at long last.
rather than reading one of jen's assigned books, i chose to follow my personal interest in chuck palahniuk, my favorite author [forget that i've only read two of his books so far, i'm working on it!]. the man is a genius. i actually go through and, if the book belongs to me, highlight quotes that i find to be particularly insightful and moving.
i've read "lullaby" before, but more recently, i've finished "haunted", which is a striking psychological tale about a group of writer's cooped up in a building for 3 months. they come there voluntarily, thinking it'll help with their writing, but soon enough they all realize that being there of their own free will doesn't make for a good story. the group of writers start to self-sabotage, and create heroes, villains, and victims, with the book plunging back and forth between the gruesome, bizarre personal backgrounds of the writers, and the main plot of all being locked up together. it seems tame enough by my description, but one section of the book has allegedly made a total of 73 people faint from listening to it at his public readings, this number calculated by palahniuk himself.
not only is "haunted" [and many of his other novels] a commentary on how desperate people can be for money, fame, entertainment, etc., but also shows the lengths that people will go for silly, meaningless things. it's an in-depth study of human nature, and that's probably why i love it so much.
“Reading a Palahniuk novel is like getting zipped inside a boxer’s heavy bag while the author goes to work on you, pounding you until there is nothing left but a big bag of bones and blood and pain.”
—The Miami Herald
“To Palahniuk’s credit, there is something here to appall almost every sensibility. The author has a singular knack for coming up with inventive new ways to shock and degrade.” —New York Post
Sunday, June 1, 2008
BLOG FINAL.
My concept for a technology-oriented, educational class is a video class. It would count as an english credit, and would emphasize presentation and speaking skills. It could probably count as a type of speech or debate class.
The technology used would be PCs or Macs with simple video editing programs, such as Windows Movie Maker for PCs or iMovie for Macs. Students would be taught the basics of how to use the video editing programs, and the course would be assignment/project based. Students may have to create videos of themselves/others in political commentaries, debates, interviews, short documentaries, etc. The class would be extremely versatile and have a lot of potential, as a student could make a video on just about any topic, really.
Helpful online texts would be these Guidelines For Producing A Short Documentary, or perhaps these notes on the Five Elements of Documentary. Since the class would probably place a lot of responsibility and independence on the students and emphasize their technological prowess, the students would probably be expected to come up with learning materials themselves, much like how we would have to find articles and write OC topics in this blogging class.
If there was a set text, the students probably would be expected to read it, and then either take a short quiz on the topics covered, or make a short video demonstrating the knowledge presented in the texts.
I would want my students to take a lot of different things out of this class. Hopefully, they would have a basic understanding of simple movie/video editing software, as well as elements that make up a successful documentary. They should also learn how to script their videos, and know what appeals/bores an audience, as well as learning how to present a project and speak in front of a camera. In addition, the steps/process in creating a good video should be covered as well.
The technology used would be PCs or Macs with simple video editing programs, such as Windows Movie Maker for PCs or iMovie for Macs. Students would be taught the basics of how to use the video editing programs, and the course would be assignment/project based. Students may have to create videos of themselves/others in political commentaries, debates, interviews, short documentaries, etc. The class would be extremely versatile and have a lot of potential, as a student could make a video on just about any topic, really.
Helpful online texts would be these Guidelines For Producing A Short Documentary, or perhaps these notes on the Five Elements of Documentary. Since the class would probably place a lot of responsibility and independence on the students and emphasize their technological prowess, the students would probably be expected to come up with learning materials themselves, much like how we would have to find articles and write OC topics in this blogging class.
If there was a set text, the students probably would be expected to read it, and then either take a short quiz on the topics covered, or make a short video demonstrating the knowledge presented in the texts.
I would want my students to take a lot of different things out of this class. Hopefully, they would have a basic understanding of simple movie/video editing software, as well as elements that make up a successful documentary. They should also learn how to script their videos, and know what appeals/bores an audience, as well as learning how to present a project and speak in front of a camera. In addition, the steps/process in creating a good video should be covered as well.
Friday, May 30, 2008
OC: sex education
my main suggestion for this class, if it continues next year, is that a different blogging site be used. i hate blogger, it only works on school computers half the time, it's a pain in the butt to find and view other people's blogs. i suggest a xanga or livejournal. both have friend's list features where you can add many accounts onto a list, that you can view anytime and browse posts your friend's have made. much easier than going to jen's page, then clicking on random classmate's names to go to their individual blog.
