BLOG XII (LAST BLOGGG EVVAAAA)

Due to the 2007 film, The Golden Compass, many people from all over have been claiming that Phillip Pullman, the writer, attempts to attack Chrisitanity. In Al's Book Club, a reader asks Pullman if he is "anti-catholic and promoting athiesim". Pullman states that his films in no way promote athiesm, but state that religion and the government should be as far from eachother as possible to keep from disasterous effects. He references the Afgani Talliban and claims that if religion and political power are not kept as far away as possible, then they will "send armies to war or to condemn people to death, or to rule every aspect of our lives, it rapidly goes bad."

The Golden Compass is a very ambiguious movie in which the audience can draw conclusions and parallels between the fictionional world of Pullman's imagination and the world in which we live. The movie claims that dust is a bad thing that connects the different universes. The Magisterium, which is ruled by the Authority, wishes to get rid of the dust which was created by the Authority. This could be taken as:
The Magesterium is the church.
The Authority is God.
The Dust is Original Sin.
In order to rid of the world of (dust) original sin, we must first rid the world of the Authority (God).
When the film is looked at from this perspective, it can definatly be taken as attacking Christianity. But this is not exactly what the writer was claiming and not the reason he wrote the book.

(Not to be graded portion) I personally think that people need to stop analyzing things so closely because its a good book and I want to know what happens next so they should make another movie. This also strongly backs my statement in which I claim that we should all stop analyzing media because it will just lead to another epidimic like the Manson Murders and stuff like that. If he would have just not analyzed the stupid songs, that may have not happened. So thank you Mr. Hughes, you have probably raised up a mass murderer. (Not myself or anything)

Blog XI (A directed free write)

This summer is going to, well I really have no idea. This summer will pretty much consist of me working all the time so I can afford gas which will rise to astronomical heights. I was just fired from my MOTHERS store in which jewelry was sold. We closed the smaller wtore which resided in gonzales and so we didnt have enough hours to go around between the three employees so the decided to let the only one who was blood related to the owners go. I then called my uncle and asked him if i could have a job and he said yes so i was extremely overjoyed that I had a job and I didnt have to see my crazy aunt a lot. I have about seventy five more words to bs so lets see. After working all the time so I can feed my car, I am going to hang out with my best friend katie because she just graduated last night and I am going to miss her because she is going to college and I am stayin in this lame hell hole that they like to call "school". I am actually very distressed that the seniors and not seniors anymore and it makes me want to cry a lot. So summer will be good.

Blog X (Unqualified Defense)

Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism is a documentary made by Robert Greenwald about Fox news network. The whole documentary was basically claiming that Fox News is not as "fair and balanced" as it tries to come across as. Greenwald uses first person testimonies from former employees to push his point farther across the line. He claims that Fox distorts the facts, picks guests, and spins stories all to its own advantage. This claim may seem biased and untrue to most of the people who watch fox news, but there is more to this claim than meets the eye.

A study done by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) in 2003 has backed up claims maid by Greenwald in Outfoxed. FAIR did a study in which they studied 25 weeks of Fox's Special Report. In this crucial segment, Brit Hume has one-on-one chats with guests selected by the network. FAIR found that over 71% of guests on Special Report were conservative. They also noticed that the few liberals that were on the show were closer to the middle of the political spectrum. (Still Failing the "Fair & Balanced" Test, FAIR.com) This shows Fox's extremely tilted viewpoint. Fox doesn't accurately present the "other side" in many of its arguments. Another study was done in which the guests were divided into three groups: Conservatives, Centrists, and Progressives. These guests did not automatically fall into the category they claimed as their "political party", but were categorized by voting records and interviews. In this study, 57% of guests were conservatives, 12% were centrists, and 12% were liberals. 20% of the guests of the show were non-ideological. This means that viewers were five times more likely to see a conservative rather than a liberal on Fox's Special Report with Brit Hume.

