The message behind this chapter is that evidence should not be accepted just because it's evidence. Reliability and breadth in evidence is important for a written piece to be coherent and persuasive. The chapter shows several examples of different ways to find good evidence, some of which seemed to be for academia and others more tailored for a magazine or newspaper article.
The section on experiments definitely influenced me the most in terms of persuasion. An experiment conducted by a reporter involved a hacker and some banks. The hacker demonstrated how easy it was to steal 100,000$ from a "Mr. Rich" by using only a laptop, a telephone booth, and dumpster diving twice. The report was taken through the entire process step-by-step. The experiment showed clearly, plainly for all to see that it was doable. Other types of first-hand evidence, to me, lacked that kind of reliability. The experiment showed that the hack was do-able and did not take much effort. Let's examine some other ways we could have tried to prove that statement using the other kinds of evidence in the chapter. Some are effective, some are not.
Observations :
Situation 1: A reporter sees the hacker from afar and follows. He does not know what happens, but that he dumpster dived behind two banks. Dumpster diving is not hard, but this is not evidence enough of anything.
Situation 2: A reporter overhears the call from outside the booth. Nothing is out of the ordinary, except the probably large dollar amount Jesse says out loud on his side of the conversation. Not evidence of much except someone has that much money.
Interviews:
The hacker is interviewed. He describes his process. It is good evidence because it demonstrates what he did and how he did it, especially how easy it was.
Surveys:
A large sample of hackers are questioned : Could you hack into a bank and move funds? If yes, have you done it before? A majority of yes could show that hackers can do it, but not that it is easy. Adding a question evaluating ease could be biased as people who call themselves hackers can be of various skills. Ease is relative.
Personal Experience:
Doing the procedure yourself and reporting it is another great way to prove your point (Although in this situation it would be highly illegal). You feel exactly how it is and say for yourself how easy or not it is. Credibility prior to publishing the piece would be essential, however.
I think experimenting is great, because it combines the best of personal experience with observation. It results in an in-depth experience that makes you understand everything about how something works.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Pan's Labyrinth (p. 268)
Pan's Labyrinth supports disobedience through conflict. Internal conflicts show a struggle within the characters themselves, and the protagonists are the ones who disobey. The 'bad guys' try to follow the rules and they end up dead. Ofelia and the other protagonists struggle with their destinies but ultimately decide for themselves. The movie quite vividly and strongly supports thinking for yourself in this manner. .
The movie Apocalypse Now! supports disobedience. It is subtle, but evident in this statement by the antagonist Kurtz :
"You have to have men who are moral, and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling, without passion,without judgment. Without judgment. Because it's judgment that defeats us."
Kurtz's internal conflict and insanity is blindingly obvious in this statement. He opens with the comment that he prefers soldiers to be moral. Later in the tirade, he then states 'it's judgement that defeats us'. Morality and judgment go hand in hand because you need morals to judge fairly. Kurtz ends up lost in insanity, screaming 'the horror, the horror', because he lost his internal conflict to following his mistaken beliefs unthinkingly, unbendingly, unwillingly.
Apocalypse Now! showed that despite changing opinions you can still follow unthinkingly, and that this is negative.
You may say that the conflicts were mandatory in Pan's script, that their only point was to drive the story along and not to symbolize disobedience. This is wrong, because although a conflict is necessary for a progressive plot, the word itself in a literary setting implies a lesson learned. Conflicts start with a problem and are resolved. They are resolved in Pan's Labyrinth by way of disobedience. The plot supports this notion because it is integral to the whole experience, that independence is a good thing.
External conflict in Pan's also supports disobedience. The movie centers around two parallel conflicts. The real-world conflict is the Spanish Civil War, involving the unthinking Vidal against the democratic and anarchist partisans. The fantasy world of Ofelia pits her against the Faun's test of princess-like stubbornness and independent thinking. Vidal and his boring, hard-faced, gray suited men lose their struggle against the warm, brown-clothed, country-looking rebels. The rebels fight for what they believe in and Vidal fights for what he has been told is right. Ofelia, too, decides for herself, lets her own thinking take over the Faun's instructions. The movie supports disobedience through these two conflicts.
However, some may say that the Pale Man was a consequence of disobedience and that the movie doesn't support it at all. This is wrong because there is a difference between disobedience and doing the opposite of what someone is told. Disobeying implies making a choice, thinking, being a person. Just doing the opposite over and over would result in death just as obedience would, as shown in the scene with the Pale Man.
That is why disobedience is supported by the movie Pan's Labyrinth.