--
here's an OC post for you. i'll probably redo my chuck palahniuk post later today.:
i don't know why most people are so closed about sex, and i don't know why you're automatically a slut if you just like to have sex. i always thought that was silly. there's nothing wrong at all with having/liking sex, unless it's in a "cheating" situation of course. i was just thinking today that i have a few friends who are extremely sexual/considered "promiscuous", but they're safe about it, and i don't see the problem. i respect them even more just for being open about themselves and comfortable with knowing what they want and going after it. they're good people, and i don't know why a bad reputation should go hand in hand with just being sexually comfortable/open. it's a human instinct and reaction. we were created FOR that purpose, and BY that purpose. there's really nothing wrong with two people who enjoy it deciding to...enjoy it.
the only real issues would be the social issues as a result, such as pregnancy, STDs, and such, generally caused by lack of sex education or just plain irresponsibility or ignorance. if you're smart/responsibility enough to have those bases covered and stay safe, so to speak, then i see nothing wrong with it.
this has been on my mind a little bit since will and some other kids at school went to the rally/lobby/whatever they called it at the statehouse to promote sex education. kids are going to have sex regardless of how they are educated about it, so why not make sure they're at less smart enough to make basic decisions about their personal lives?
--
here's an OC post for you. i'll probably redo my chuck palahniuk post later today.:
i don't know why most people are so closed about sex, and i don't know why you're automatically a slut if you just like to have sex. i always thought that was silly. there's nothing wrong at all with having/liking sex, unless it's in a "cheating" situation of course. i was just thinking today that i have a few friends who are extremely sexual/considered "promiscuous", but they're safe about it, and i don't see the problem. i respect them even more just for being open about themselves and comfortable with knowing what they want and going after it. they're good people, and i don't know why a bad reputation should go hand in hand with just being sexually comfortable/open. it's a human instinct and reaction. we were created FOR that purpose, and BY that purpose. there's really nothing wrong with two people who enjoy it deciding to...enjoy it.
the only real issues would be the social issues as a result, such as pregnancy, STDs, and such, generally caused by lack of sex education or just plain irresponsibility or ignorance. if you're smart/responsibility enough to have those bases covered and stay safe, so to speak, then i see nothing wrong with it.
this has been on my mind a little bit since will and some other kids at school went to the rally/lobby/whatever they called it at the statehouse to promote sex education. kids are going to have sex regardless of how they are educated about it, so why not make sure they're at less smart enough to make basic decisions about their personal lives?
Thursday, May 15, 2008
i wrote a huge post today about how chuck palahniuk is my favorite writer and how good "haunted" is for our post about books.
when i hit "publish", it logged me out of blogger. i hit "back" and the page was blank. =/ hadn't autosaved, since the powder room computers are ancient and don't do that.
then NONE of the computers would load blogger so i couldn't retype it.
yeah, i'm really mad. =/
when i hit "publish", it logged me out of blogger. i hit "back" and the page was blank. =/ hadn't autosaved, since the powder room computers are ancient and don't do that.
then NONE of the computers would load blogger so i couldn't retype it.
yeah, i'm really mad. =/
Monday, April 21, 2008
internet usage at school
i'm regularly on myspace or various forums i'm a part of while at school. i see absolutely no harm in it, especially since i get good grades and tend to prioritize my schoolwork before internet fun. i do my homework first, but there's so much free time, that it's often the only thing i can think of to do to take up my time. there's no harm in it unless it prevents a student from getting their work, but most linworth students are responsible enough to not let internet usage hurt their grades.
i could certainly understand why a staff member could take issue with this or even feel offended or insulted--they may feel that schoolwork is being neglected or academics are not taken seriously enough. they may feel that myspace is more important than stuff for class, and that could offend some teachers. but honestly, almost all the kids on myspace at school are on there BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO DO, meaning all their work is already done. i personally live in the powder room, it's my place to hang out at school, and pretty much everybody gets onto myspace at some point. and the ones i see in there the most are the ones who are quick to get their work done and have consistently good grades, if that's believable.