Greenwald also claims that Fox doesn't report news, they report more of a watered down version. A study done at the Program of International Policy (PIPA) in the University of Maryland showed that people who primarily watch Fox news are more likely to have misconceptions about the war in Iraq than people who watch PBS or listen to NPR. So, what does this mean? Fox News distorts the facts to fit its own agenda. The people who watched Fox believed that the US did find nuclear weapons in Iraq, when in fact, we didn't. people who listened to NPR were more likely to know that there were no weapons of mass destruction found. (Misconceptions, The Media and the Iraq War, WPO.org) This, once again, shows how Fox twists its "facts" to fit it's tilted viewpoint.

Works Cited

"Misconceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War." World Public Opinion.Org. 2 Oct. 2003. 5 May 2008 http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc.

Rendall, Steve, and Julie Hollar. "Still Failing the "Fair and Balanced" Test." FAIR.Com. Aug. 2004. 5 May 2008 .

Blog 9...maybe. Its a FREE WRITE!!!

Im guessing a "freewrite" means I can write about whatever I want, however I want and its ok. That must be why its "free". So I could write withnospacesor i coud write spellin everthin rong or i could not give a crap about puncuation and correct grammar. I deduce I must not have to make this sound like it was written with the slightest bit of intellegence or writing ability. I guess that could be pretty cool too. I wont have to worry about the use of first or second person pronouns or contractions. It would be pretty dang cool if we could always write like this and not have to give a flip about what Mr. Hughes is going to read into our papers or not read into them. Sometimes, when writing, i get so worried that something doesnt sound just right I stress myself out about it. But as I have noticed, in this class, it really doesnt matter how your paper sounds, if Mr. Hughes doesnt like it, you get an F or maybe a D if hes in a good mood. This blog is in no way meant to degrade or say bad things about Mr. Hughes. I really wish I could just live a nomadic style life: no highschool, no college, no work, no nothing (yes, Im aware thats a double negative but read the rest of the paper, I DONT CARE!!!) I wish there were no quzizzes. How BOSS would that be? Yes, I did just bring back the slang "boss" and I do believe it is pretty boss so, spread it around. It is currently 10:30, on I think its Monday, maybe Tuesday, and Im not sure when this FREE WRITE is due, so Im doing it now. And Im not going to change it come tomorrow, or the next day. Its fine just how it is. And do you know why? Because, It's a free write and I get to express myself in whatever way I feel neseccary. And I am in a bad mood today, so I guess that bad moodiness will be taken out on this poor laptop and this stupid blog and this incredibly pointless assignment (I mean incredibly pointless unless it will bring up my grade in any way shape or form.) Well, I guess this just about covers my 200, word minimum. Actually I just broke 400 words without a sweat. Damn it feels good to write about everything, yet nothing at all.

Same Sex Marriage(VIII)

How much power is too much power? The government controls one's food, education, television programs, etc. The government is also attempting to control one's love life. Same sex marriage is a hot topic in political forums all over the nation. Should the government be able to regulate to whom one makes their vows? By laws set by the US and state governments, they have this power. Society should not have the power to tell someone who they can and can not marry because marriage is between two people who love each other.

Control by the government comes from various laws set over the citizens. Society now has the power to tell someone how to live their love life. Just because a relationship does not follow precedent does not mean the relationship and the love is not legitimate. In 2004, six months after homosexual marriages began in Massachusetts, 11 states approved constitutional amendments verifying matrimony as a heterosexual institution. The executive director for the NGLTF (National Gay and Lesbian Task Force) claimed that the voting on these amendments put "basic rights up to popular vote." (Peterson,2004) The United States Federal Government traditionally recognized any marriage that was recognized by the state. In 1996 the Defense of Marriage Act gave "marriage" a definition by saying it is the union of one man and one woman for the purpose of the federal government; yet, this act does not have the power to define marriage for separate states. Therefore, if a homosexual couple is married in Massachusetts the marriage is recognized by the state, but not the federal government. (Same Sex Marriage in the United States, Wikipedia) Laws which ban same sex marriage do in fact tell certain people how to live their love lives; which is obviously a violation of the constitutional clause saying that each citizen is entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Most of the devout feelings against same sex marriage comes from religious beliefs. People brought up in a Christian family are more likely to be against gay/lesbian marriage because of the beliefs they were brought up in. Many people believe that society has the right to tell someone who they can and can not marry because it is "morally wrong" to marry someone of the same sex. Telling a group of people that they cant marry someone of the same gender is like telling someone that they are not allowed to lie or drink alcohol. One person may see no harm in having a couple drinks but another could think it is one of the worst sins possible. What gives that person who thinks drinking is a sin the authority to not allow the other to drink? It is the same with same sex marriage. It is a persons constitutional right to be allowed freedom and happiness, some people may be denied those rights because of their sexual orientation.

