the terrible effects it has on people. The comments about it are very mixed. Some support the message the movie gives off and others see it as a total disgrace. I wasn’t sure what to think about the movie when I first saw it. I actually laughed, but not because what they were doing was funny but more because a lot of what was said was true.
After watching the movie for a second time, the movie seemed to me as a form of persuasion. It is a persuasion against the war or it shows how the real commercials are a persuasion to join the army. When the real commercials come on TV, they show all the hard work and strength that goes into the army as well as the skills soldiers acquire, but they leave out some of the consequences of war. For most people these consequences are obvious: injury, death, depression and so many more, but when the commercial is seen by the viewer, they only see the idea of fighting for their country. If commercials were to look more like this one, not necessarily blaming certain people, but just reminding people of the effects war can have on a person, a person would think twice about joining the army.
This brings the idea of what orators do when they make speeches. They tell the audience what they want them to hear. What they are saying may be the truth, just not the complete truth. Things that would go against their ideas are not mentioned so that their persuasion does not become contradicted. In this commercial they show the hard work that has to be put in by these men to become soldiers, which is very true. They also show that with this hard work the soldiers become very skilled in what they do, which is also true. What they don’t show is some of the effects of the war on the soldiers, which is also part of the truth. Only one side of the entire issue is shown in the commercials, making them an incomplete truth. This commercial shown on youtube, is not the complete truth either because it consists of opinions about how the war is being handled. What this commercial did for me is bring up the idea that these commercials should be as close to the entire truth as possible because the effects of war can be so traumatic
This movie is a normal commercial for the army, but in the end they add reasons why someone should not join the army, possible injuries that may occur including death. They make it seem like pharmaceutical disclaimers. The message the movie gives off is very strong. It is basically explaining everything that goes wrong in war and all the terrible effects it has on people. The comments about it are very mixed. Some support the message the movie gives off and others see it as a total disgrace. I wasn’t sure what to think about the movie when I first saw it. I actually laughed, but not because what they were doing was funny but more because a lot of what was said was true.
After watching the movie for a second time, the movie seemed to me as a form of persuasion. It is a persuasion against the war or it shows how the real commercials are a persuasion to join the army. When the real commercials come on TV, they show all the hard work and strength that goes into the army as well as the skills soldiers acquire, but they leave out some of the consequences of war. For most people these consequences are obvious: injury, death, depression and so many more, but when the commercial is seen by the viewer, they only see the idea of fighting for their country. If commercials were to look more like this one, not necessarily blaming certain people, but just reminding people of the effects war can have on a person, a person would think twice about joining the army.
This brings the idea of what orators do when they make speeches. They tell the audience what they want them to hear. What they are saying may be the truth, just not the complete truth. Things that would go against their ideas are not mentioned so that their persuasion does not become contradicted. In this commercial they show the hard work that has to be put in by these men to become soldiers, which is very true. They also show that with this hard work the soldiers become very skilled in what they do, which is also true. What they don’t show is some of the effects of the war on the soldiers, which is also part of the truth. Only one side of the entire issue is shown in the commercials, making them an incomplete truth. This commercial shown on youtube, is not the complete truth either because it consists of opinions about how the war is being handled. What this commercial did for me is bring up the idea that these commercials should be as close to the entire truth as possible because the effects of war can be so traumatic
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Feelings Towards Death
Death can hit people in so many different ways. Some people just cry, others simply don’t know what to do. It may hit some people instantly; it may take others a few weeks or months before the fact of death hits them. Every person handles death in different ways. Poems are a way that allows people to express their feelings about the loss of a loved one. The first poem I read is called XX. The wife of a soldier who was killed during a battle has written the poem about her feelings during her loved ones funeral.
XX by W.H. Auden
Stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone, Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone, Silence the pianos and with muffled drum Bring out the coffin, let the mourners come.
Let aeroplanes circle moaning overhead Scribbling on the sky the message He Is Dead, Put crepe bows round the white necks of the public doves, Let the traffic policemen wear black cotton gloves.
He was my North, my South, my East and West, My working week and my Sunday rest, My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song; I thought that love would last for ever: I was wrong.
The stars are not wanted now; put out every one: Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun; Pour away the ocean and sweep up the woods: For nothing now can ever come to any good.