The movie Apocalypse Now! supports disobedience. It is subtle, but evident in this statement by the antagonist Kurtz :
"You have to have men who are moral, and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling, without passion,without judgment. Without judgment. Because it's judgment that defeats us."
Kurtz's internal conflict and insanity is blindingly obvious in this statement. He opens with the comment that he prefers soldiers to be moral. Later in the tirade, he then states 'it's judgement that defeats us'. Morality and judgment go hand in hand because you need morals to judge fairly. Kurtz ends up lost in insanity, screaming 'the horror, the horror', because he lost his internal conflict to following his mistaken beliefs unthinkingly, unbendingly, unwillingly.
Apocalypse Now! showed that despite changing opinions you can still follow unthinkingly, and that this is negative.
You may say that the conflicts were mandatory in Pan's script, that their only point was to drive the story along and not to symbolize disobedience. This is wrong, because although a conflict is necessary for a progressive plot, the word itself in a literary setting implies a lesson learned. Conflicts start with a problem and are resolved. They are resolved in Pan's Labyrinth by way of disobedience. The plot supports this notion because it is integral to the whole experience, that independence is a good thing.
External conflict in Pan's also supports disobedience. The movie centers around two parallel conflicts. The real-world conflict is the Spanish Civil War, involving the unthinking Vidal against the democratic and anarchist partisans. The fantasy world of Ofelia pits her against the Faun's test of princess-like stubbornness and independent thinking. Vidal and his boring, hard-faced, gray suited men lose their struggle against the warm, brown-clothed, country-looking rebels. The rebels fight for what they believe in and Vidal fights for what he has been told is right. Ofelia, too, decides for herself, lets her own thinking take over the Faun's instructions. The movie supports disobedience through these two conflicts.
However, some may say that the Pale Man was a consequence of disobedience and that the movie doesn't support it at all. This is wrong because there is a difference between disobedience and doing the opposite of what someone is told. Disobeying implies making a choice, thinking, being a person. Just doing the opposite over and over would result in death just as obedience would, as shown in the scene with the Pale Man.
That is why disobedience is supported by the movie Pan's Labyrinth.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Pan's Labyrinth
This movie is amazing. It has phenomenal acting, a deep story, and widespread subtle and meaningful symbolism. The two parallel stories connect deeply with each other. Ofelia, the main character, faces trials that ultimately see how independent she is by testing her disobedience for what is right. Disobedience and following the rules or instructions is a major theme in the movie. I want to point out all the symbols in the movie, because there are a lot of important morals and observations hidden in the fabric of the show.
However, there are so many. We will cover some of the big ones, though!
Captain Vidal
Captain Vidal is the model of obedience. He is epitome of unthinking followers, of being a part of a social machine rather than an individual. He expects obedience and unquestioningly follows the fascist ideology so much that it is not even brought up in the movie, his mind, or by his henchmen. As the doctor said to him,
"To obey, just like that, for the sake of obeying, without questioning? That's something only people like you can do, Captain."
This line and the fact that the Captain is the bad guy implies that following the rules without being an individual is a bad thing, that thinking for yourself is far more important than making others happy and structured.
The Pale Man AKA The Hand-Eyed Monster
The Pale Man symbolizes decadence, of the dangers of disobeying too much, of being capitalistic. Before his ey- erm... hands, he has a magnificent table displaying the most luscious feast I've ever seen on film. The Pale Man is the opposite of Captain Vidal. His body reflects this, he cannot see something unless he wants it. His sight is his greed. He points his hands at what he wants to grab, what he wants is what he sees.
Ofelia encounters the Pale Man when she strays too far from the fairies' and Faun's directions. Yes, disobedience is good, but when you stray too far to the point of greed and selfishness, you encounter destructive capitalism and decadence in the form of the Pale Man. She eats two plump perfect grapes, and the Pale Man awakes, presumably to punish whoever took anything of his. Her hunger results in two fairies being eaten and almost herself too. I find it interesting the fairies warned Ofelia a lot more when she went for the grapes than the other little door, as if they knew this was a disobedience control test all along.
The Labyrinth
Why a labyrinth? Why is that word in the title? What's the point?
The labyrinth represents Ofelia's journey through the story, her progression to becoming a princess. We must define labyrinth first, however, because a popular misconception is that it is a maze. It is not. A labyrinth is linear, there are no branches, you can only go one way but you never know where you will end up, how long it will be, when the turn is. A labyrinth will get you somewhere but you have no information about how. That is Ofelia's journey.