if a kid's grades are terrible and a staff member sees them on myspace, then i see reason to take disciplinary action or get upset. but if a kid is just harmlessly checking comments and messages on a networking site and they have all their homework done and an A in your class, are you really going to have the nerve to bitch at them about it? i've been at linworth for 2 1/2 semesters now, and as a powder-room kid, i can honestly say that i have never seen a kid on myspace refuse to get off if someone has legitimate work to do on that computer. if it's during a high-traffic time, and someone walks in saying that they need to do work, there are usually 2-3 people who immediately offer "oh hey, i'm not doing anything important, you can use this", and it's totally fine. students at linworth DO understand that schoolwork comes first and myspace and facebook are fun things to do to take up their time when they have everything done.
i could certainly understand why a staff member could take issue with this or even feel offended or insulted--they may feel that schoolwork is being neglected or academics are not taken seriously enough. they may feel that myspace is more important than stuff for class, and that could offend some teachers. but honestly, almost all the kids on myspace at school are on there BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO DO, meaning all their work is already done. i personally live in the powder room, it's my place to hang out at school, and pretty much everybody gets onto myspace at some point. and the ones i see in there the most are the ones who are quick to get their work done and have consistently good grades, if that's believable.
if a kid's grades are terrible and a staff member sees them on myspace, then i see reason to take disciplinary action or get upset. but if a kid is just harmlessly checking comments and messages on a networking site and they have all their homework done and an A in your class, are you really going to have the nerve to bitch at them about it? i've been at linworth for 2 1/2 semesters now, and as a powder-room kid, i can honestly say that i have never seen a kid on myspace refuse to get off if someone has legitimate work to do on that computer. if it's during a high-traffic time, and someone walks in saying that they need to do work, there are usually 2-3 people who immediately offer "oh hey, i'm not doing anything important, you can use this", and it's totally fine. students at linworth DO understand that schoolwork comes first and myspace and facebook are fun things to do to take up their time when they have everything done.
Monday, March 17, 2008
OC:: scientology
after this past weekend, i knew that scientology was a subject that i needed to bring up in one of my blog posts.
on saturday, there was a protest outside of the church of scientology on high street that i attended with my boyfriend and two friends. here's a dispatch article about it that was in the sunday paper. i've never been to a protest before, but i always thought of scientology to be a cult. justin and i bought dust masks at kroger and headed to high street.
the CoS [church of scientology] itself has a nice sign and an extremely expensive-looking big screen TV in the front window. we were across the street. about 80 of us showed up, many people carrying signs or handing out fliers, all of us covering our faces. the reason why?
scientologist lawyers have enough money to track you down. they are notorious for photographing or videotaping protests in an attempt to find a face or name to sue. it seems ridiculous, but once my mother got back from her weekend vacation and found out i had gone, even she was genuinely concerned that i had covered my face and head. the CoS will attempt to harm or bring lawsuits against anyone they can pinpoint criticism to. a prime example of this is "operation freakout", which tells of paulette cooper and her harassment from the CoS after she wrote a book criticizing the cult. they will do anything to keep their name clean. there was a rumoured camera in the bottom of the window of the CoS we were picketing across the street from. this has been reporting at many of the other worldwide protests as well.
the first protest was on february 10th earlier this year, which is my birthday, and coincidentally, also the birthday of another big scientology secret: lisa mcpherson.
i have not been much of an activist before now, but i've spent the entire day researching it. i already knew about many of their illegitimate activities before i went to the protest, but now i've really read up, and what i've found shocks me. its worse than i intially thought. here's a good link that sums up the majority of the crimes the CoS has committed.
now, in closing, i'd like to make it very clear that both myself and anonymous as a whole has NOTHING against freedom of religion or speech. people can and should believe what they want. the attacks are not on the beliefs of scientology, but are in fact against the practices, human rights violations, and immorality of the church itself.
here are some great links for you to check out::
xenu.net
whyaretheydead.net
xenutv.com
lermanet.com
lisamcpherson.org
perkinstragedy.org
those links honestly cover everything i don't feel like i could in one post, and those are really just a few.
on saturday, there was a protest outside of the church of scientology on high street that i attended with my boyfriend and two friends. here's a dispatch article about it that was in the sunday paper. i've never been to a protest before, but i always thought of scientology to be a cult. justin and i bought dust masks at kroger and headed to high street.
the CoS [church of scientology] itself has a nice sign and an extremely expensive-looking big screen TV in the front window. we were across the street. about 80 of us showed up, many people carrying signs or handing out fliers, all of us covering our faces. the reason why?
