Latest Entries »

b.p. 3

When watching T.V. chances are that you are not thinking about life and other problems, you are focused on what you are watching. Shows like Family Guy and the Simpsons are much deeper then what you are watching in front of you. Behind each joke there is a meaning on why that joke it told, whether it is an economic, political, or social issue, chances are one of these shows will poke fun at it.

 

The article written by Antonia Peacocke entitled “Family Guy and Freud: Jokes and their relations to the Unconscious” brings up some very good point on how Family Guy has gotten in trouble over the years with its jokes. The show has been banned from T.V. twice only to come back to the air with thanks to its dedicated viewers.

 

The article shows how the jokes in Family Guy go much deeper then what it seems, For example, the in a episode they make fun of a 1950’s sexual harassment video. We may laugh at it but they did have videos like that back in the day. Some people who don’t like the show found that to be offensive. Another joke is a shot at Oprah and her viewers. In the scene Brian says to Stewie “so you do what ever Oprah say” Stewie replies “ this book has been around for 50 years, it’s a classic” Brian Says “ but there is a giant Oprah sticker on it” Stewie yells back “ SHE DIDT TELL US TO READ IT YET”. The sad part about that scene is that it is true. If someone sees a celebrity endorse a product, they think that it is ok for them to get said product.

 

“Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence” by Douglas Rushkoff talks about how the Simpsons show is ironic how a young kid named Bart Simpson can outsmart his Parents and teachers. Its kind of funny because he always gets in trouble. Like the article about Family Guy, the Simpsons also make fun of things that are going on in the world. For example, during the opening scenes, the family is shown rushing home from whatever they are doing in order to catch the news. This happened in with the news in the 1990’s. People only got the news that was broadcasted during the five p.m. news or what the New York Times would publish in their news articles.

 

I think that it is pretty funny how jokes in Family Guy and The Simpsons have a deeper meaning that what it shown on the show. The sad part is that what ever they are making fun off is true and that people will do whatever the T.V. tells them to do whether it would be Oprah or the five p.m. news.

 

 

 

 

b.p.4

topic. hockey N.H.L.

 

Nhl.com

The official illustrated nhl history: from original six to a global game by Arthur Pincus, Len Hochberg and Chris Malcolm

Hockey Chronicle by Stan Fischler

The ultimate source of the national hockey league by Dan Diamond

 

 

b.p.2

The article written by Stephen Johnson entitled “Watching T.V. makes you smarter” and the article written by Dana Stevens entitled “thinking outside the idiot box” are very differently written articles but I think that they both bring up some very good points.

Dana Stevens from the very beginning bashes the article written by Steven Johnson. Stevens states that Johnson’s article is very confusing and as far as she could tell the thesis for his article is that over the last two decades television programs have gotten more advance with the story lines and some shows need you to think and guess to keep up with the story of the show. Steven’s thinks that watching television does not make you smarter and doesn’t make you think about things more. Steven’s thinks that watching T.V. only trains you to watch more T.V.

The article written by Steve Johnson is how he thinks that over the years T.V. programs such as 24 have gotten more educational and how he thinks that parents should let their kids watch more T.V. shows because they are educational. Show’s like 24 make you use your brain because they make you have to think about past episodes and the constantly changing character relationships. Johnson also talks about other channels that are dedicated in education (discovery channel, animal planet…) he is saying that it is ok to watch and learn from T.V. because it can teach children about everyday life and prepare them for their future adulthood.

Both articles are written very differently. I believe that Dana Stevens article is written more clearly and has a much better thesis the Steven Johnsons Article. That being said I also agree with Stevens’s article. I don’t think that watching 24 will help children for their future and they should not be learning from shows like that. If kids want to learn about life they should just stay in school. Watching T.V., I believe will only get you a horrible job.