W.H Auden express the idea that the army can do whatever they want to show their respect towards the soldier and his family, but to Auden, “nothing now could ever come to any good”.
In the first stanza she is describing the things that went on after the death of her husband. The words she uses to describe these actions, gives me the ability to actually imagine the noises suddenly stopping. I can see a vivid picture in my head of what she is describing.
In the second stanza she is again describing what was happening after his death. She sees the airplanes in the sky and sees the airplane as though it was stating that, he is dead. The bows on the doves and the policemen wearing black gloves are usually a sign of respect giving to the dead soldier and his family, but Auden sees them as a sign of his death being a reality. Death is such a hard concept to grasp and when she saw these things happening, she realized that it was true and he was gone forever. In the poem the tone she uses is as though she doesn’t care anymore. By using the word let, she is saying, let them do what they want, she simply doesn’t care. She goes on to prove the fact that she no longer cares about anything. She says that he was everything to her and now that he is gone, the stars and the moon could be taken away, the ocean and the woods could be taken away. Although she only states four things, those four things are representing everything in her life. She believes as long as she no longer has her love, nothing is any good any more.
On a Distant Star, by Rosaline T. Patterson, is another poem I read. It too is about the loss of a loved one in a war. She has a similar perspective as WH Audin by using poetry to describe her grief, but her poem gives off a completely different feeling about how she will remember her loved one.
On a Distant Star
© By Rosaline T. Patterson
Wasn't expecting that sudden good-bye,
Every time I think 'bout it,
I just wanna break down and cry...
Watching it all in disbelief,
I called your cell phone,
Hoping for some instant relief.
Didn't know then it was all in vain,
Could only smell the choking smoke,
Praying that you weren't in pain...
Hating the day...despising the way,
I was stripped of our future,
And now I am here to say...
Knowing you was the best thing about us.
Having you was the truest treasure,
My heart could ever try to measure...
And I believe, wherever you are...
There is a New York City angel,
Living, living on a distant star.
For Patterson, death is also a hard concept to grasp. In her poem she says she calls his cell phone, hoping for an answer on the other side. This shows that she is having a hard time convincing herself that he is gone and there is no way to bring him back. After the phone call she seems to understand the idea of his death and prays. She prays that he felt no pain when he died. When she prays, it brings back the visions from the day she found out about his death. Similarly to Auden, Patterson is upset that her future was taken away. She felt as though her future was meant to be with this man and it would no longer be the same, just as Auden felt as though the stars, moon, oceans, and woods no longer meant anything to her because of the loss of her loved one. The big difference between these two authors is how they thought of their loved ones now that they were gone. Auden stated that her love was gone, she thought that it would have lasted for ever but she said she was wrong. Patterson seemed to be saying that her love would always be there for him. She knew he was the best thing for her and she felt that he was out there somewhere, living on a distant star. That seems she is saying that, because he will always be out there as a New York City angel, she will always remember and him and love him forever.
Both poems describe the grief and pain these authors went through during the loss of their loved ones, but they both have completely different feelings about the death after it was realized. Auden felt as though her love was gone, and nothing seemed to matter any longer. Patterson was always going to remember the love she had and still has for him.
Death in general is a hard feeling to come to terms with. Death in war is a specific grievance that many people are going through together. Although many people are losing their loved ones to war not a single person has the same feelings. Some people will feel hatred. Some will feel as though they have lost a part of them. Others will try to erase the idea of their love out of their memory because it causes so much pain. These two poems give two similar feelings about the loss of a loved one to war, but also two completely different feelings about how they decided to deal with the grief.
XX by W.H. Auden
Stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone, Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone, Silence the pianos and with muffled drum Bring out the coffin, let the mourners come.
Let aeroplanes circle moaning overhead Scribbling on the sky the message He Is Dead, Put crepe bows round the white necks of the public doves, Let the traffic policemen wear black cotton gloves.
He was my North, my South, my East and West, My working week and my Sunday rest, My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song; I thought that love would last for ever: I was wrong.
The stars are not wanted now; put out every one: Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun; Pour away the ocean and sweep up the woods: For nothing now can ever come to any good.
W.H Auden express the idea that the army can do whatever they want to show their respect towards the soldier and his family, but to Auden, “nothing now could ever come to any good”.