scientologist lawyers have enough money to track you down. they are notorious for photographing or videotaping protests in an attempt to find a face or name to sue. it seems ridiculous, but once my mother got back from her weekend vacation and found out i had gone, even she was genuinely concerned that i had covered my face and head. the CoS will attempt to harm or bring lawsuits against anyone they can pinpoint criticism to. a prime example of this is "operation freakout", which tells of paulette cooper and her harassment from the CoS after she wrote a book criticizing the cult. they will do anything to keep their name clean. there was a rumoured camera in the bottom of the window of the CoS we were picketing across the street from. this has been reporting at many of the other worldwide protests as well.
the first protest was on february 10th earlier this year, which is my birthday, and coincidentally, also the birthday of another big scientology secret: lisa mcpherson.
i have not been much of an activist before now, but i've spent the entire day researching it. i already knew about many of their illegitimate activities before i went to the protest, but now i've really read up, and what i've found shocks me. its worse than i intially thought. here's a good link that sums up the majority of the crimes the CoS has committed.
now, in closing, i'd like to make it very clear that both myself and anonymous as a whole has NOTHING against freedom of religion or speech. people can and should believe what they want. the attacks are not on the beliefs of scientology, but are in fact against the practices, human rights violations, and immorality of the church itself.
here are some great links for you to check out::
xenu.net
whyaretheydead.net
xenutv.com
lermanet.com
lisamcpherson.org
perkinstragedy.org
those links honestly cover everything i don't feel like i could in one post, and those are really just a few.
OC:: internet bullying
i guess this is the first topic that came to my mind to write about this week, due to my recent encounters with negative/hateful/offensive comments being left on my personal blog. the comments were anonymous and not linked to any username, so i assumed it was a random "troll" and disregarded what was said. in the beginning, i just deleted and ignored the comments, but when more personal attacks came, i found it amusing to counter and respond.
my first instinct was that the person was spamming me because someone who didn't like me posted links to my page on a site and told people to send me hate mail/comments. this made sense because the person seemed not to know me very well, although they were armed with some personal info/rumours about me. their IP address also linked them to illinois. i don't think i know anyone there.
after a full day of genuinely having fun chatting with my pseudo-stalker and egging them on [note: i know it would have been best to delete/ignore it, but it was actually interesting to try and sleuth the identity of the person and to test how much they really knew of me], they revealed their identity to be someone i personally knew in real life. someone who had never before given me any indication of their distaste for me, and someone i had never personally wronged, nor had i hurt anyone close to them. he continually insisted that he knew that he was getting to me when in reality, like i said, i found the situation to be amusing. here's a quote to help me pose some questions for you to ponder:
"Keep crying about me, telling yourself your feelings aren't hurt...you know that it just fuels my fire."
"I know that I'm under your skin and I know that I'm in your head, and I know that I'm hurting you."
pretty ridiculous.
i guess i just want to ask everyone's opinion on internet bullying. why do you think people do it to begin with? out of personal insecurity?
why do people think it's an acceptable way of communicating a negative opinion of someone?
my first instinct was that the person was spamming me because someone who didn't like me posted links to my page on a site and told people to send me hate mail/comments. this made sense because the person seemed not to know me very well, although they were armed with some personal info/rumours about me. their IP address also linked them to illinois. i don't think i know anyone there.
after a full day of genuinely having fun chatting with my pseudo-stalker and egging them on [note: i know it would have been best to delete/ignore it, but it was actually interesting to try and sleuth the identity of the person and to test how much they really knew of me], they revealed their identity to be someone i personally knew in real life. someone who had never before given me any indication of their distaste for me, and someone i had never personally wronged, nor had i hurt anyone close to them. he continually insisted that he knew that he was getting to me when in reality, like i said, i found the situation to be amusing. here's a quote to help me pose some questions for you to ponder:
"Keep crying about me, telling yourself your feelings aren't hurt...you know that it just fuels my fire."
"I know that I'm under your skin and I know that I'm in your head, and I know that I'm hurting you."
pretty ridiculous.
i guess i just want to ask everyone's opinion on internet bullying. why do you think people do it to begin with? out of personal insecurity?
why do people think it's an acceptable way of communicating a negative opinion of someone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