BP3

Jeffrey Li

Pop Culture

Have you ever watched television and realize that scenes taken place in a show is relevant to an era of our lifetimes or something from history? Two cartoons that you will see me watch that do this are “The Family Guy” and “The Simpsons”. These comedies are believed to satirize or poke fun out of chronological events making it impossible to believe these events. There are two articles that talk about the shows which are “Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence” By Douglas Rushkoff and “Family guy and Freud: Jokes and there Relations” By Antonia Peacocke”. “The Family Guy” and “The Simpsons” are shows that are great for intellectual analysis because they educate us in historical events and present events.

I also agree that these cartoons that seem to be for children poke fun or make jokes but allow the viewers to see a different image of life. Looking into Rushkoff’s piece, he writes out a scene or skit in “The Simpsons” where Bart Simpsons is presented a gift which is a toy microphone that is connected to one small radio. One day Bart drops the radio into a well and gets the whole town thinking that a little boy named Timmy O ‘Toole fell down the well. In Rushkoff’s essay he explains that “Co-opting a media event out of real history, when a little girl struggled for life at the bottom of a well as rescuers worked to save her” (Rushkoff 250). This is supposing to be an event in history that I have remembered watching when I was a child on the news. In kind of a way you can say that “The Simpsons” are teaching history by ridiculing or make fun past situations.

However these shows don’t just give us intellectual analysis they teach us about current life. Another excerpt presented in Peacocke’s article where the baby and the dog of “The Family Guy” are having a conversation about how Stewie the baby is following Oprah. Of course he tries to deny any relation to following Oprah but Brian the dog will not fall into little Stewie’s lie and out smarts the poor kid. Peacocke states “Brain and Stewie demonstrate insightfully and comically how Americans are willing to follow the instructions of a celebrity blindly” (Peacocke 262).  This means that Americans will buy whatever a celebrity has which is kind of true. Therefore, making these shows some sort of educational.

Blog post 5

Jeffrey Li

English 111

Blogpost 6

In The McDonaldization of Society 6, I have come across an argument about the need for human labor is becoming less and less of a necessity as computers are coming to a rise. Industries are trying to use technology to do tasks that a humans are able to do because it is cheaper and faster. This may be good for the CEO’s of the companies but it is really in my opinion a bad decision. Switching out humans for robots will create more and more unemployment throughout the world. Making jobs less available to humans who need to support their families. This can create more problems in products because a robot is able to do the work but can fail as if a human can do the work and if he/she fails they are able to correct it.

Go to your local bank, before technology became such a big deal there were no electronic tellers to make your day go faster. Yes, banking used to be done by humans alone. The tellers were indeed humans and they would hand count the money that you were withdrawing. Then in 1972 the first automated teller machine was presented to banks. Making human bank tellers less of a necessity and creating more unemployment. If technology keeps going, you can say McDonalds is going to be fully computer operated. You will be talking to a machine to take your orders and machines will be making your food. This will create the biggest unemployment chaos the world will ever see.

As technology continues to grow, jobs will become more rare and harder to obtain. This will create poverty and perhaps a second great depression. A human is able to do as many things and more than a computer. In contrast, a computer is able to do what humans can do but only if you command it to do it. I don’t agree with what technology is going to do to this world. Soon humans will become extinct and robots will run the world.

Mcdonaldization society 6 post 5

Jonathan Estecumber                                                                               11/12/2010

                                                 Mcdonaldization of society 6 blog post 5

      As reading the article of Mcdonaldization George ritzer points out a lot of conflict that technology is going to bring. Since technology is taking over were not going to need a lot of humans to work for the franchise anymore. He gives other examples that not only McDonalds would fall into this category but a lot of companies are too such as banks, and more fast food restaurants.  He goes into a lot of details on how this is going to be a big impact on us and the economy because this could mainly affect unemployment.