It all just comes back to what is "morally right" and what is "morally wrong". Just because someone is different that what society is use to, they should not be denied their happiness. Due to certain laws set into place by our government, society now has the power to tell someone whom they can and can not marry. Society has defined marriage in a way that excludes some of the population. Society has taken away a freedom from those who wish to marry someone of the same gender. Society already controls what we watch, what we listen to, and what we wear. Should they be able to control this too?

Down in a Hole (VII)

"Down in a Hole" by Alice in Chains is a song that can be interpreted in many ways. There is the more literal meaning of "the hole" that could be hell. This is shown through lines such as "Down in a Hole, Loosing my Soul...My wings have been denied." Since hell is often referred to as a "pit" in which you loose your soul to the devil, we are lead to believe that this could be what the speaker is speaking of. The metaphorical meaning of "the hole" could be a pit of despair in which the speaker has found himself. For the purpose of the argument, this is the meaning we will go with. Through the use of pathos and vivid imagery the speaker attempts to give the audience a window to his soul and the pit of despair he has found himself in.

The speaker in "Down in a Hole" could be any one person who has found themselves in a hole that they put themselves in, that they cant get out. The speaker compares this dark point in his/her life to a tomb or a womb, both of in which there is no light and no escape.___ The speaker reiterates the point of helplessness by saying that he is down in a hole and he "doesn't know if he can be saved." He is mourning the loss of himself so he decorates his heart like a grave. The speaker is talking about his life and the expectations of his family, friends and the society he lived in. It is rumored that this song was written about the lead singer of Alice in Chain's drug use. When this identity that Layne Staley was supposed to live up to didn't play out the right way he actually turned to the use of drugs such as heroine. This information puts the depression and pit off addiction into perspective. The drugs form a pit of which there is no escape.

Because the speaker is down in this pit of despair and maybe even addiction he is comparing it to hell. Loosing one's soul and being denied one's wings is an reference to hell. "...They've put all the stones in their place" could be referencing to the ancient torturous ritual of stoning one to death. He feels like the pressure placed on him by his society, family, and friends is too much and he is weighted down by the "stones." The speaker has "tasted the sun" and his tongue has been "burned of the taste," which could be a parallel drawn between Staley's heroine use which ended up killing him and tasting the sun.

This song uses stylistic devices such as metaphors and repetition throughout the song to drive the purpose home. The whole song is a metaphor comparing the speakers despair to a pit that is inescapable. While there is no actual pit, the imagery produced by this metaphor is developed to help the audience better understand the pain the speaker is trying to portray. This also helps convey the raw emotion that is missing from a lot of our music today.( Alice in Chains did an amazing job of writing and singing this song to convey a feeling a lot of people who look to music for consonance can identify with.)

Jeremy (VI)

As school violence became a very eminent issue in our society Pearl Jam and many other prominent bands began to speak up and voice their opinions. A very controversial song that did just that was "Jeremy" by Peal Jam. This song is about a young boy who is shown no affection at home and is bullied at school. this song is written as if the speaker is a primary source to the ridicule and scorn that Jeremy received. The speaker is reminiscent and remorseful about what happened with Jeremy. It seems as though throughout the song the speaker is trying to tell Jeremy's story. He seems like he wants to take what he has done to Jeremy back and let others know that people aren't just what you see on the surface. Jeremy was a troubled young man and because people didn't accept him, he killed himself.

The speaker is obviously trying to appeal to the audience's emotions by speaking of Jeremy's troubled home and problems at school. He puts his heart on the page as he sings about the experience that has shaken him to his very foundation. The very fact that the speaker has gone through this terrible event makes him have an air of authority about him. The speaker is trying to accomplish the main goal of having people see what happened in his life because of the torment he put one child through. He does this by appealing to emotions and speaking in a remorseful tone.