In the first stanza she is describing the things that went on after the death of her husband. The words she uses to describe these actions, gives me the ability to actually imagine the noises suddenly stopping. I can see a vivid picture in my head of what she is describing.
In the second stanza she is again describing what was happening after his death. She sees the airplanes in the sky and sees the airplane as though it was stating that, he is dead. The bows on the doves and the policemen wearing black gloves are usually a sign of respect giving to the dead soldier and his family, but Auden sees them as a sign of his death being a reality. Death is such a hard concept to grasp and when she saw these things happening, she realized that it was true and he was gone forever. In the poem the tone she uses is as though she doesn’t care anymore. By using the word let, she is saying, let them do what they want, she simply doesn’t care. She goes on to prove the fact that she no longer cares about anything. She says that he was everything to her and now that he is gone, the stars and the moon could be taken away, the ocean and the woods could be taken away. Although she only states four things, those four things are representing everything in her life. She believes as long as she no longer has her love, nothing is any good any more.
On a Distant Star, by Rosaline T. Patterson, is another poem I read. It too is about the loss of a loved one in a war. She has a similar perspective as WH Audin by using poetry to describe her grief, but her poem gives off a completely different feeling about how she will remember her loved one.
On a Distant Star
© By Rosaline T. Patterson
Wasn't expecting that sudden good-bye,
Every time I think 'bout it,
I just wanna break down and cry...
Watching it all in disbelief,
I called your cell phone,
Hoping for some instant relief.
Didn't know then it was all in vain,
Could only smell the choking smoke,
Praying that you weren't in pain...
Hating the day...despising the way,
I was stripped of our future,
And now I am here to say...
Knowing you was the best thing about us.
Having you was the truest treasure,
My heart could ever try to measure...
And I believe, wherever you are...
There is a New York City angel,
Living, living on a distant star.
For Patterson, death is also a hard concept to grasp. In her poem she says she calls his cell phone, hoping for an answer on the other side. This shows that she is having a hard time convincing herself that he is gone and there is no way to bring him back. After the phone call she seems to understand the idea of his death and prays. She prays that he felt no pain when he died. When she prays, it brings back the visions from the day she found out about his death. Similarly to Auden, Patterson is upset that her future was taken away. She felt as though her future was meant to be with this man and it would no longer be the same, just as Auden felt as though the stars, moon, oceans, and woods no longer meant anything to her because of the loss of her loved one. The big difference between these two authors is how they thought of their loved ones now that they were gone. Auden stated that her love was gone, she thought that it would have lasted for ever but she said she was wrong. Patterson seemed to be saying that her love would always be there for him. She knew he was the best thing for her and she felt that he was out there somewhere, living on a distant star. That seems she is saying that, because he will always be out there as a New York City angel, she will always remember and him and love him forever.
Both poems describe the grief and pain these authors went through during the loss of their loved ones, but they both have completely different feelings about the death after it was realized. Auden felt as though her love was gone, and nothing seemed to matter any longer. Patterson was always going to remember the love she had and still has for him.
Death in general is a hard feeling to come to terms with. Death in war is a specific grievance that many people are going through together. Although many people are losing their loved ones to war not a single person has the same feelings. Some people will feel hatred. Some will feel as though they have lost a part of them. Others will try to erase the idea of their love out of their memory because it causes so much pain. These two poems give two similar feelings about the loss of a loved one to war, but also two completely different feelings about how they decided to deal with the grief.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Thoughts on moving...
I found my picture at, http://www.vnpersonalwar.blogspot.com/. It is a picture form Vietnam in 1968.
The first thing that I see when I look at the picture is a cart filled with mattress pads, rugs, pillows, and sheets. The older man, most likely the husband, is peddling as though the cart is a bike. Along side him is a woman and a younger boy pushing the cart. They are each caring more pillows. Behind the first family is more people walking and biking on the street. One man has no arm and is not carrying anything. On the other side of the first family is another cart being ridden by just one man. The things in the cart can’t be seen through the picture. In the background of the picture, there is a large truck with people in the bed of the truck along with what seems to be more household belongings. Just in front of the truck there are three more people walking and one riding a bike. They are looking at something out of the view of the picture. One of the young men is pointing and the other just watches as though it is eye catching.