     In Banks you always have a teller there in the window assisting you on what you need. It could be such as to deposit money, or withdraw money from you bank account.  But what I’m trying to say is that one day this is not going to happen you won’t see tellers no more or nothing the reason why is because the atm machines in your bank now lets you withdraw money from your debit card account and now it allows you to deposit money into a atm machine from your bank it could be cash or check.  And know you wouldn’t need the tellers to help you unless you have a savings account. But jobs like that are going to run out because technology like that is taking over.

    In a way technology is good and in a way is bad, in a way is good is because it would make everything much easier and it would make life easy if you’re in owner of a company. A bad way is because people out there are looking for a job and they want to earn some type of income. I really think that in a decade or so the percentage of unemployment is going to sky rocket because there is new technology like every day.

Blog Post # 1

Low self esteem and an advocated slim figure is present in both males and females in our society. Throughout time all people have had some sort of self doubt and self consciousness. I’m sure even cavemen and indians felt embarrassed about their appearances at times. Whether the feeling springs subconciously through envy, anger, pity, who knows, can differ within different people. It’s normal for people to care about how they look.

Everyday guys are subjected to movies full of guys with 8 packs and arms bigger than my legs. Ladies are at the mercy of coke bottle figure models in every magazine and on every billboard. Being beautiful is a stereotype that will stick forever, in the male and female society.

Can TV really make someone smarter?

                                Television can induce the brain into learning things. After having read articles such as “Watching TV makes you smarter” by Steven Johnson and “Thinking Outside the Idiot Box” by Dana Stevens which are arguments of two completely different views where one can see that they need to not only emphasize on their argument (their point of view) but also from the viewers (put themselves on the viewer’s shoes). In my opinion they both bring up good points but they sure tend to get away from the right path/topic.

                                The article “watching TV makes you smarter” by Steven Johnson stimulates parents into allowing their children to let them watch televised shows/series which will expand their view on things meaning that by watching television one can get educated just as if you were attending school. Johnson brings up a point, there are channels that specialize on teaching and give documentaries as well, however he is not only referring to those channels we know are educational(Animal planet, National Geographic, Discovery channel) but also the regular TV series such as Law and Order, and 24,etc. What we can learn through these series is not only things that might actually help one in their future or everyday life but it also shows some inappropriate language and violent images that are or can be inappropriate for underage children.

                                “Thinking Outside the Idiot Box” by Dana Stevens is a different type of article that still manages to capture you in the sense that if you start reading it you definitely want to know how it ends. Stevens believes that Johnson is wrong, she has read his article and based “Thinking outside the idiot box” around it, Stevens strongly disagrees with pretty much everything Johnson has written about especially since those are most of the series Johnson speaks of and gets into extreme detail in his article. Stevens questions the words Johnson has given to his article in terms of how it can be pointless to learn from a show if you don’t even know at least half of what is exactly happening on them.

                                Both Johnson and Stevens make really good points. Johnson’s point is that of being able to learn from watching a TV show, this of course has been shown in earlier studies which is why there have been television channels especially developed in order to expand children’s learning such as PBS, and Discovery kids, now you can even find shows in kids channels that can help develop the mind of a toddler and these shows can be found in not only PBS but Nickelodeon as well (Noggin).

                                As shown before Johnson is right when saying one can learn from TV but as long as it can be managed in other words censored channels at least until the kids are of good enough age. Stevens on the other hand wants parents to manage every channel as possible so their children will not have access to these especial channels, this of course may rise-up problems for the kids but the parents as well and can develop misunderstandings. In my opinion, children underage need to know just went to stop watching something without anyone telling them to and parents should learn to trust their kids a bit more, with that said it all depends on the parent-child relationships they may have.

annotated bibliography

Source 1:

Gender differences in coronary artery disease. Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 20(5), 340-351.

Title: Gender differences in coronary artery disease

Author: Eastwood, J., & Doering, L.

Source 2:

Women’s health. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc..

Title: Women’s health

Author: Condon, Marian C

Publishing URL: http:// http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=2876

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.