It looks straight. She follows the Faun's directions, gets the stuff, does the quests, and poof she's a princess at home all lovey-dovey. Nope. It's got twists and turns and it is incredibly misleading about where she is heading or where she is, and if she doesn't stay on the right, the only, path, she will hit a wall and get stuck or hurt or blocked.
Her journey is a test of independence through thinking for herself, of disobedience, of stubbornness. If she doesn't follow exactly the right path despite the misleading walls of the Faun's directions, she will not prove herself the princess that she is and be stuck in the cruel real world of Fascist Spain.
There are so many more symbols, and their meanings are all debateable and varied and deep. Pan's Labyrinth is a great movie for educational discussions and I think it was a good choice and recommend it for next year.
p.s. 650+ words. Happy now Ms. Wood?
However, there are so many. We will cover some of the big ones, though!
Captain VidalCaptain Vidal is the model of obedience. He is epitome of unthinking followers, of being a part of a social machine rather than an individual. He expects obedience and unquestioningly follows the fascist ideology so much that it is not even brought up in the movie, his mind, or by his henchmen. As the doctor said to him,
"To obey, just like that, for the sake of obeying, without questioning? That's something only people like you can do, Captain."
This line and the fact that the Captain is the bad guy implies that following the rules without being an individual is a bad thing, that thinking for yourself is far more important than making others happy and structured.
The Pale Man AKA The Hand-Eyed MonsterThe Pale Man symbolizes decadence, of the dangers of disobeying too much, of being capitalistic. Before his ey- erm... hands, he has a magnificent table displaying the most luscious feast I've ever seen on film. The Pale Man is the opposite of Captain Vidal. His body reflects this, he cannot see something unless he wants it. His sight is his greed. He points his hands at what he wants to grab, what he wants is what he sees.
Ofelia encounters the Pale Man when she strays too far from the fairies' and Faun's directions. Yes, disobedience is good, but when you stray too far to the point of greed and selfishness, you encounter destructive capitalism and decadence in the form of the Pale Man. She eats two plump perfect grapes, and the Pale Man awakes, presumably to punish whoever took anything of his. Her hunger results in two fairies being eaten and almost herself too. I find it interesting the fairies warned Ofelia a lot more when she went for the grapes than the other little door, as if they knew this was a disobedience control test all along.
The LabyrinthWhy a labyrinth? Why is that word in the title? What's the point?
The labyrinth represents Ofelia's journey through the story, her progression to becoming a princess. We must define labyrinth first, however, because a popular misconception is that it is a maze. It is not. A labyrinth is linear, there are no branches, you can only go one way but you never know where you will end up, how long it will be, when the turn is. A labyrinth will get you somewhere but you have no information about how. That is Ofelia's journey.
It looks straight. She follows the Faun's directions, gets the stuff, does the quests, and poof she's a princess at home all lovey-dovey. Nope. It's got twists and turns and it is incredibly misleading about where she is heading or where she is, and if she doesn't stay on the right, the only, path, she will hit a wall and get stuck or hurt or blocked.
Her journey is a test of independence through thinking for herself, of disobedience, of stubbornness. If she doesn't follow exactly the right path despite the misleading walls of the Faun's directions, she will not prove herself the princess that she is and be stuck in the cruel real world of Fascist Spain.
There are so many more symbols, and their meanings are all debateable and varied and deep. Pan's Labyrinth is a great movie for educational discussions and I think it was a good choice and recommend it for next year.
p.s. 650+ words. Happy now Ms. Wood?
Sunday, September 20, 2009
The Media & Obama
LIBERAL LIES ABOUT NATIONAL HEALTH CARE: BONUS JOE WILSON EDITION!
Written by Ann CoulterIn an online Yahoo editorial, Coulter (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/
She also brings up the imaginary stereotype of Republicans as racist illiterates, as though that's what all liberals feel.
This is what all Republicans look like!
Coulter has some valid points but she includes too much extraneous information, likely to appeal to the pathos of her audience.. She has few facts to back up herself. Her writing is less persuasive and more catered for inciting an angry mob. She uses popular culture and rumors to beef up her argument.
We've just read Ann Coulter!
She says Obama is lying. When Obama said no illegal immigrant would be covered by his public option, Coulter says he was misleading.
She quotes a subsection that reads :
"Nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." (Section 216 , HR3200)
What is a subtitle? Why is this not in the entirety of the bill? Coulter argues that this section, which details giving out vouchers to poor health care clients, is the only part with an anti-illegal immigrant section.
She claims Obama was only technically not lying, and was rather misleading.
YOU'VE MISLED!
Coulter's credibility is practically nothing, she only uses that one disagreement, everything else is biased, stereotyped, or a story that does not seem to connect with her main point.
