Why? Who Cares?

Ok, so, in this, I give general points, but I don't really say why it's important.
Here's a revision.

How ironic that as my brain is doing flip flops debating whether or not technology in schools is a good idea, I am sitting in my college composition class, sitting in front of a computer, just like I do every class. You wouldn't think that a composition class would need to take place in a computer lab, or involve a blog, but it does. This is common nowadays. Technology is used for everything. So, thus comes the argument over whether or not this is appropriate. Will students be harmed by technology? Or is this a powerful learning tool? Without some mutual understanding of a common goal, I feel like each will continue to emphasize their own point and not come to a conclusion that is the best for the children.

While parties on both sides of the fence will turn themselves blue arguing either way, I think what they both may not be seeing is that nobody is arguing for complete inclusion or removal of technology. The main problem Stoll cites as a problem is that computers will seem "provide a answer" to all the world's problems, but not provide much of an answer at all. Schaffer, on the other hand, argues that the "epistemic learning processes that computers provide" are close to an actual physical experience, and will help students.

Essentially, what I'm really getting at is that in the long run, though, the common goal is to teach students in a way that gets them to actually think differently and more complexly. Ideally, a combination of those "epistemic video games" and of personal teacher-student work would be the best, and I think that's what everyone should be arguing for.

Why? Who Cares?

Draft

How ironic that as my brain is doing flip flops debating whether or not technology in schools is a good idea, I am sitting in my college composition class, sitting in front of a computer, just like I do every class. You wouldn't think that a composition class would need to take place in a computer lab, or involve a blog, but it does. This is common nowadays. Technology is used for everything. So, thus comes the argument over whether or not this is appropriate. Will students be harmed by technology? Or is this a powerful learning tool?
While parties on both sides of the fence will turn themselves blue arguing either way, I think what they both may not be seeing is that nobody is arguing for complete inclusion or removal of technology. The main problem Stoll cites as a problem is that computers will seem "provide a answer" to all the world's problems, but not provide much of an answer at all. Schaffer, on the other hand, argues that the epistemic learning processes that computers provide are close to an actual physical experience, and will help students.
In the long run, though, the common goal is to teach students in a way that gets them to actually think differently and more complexly. Ideally, a combination of those "epistemic video games" and of personal teacher-student work would be the best, and I think that's what everyone should be arguing for.

(photo)synthesis

The technological revolution, while proven to be beneficial in some situations, may not be appropriate for a blanket form of education, as it may be harmful to some students.

I Benefits of Computers
a. video games that simulate activities
b. benefits of thinking epistemically
c. good for supplementing, not as the main

II Problems with Computers
a. digital can never replace reality
b. knowledge without computers isn't necessarily only memorization based
c. computers, though, good for money constraints

Computers and Technology

Richard Ohmann, in "Computers and Technology" contests that "its easy to get the impression that computers can save the U.S. education." However, he doesn't agree. He contests that education is a business oriented thing and this new demand for computers is something that will benefit this business. His four main points are that education is big business, education is for business, business calls the political tune, and business is privatizing whatever it can. He also argues that this technology trend is giving students the false idea that technology can "bless all our desires." But what, he says, of learning outside of the classroom?
I agree with Ohmann. Business has become a huge part of our nation, as is the natue with capitalism. However, the control over schools can be dangerous. Of course software companies want schools to buy their products, they have a perfectly set up market for the future in the students, and think about how much money they would get. And about learning outside of the classroom, having technologically based learning is good for research, but horrible for so many other things. Many children build social skills through school, and this won't happen without interaction with other students. Furthermore, how can virtually learning about dinosaur bones ever beat seeing Sue at the Field Museum? While technology is a great tool, I feel it should be limited.

Kate Grube
Draft: Summary
“The Empire of Images in our World of Bodies”