The picture is showing the people from this specific area moving all of their belongings. This could be for safety reasons or because they were being forced to move. The picture does not show any soldiers watching the people move to make sure it happens. It seems like they can no longer live where they are located so as a group they are moving away. All of their faces seem to be focused on moving forward. As if they just want to get to their destination. Only the young boy in the front of the picture is looking at the photographer. He is either the only one who sees him taking pictures or the only one to actually look and acknowledge the photographers presence. Seeing this young boy looking at the photographer, gives off the feeling that you can actually make eye contact with this young boy. Feeling the eye contact makes me feel as though through his facial expression I can get an idea of what he is feeling and thinking.
The first thing I see through this young boy is his curiosity. His eyes have wandered from the task at hand to his surroundings. The surroundings being different from what they usually are, is reason enough for his curiosity. He also gives off a feeling of uncertainty. As if he knows he is moving, but he does not know if things will ever be the same. He is moving everything of importance to him and his family and knows nothing of how things will turn out. On this same web page, there are many pictures of areas just as there is in this photo. These areas are destroyed and no longer are livable. I feel that he had many reasons for his look of uncertainty. He knew what could happen to his old home and his new to be home, but he didn’t know if it would or when it would happen. `
This photograph makes me also wonder if there was a safe place to go or if these people were constantly on the move, trying to keep their family together and safe. Seeing the man with out an arm allows me to see that the people were at risk of injury even if they were not directly part of the war, fighting in the battles.
The main idea I got from looking at this photograph is that the Vietnamese people had a rough life during the war. The safety they needed to survive was scarce and required them to move from place to place. Leaving everything you know behind is one of the hardest things to do, especially if that is all you have ever known and know nothing about where you are going. There was always a sense of uncertainty, not knowing what to look forward to or knowing if life would ever be the same. I feel that with all that is going on in the picture and the look on the boys face the feelings can be seen.
The first thing that I see when I look at the picture is a cart filled with mattress pads, rugs, pillows, and sheets. The older man, most likely the husband, is peddling as though the cart is a bike. Along side him is a woman and a younger boy pushing the cart. They are each caring more pillows. Behind the first family is more people walking and biking on the street. One man has no arm and is not carrying anything. On the other side of the first family is another cart being ridden by just one man. The things in the cart can’t be seen through the picture. In the background of the picture, there is a large truck with people in the bed of the truck along with what seems to be more household belongings. Just in front of the truck there are three more people walking and one riding a bike. They are looking at something out of the view of the picture. One of the young men is pointing and the other just watches as though it is eye catching.
The picture is showing the people from this specific area moving all of their belongings. This could be for safety reasons or because they were being forced to move. The picture does not show any soldiers watching the people move to make sure it happens. It seems like they can no longer live where they are located so as a group they are moving away. All of their faces seem to be focused on moving forward. As if they just want to get to their destination. Only the young boy in the front of the picture is looking at the photographer. He is either the only one who sees him taking pictures or the only one to actually look and acknowledge the photographers presence. Seeing this young boy looking at the photographer, gives off the feeling that you can actually make eye contact with this young boy. Feeling the eye contact makes me feel as though through his facial expression I can get an idea of what he is feeling and thinking.
The first thing I see through this young boy is his curiosity. His eyes have wandered from the task at hand to his surroundings. The surroundings being different from what they usually are, is reason enough for his curiosity. He also gives off a feeling of uncertainty. As if he knows he is moving, but he does not know if things will ever be the same. He is moving everything of importance to him and his family and knows nothing of how things will turn out. On this same web page, there are many pictures of areas just as there is in this photo. These areas are destroyed and no longer are livable. I feel that he had many reasons for his look of uncertainty. He knew what could happen to his old home and his new to be home, but he didn’t know if it would or when it would happen. `
This photograph makes me also wonder if there was a safe place to go or if these people were constantly on the move, trying to keep their family together and safe. Seeing the man with out an arm allows me to see that the people were at risk of injury even if they were not directly part of the war, fighting in the battles.
The main idea I got from looking at this photograph is that the Vietnamese people had a rough life during the war. The safety they needed to survive was scarce and required them to move from place to place. Leaving everything you know behind is one of the hardest things to do, especially if that is all you have ever known and know nothing about where you are going. There was always a sense of uncertainty, not knowing what to look forward to or knowing if life would ever be the same. I feel that with all that is going on in the picture and the look on the boys face the feelings can be seen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)