Her main point is that health care will be given to illegal immigrants. They will use up taxpayer money. Obama has said, that illegal immigrant will not be given health care. If he's pushing that policy and pushing for public health care, then he's not going to just let a bill pass that gives it to illegal immigrants. That would be lying.
This problem is easily rectified with a requirement for a Social Security number.
Coulter is screaming as though will bring down the entire health care bill, this little issue. There is no disagreement between parties. Both do not support illegal immigration.
Her main point is that health care will be given to illegal immigrants. They will use up taxpayer money. Obama has said, that illegal immigrant will not be given health care. If he's pushing that policy and pushing for public health care, then he's not going to just let a bill pass that gives it to illegal immigrants. That would be lying.
This problem is easily rectified with a requirement for a Social Security number.
Coulter is screaming as though will bring down the entire health care bill, this little issue. There is no disagreement between parties. Both do not support illegal immigration.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
This I Believe
I actually wrote an essay for this for my English class last year... I used my first thing for my topic.
I believe in...
Fun
Serving your community
Making the world a better place
Honesty
Pride and Integrity
Following your dreams
Making every day as if it is your last, learning as if you would live forever
I believe in friendship.
Love
I believe in democracy.
I believe in diversity being the foundation of the world.
I believe in...
Fun
Serving your community
Making the world a better place
Honesty
Pride and Integrity
Following your dreams
Making every day as if it is your last, learning as if you would live forever
I believe in friendship.
Love
I believe in democracy.
I believe in diversity being the foundation of the world.
Nafsi in Lunsford
The one argument that Nafsi is making is that empathy is a major driving force behind life. She supports this argument with a story about her expulsion from the University of Tehran, and an analysis of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.
This is an factual argument, however, she uses emotions as evidence. The word 'empathy' requires emotion to be discussed. In the reference to Huckleberry Finn, she points out that Huck's empathy changed his view on slavery because he put himself in Jim's shoes. Huck's emotions and perspective caused a change in his behavior, and this thus changed the direction of the story. It is a perfect example of how empathy drives the story that is life.
She then goes on to connect this with another story about herself. She was a teacher at the University of Tehran. In 1980, when she was kicked out, two students of hers who vehemently disagreed with her defended her. Why? They put themselves in her shoes. They understood that being kicked out was wrong, and they stood up for her. This definitely altered their lives, despite that she didn't get her job back.
Only empathy could make someone decide to go to hell on behalf of another person.
A good phrase she uses is 'shock of recognition'. I like this phrase. She uses it to describe how a person feels once they start thinking about another person. She feels this when she watches the news.
This feeling is recognizing that that person is human. They are struggling, they are different, they are strangers to you. Nafsi argues that this is what drives diplomacy and dialogue, this feeling to reach out. This is what causes things to be more than just trading and grabbing and warfare over something the other wants.
Empathy is the driving force behind drama.
This is an factual argument, however, she uses emotions as evidence. The word 'empathy' requires emotion to be discussed. In the reference to Huckleberry Finn, she points out that Huck's empathy changed his view on slavery because he put himself in Jim's shoes. Huck's emotions and perspective caused a change in his behavior, and this thus changed the direction of the story. It is a perfect example of how empathy drives the story that is life.
She then goes on to connect this with another story about herself. She was a teacher at the University of Tehran. In 1980, when she was kicked out, two students of hers who vehemently disagreed with her defended her. Why? They put themselves in her shoes. They understood that being kicked out was wrong, and they stood up for her. This definitely altered their lives, despite that she didn't get her job back.
Only empathy could make someone decide to go to hell on behalf of another person.
A good phrase she uses is 'shock of recognition'. I like this phrase. She uses it to describe how a person feels once they start thinking about another person. She feels this when she watches the news.
This feeling is recognizing that that person is human. They are struggling, they are different, they are strangers to you. Nafsi argues that this is what drives diplomacy and dialogue, this feeling to reach out. This is what causes things to be more than just trading and grabbing and warfare over something the other wants.
Empathy is the driving force behind drama.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Intellectual Standards
This article is sound, well-written, and clear. I also agree with it's message.
It emphasizes the importance of staying on topic, presenting only relevant information, and assuming that everyone knows what a word means unless it is being used differently. Standards are important because they focus the mind and force the writer to present the information in a tidy, precise manner.
It emphasizes the importance of staying on topic, presenting only relevant information, and assuming that everyone knows what a word means unless it is being used differently. Standards are important because they focus the mind and force the writer to present the information in a tidy, precise manner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)