Susan Bordo isn’t beautiful anymore. At least, that’s what society has been telling her. Hollywood no longer embraces her type of woman: the over-50, slightly wrinkly, non-surgically enhanced woman. In her essay “The Empire of Images in our World of Bodies” she debates that women are constantly under societal scrutiny. Having been told that women in their 50s can look good, she says that this refers to “Susan Sarandon, who looked older in 1991's Thelma and Louise than she does in her movies today.” The amount of artificially restructured beauty that runs rampant in the US currently has led Bordo to her disappointment over the popularity of Botox parties and the frequent use of feminism as an excuse to participate. Unlike many of her peers, Bordo believes its impossible to ignore the effect had on women by the media. She gives this riveting example: “If you get rid of it through exercise rather than purging or laxatives, you don't have a problem. Theirs is a world in which groups of dorm girls will plow voraciously through pizzas, chewing and then spitting out each mouthful. Do they have a disorder? Of course not -- look, they're eating pizza.” She’s giving an insight to the problems that many girls have, and how normal these problems seem to be. Particularly upsetting to Bordo was an episode of a talk show where teenage girls who are considered “tomboys” are given a feminine makeover. Bordo exclaims that she wanted to embrace the girls and free them from their captivity in order to protect them from the pressure to look like a classically beautiful woman. Of the same token, she is baffled by the blatantly clear division of boys’ and girls’ toys and room accessories, and why a middle, more unisex ground isn’t taken for girls like her daughter, who love sports. Finally expressing a moment of shared anger between her fellow women, Bordo ends with a statement that yearns for all of her readers to share this disgust with the media.
On the whole, I share Bordo’s feelings, but I feel she may have gotten carried away at points. I feel like it would be hard to find a woman who is so confidant that she hasn’t been affected by these images in the media of beautiful people. Almost everything we do is dictated by things that we’ve seen others doing. We’re all sheep, really. I’ve experienced the things she talks about, and I agree. Growing up in the most technologically advanced generation in history, there’s nowhere where women aren’t exposed to other good-looking women worthy of envy. Even in magazines about things completely unrelated to beauty, we see beautiful women advertising prescription drugs or household appliances. Concurrently, when we do look to beauty-related things, all we see are pictures of women who are as thin as society deems them to be. The example she gives of the girls purging pizza is shocking at the very least. Its depressing. Obviously, they aren’t doing things that are good for them sheerly for the purpose of looking a certain way. This is something to be worried about. How can things be ok in a world where young women do this to themselves? While I am shocked at this, I will say that I found her rant about the Maury Povich show a little much. Honestly, yes, it is harmful to steer girls away from their natural place of happiness. Yes, they are thrusting feminine qualities upon girls who would not normally possess them. And, finally, yes, many of these girls are undoubtedly persuaded by their disappointed mothers, but if they feel as if they look pretty in their made-over state, and they continue to fit this pattern, how is that harmful to them? They have found a niche that they didn’t suspect to feel comfortable in, but is society really completely corrupting their brains to the point that in a matter of hours, these girls have completely changes their perception of what they like and dislike about themselves? Many times, they gain confidence, by feeling feminine and pretty. Why is that bad? Bordo should be proud of the girls who have decided to change. They have made a change that will make them even more capable of functioning in the world as the confidant women that they should be. Finally, her statement about finding appropriate room furnishings for her daughter really only reflects the horrible business decisions made by various dealers. As a majority, boys are more interested in sports than girls, and girls are more interested in stars and shiny things than boys are. Yes, there are many that cross this barrier, but for many families, this is not a problem. I don’t think this is a signal of a greater problem. In conclusion, Bordo really is on the right track and has pointed out some very important things that the world needs to be aware of. And while she occasionally got a little carried away, I am shocked by many statements she made.

Gerald Graff believes that we have underestimated many of our fellow human beings. In his essay "Hidden Intellectualism" he contests that students apathetic (and seemingly hopeless) in the classroom will flourish in a setting where their personal interests and skills are used to cultivate their academic potential. To go even further, these apathetic students may contain a wealth of knowledge and skills that may not be present in the more classically bookish student. Graff illustrates this through a personal experience when he says, "It was in these discussions with friends about toughness and sports, I think, and in my reading of sports books and magazines, that I began to learn the rudiments of the intellectual life." Inspired by his life outside of school, he fine-tuned his ability to argue academically. Furthermore, when students lack interest in a topic, they'll only produce bland, uninvolved work. The test of a true intellectual is to bring life to even the least highbrow subject. Graff proposes that schools will benefit from providing this gateway between students' personal interests and future academic ventures.

dont blame the eater

In Davin Zinczenko's "Don't Blame the Eater," the author contests that as a young child with working parents, his diet of fast food made him obese. Further, he claims that the accessability of fast food is much greater than that of a healthier option. Specifically, the ratio in his town of Big Macs to grapefruit was about a million to one.
I may be confused about where his family did their grocery shopping. Did they buy all of their food items at Burger King? They have to eat at home SOME time. And while his busy mom or dad is at the grocery store, why don't they buy a loaf of wonder bread, some american cheese, and some miracle whip. This would last about 2 weeks. Granted, I hate miracle whip, american cheese, and wonder bread, but it is another option. More importantly, it's dirt cheap. Throw it in a plastic bag and eat it on the way to wherever you're going. Easy as McApple Pie.



In David Zinczenko's "Don't Blame the Eater," he observes that the overweight people suing fast food companies really don't have an option because of the ease with which they are decieved by what they are eating. An unassuming cheeseburger may hide enough calories to last you through half of a normal day. He stresses that alot of caloric information is incorrect and leaves out important ingredients.
I wholeheartedly agree. A hungry teen is thinking about one and one thing only; how to achieve ultimate peace between mind and belly. I doubt that in the line of Wendy's, a mother is having much trouble weighing the caloric content of the french fries she is about to give her son against the relief she will have once he stops complaining of hunger pangs when she is already late for a meeting. Possibly, though, making a court case of it will make the situation more of a joke than anything.

First Assignment

http://www.scrappleface.com/

"

by Scott Ott

(2007-09-05) — Idaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig, who is not gay, today announced that he had reconsidered his decision to leave the Senate following his reconsideration of his guilty plea to disorderly conduct charges related to his arrest in a men’s room in the Minneapolis Airport.

In a poignant memo to Senate colleagues, Sen. Craig said simply: “I can’t quit you.”

A spokesman, who insisted that Mr. Craig is not gay and was not trying to solicit a police officer in a men’s room stall, said that the Idaho lawmaker had initially announced his resignation from the Senate in hopes of avoiding publicity, and “to make the whole thing go away,” after he discovered that pleading guilty to a crime failed to make it go away.

“Essentially, Sen. Craig is still experimenting with ways to make previous mistakes vanish,” the unnamed source said. “If backing out of his resignation and revoking his guilty plea doesn’t work, he may apply for a refund on the airline ticket that took him to Minneapolis in the first place.”'

This humorous blog begins with a fact, then continues on to build on this in a humorous way. The "they" is Senator Craig, who said that he reconsidered leaving the Senate. By giving real information in the beginning prior to making a humorous statement, the writer proves that they are making a joke based on solid information, not jsut blindly making fun of it. In response, the author jokes that the Senator is trying in vain to correct his mistakes, but is failing miserably. The "I can't quit you" joke alludes to the film Brokeback Mountain, and gives the authors opinion that the Senator is, in fact, gay.

------