-The things they carried
"The Things They Carried" is a war novel that follows a platoon of men throughout Vietnam, Tim O'Brian as the main character. The book shows all the hardships and the terrors of Vietnam and the struggles each of the characters face. They miss their lives at home and hate the conditions in Vietnam. Throughout their journey they meet many who try to hurt them and few who try to help.
-Brave New World
This book has a dystopian themed story. In the book, people are genetically engineered for certain position and come off an assembly line like cars. Eventually the lower members of society break off and go on to form their own society which is free from the tyrannical government that enslaves them. The main character, John, eventually commits suicide, because he sees that no matter where he goes there is not escape from society and tyranny.
-Jarhead
Jarhead is a novel surround the gulf war and talks about the hardships of men throughout the conflict and how they almost loose sanity. The book follows a guy named Anthony Swofford who is a scout sniper trying to see battle. The entire time while he is in Afghanistan he never sees conflict but only witnesses his crew members and their struggles to stay sane.
-Catcher in the Rye
Catcher in the Rye is a coming of age novel about a boy named Holden Caulfield, and his experiences in school and eventually in New York City. The novel has a lot of hidden symbolism and also a lot of great life lessons.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
essay 3
dehumanization
Haig Bosmajian connects Dehumanization, language, and power in his article called Dehumanizing people and Euphamizing war. He looks at examples of this in history, as well as in everyday life. Dehumanization was used during the holocaust. Hitler referred to the Jews as a “disease” and “parasites”. Hitler also spoke of the “Jewish bacilli” and the “demon of communism.” So by calling the Jews by these names, people no longer thought of the Jews as human. They began to actually think of them as a disease rather than actual human beings. That is why people were able to accept this atrocity that was occurring around them. They were able to accept the extermination of millions of people. People accepted this because they didn't even think that it was people being killed, only a disease being killed.
As I mentioned before Haig Bosmajin sees a connection with dehumanization, language, and power. This connection really makes a lot of sense to me. The most effective way to dehumanize is to use language. Language allows you to influence people without them seeing anything at all. If people had actually seen the Jews being murdered in the gas chambers they would have come to realize a lot sooner that there were actual people being killed. But during this time people saw nothing. They only saw their Jewish neighbors disappearing without return. While they saw nothing, they were constantly being influenced by language. Hitler and the Nazi's told people what what happening. The words of a murderer were the only “facts” anybody was given. But Hitler was in a position of power, so people listened to him. People believed what he said and regarded it all as fact. By listening to Hitler people no longer though of the Jews as human. Hitler had now turned them in to a disease that he was curing. He was being the good guy, he was solving a problem. Through his language he was able to influence a large amount of people so much to the point where they accepted the mass killing of millions of Jews. So language is the first step, next is power. At first I thought that the purpose of dehumanization was to gain power. But I realized that the real connection was that power is what is necessary to initially dehumanize. You need to convince a large number of people that a certain group is no longer human. To refer to these people as terrorists, a plague, evil, or a disease. This use of language is very effective, but it is useless unless there is a way to reach people. The goal is to influence through language, but how is this possible? It is possible if you have power, and a lot of it. You can use highly effective dehumanizing language all you want, but its not going to influence anybody unless you have power. You need to have enough power to be able to reach all of these people to start with. So possibly have control of the news or many television stations. So once you have the power to reach these people, you still need enough power for them to listen to you. That really takes a lot of power. Then once you have the power to reach a large audience that will listen to you, you now use language. As I said before, language will influence people the most especially with dehumanization.
As I previously mentioned, this technique of dehumanization through language and power was used during the holocaust. Hitler convinced millions of people that his extermination of the Jews was merely the cure to a disease. That they weren't actually killing people anymore because he had completely dehumanized the Jews. I actually don't think that the holocaust is the best example for this. People commonly disregard anything that they hear about the holocaust. The holocaust is considered the worst thing that has ever happened in humanity. So by saying that Hitler dehumanized the Jews through language doesn't really say much because nobody thinks that anything like the holocaust will ever happen again. So why not take a look at dehumanization in our everyday lives. There are many examples of our media/government dehumanizing even today. The best example would be the war in Iraq. Although many Americans are not in support of the war, the majority of the victims throughout the entire war have been dehumanized. Words in the news such as victims or losses make us forget that it really means the death of our American troops, as well as middle easterners. Everything that I see in the news about the war is so dehumanizing. Those who are currently fighting in the war seem so unreal to me. They refer to the opposition as the enemy or a virus. When in reality I actually have no real clue what they actually did wrong. We really have no idea what is going on in this war. We don't know who is fighting within Iraq, we don't know what the goal of the war is, and we really don't even know why we are at war anymore. I don't see these people being killed in the war as humans because I know nothing about them. I cant even picture a dead person in Iraq, because I don't know what type of war is even being fought. Is it one where you only shoot if shot at. Is there a giant battle line with opponents charging from both sides. Is the war only little battles here and there? I don't know, I have no idea, because I know nothing about the war. I believe that I am a fair representation of the average American, and I really have no idea what is going on in Iraq. Therefor I see none of the people in the war as actual humans. The tool of language in this case is more the lack of language. The lack of language and information in this case is what has lead to dehumanization. Even though I am aware of this dehumanization, by the media and government,of the people in the war it is still effective. It has still managed to do its job. I really do not view them as human anymore.
So what can we do to reverse the effects of dehumanization? What can we do to make people realize that those who die in the war are real people? Even more, how do you reverse the effects of dehumanization in any situation beyond the Iraq war? Lets first look at the definition of dehumanization before we try to come up with a solution to the problem. In the article Dehumanizing people and Euphemising war by Haig Bosmajian gives a very good explanation of what dehumanization really is, more specifically, what the language of dehumanization really is. It is “words and phrases that fool us in to accepting the unacceptable.” So we are dealing with things that really are unacceptable, but people are blinded by the dehumanizing language used by people in power. So the simple solution, or “antidote”, to this problem is to show people the truth. Americans need to understand how real the war is. After that they will no longer accept what is happening. Why would they? Remember that this is something that is unacceptable that people have come to accept. People just need to be shown the reality of the war and they will no longer accept these things that are going on today. This applies to any other case of dehumanization. All you need to do is bring the people back to life. You just need to show people that these groups that have been dehumanized really are people. So it is obvious what needs to be done to fix dehumanization, simply bring the people back to life. The real question is how to go about doing this. This situation with the Iraq war is a tough one. You're pretty much up against an entire government. But I think that it is possible. If news were to be as unrestricted as it was during the Vietnam war, we would not still be at war. If we were to see the graphic reality of what is going on in Iraq, people would not be okay with it. News should no longer have so many restrictions. Then people would be able to see the real truth. But the media is only oh thing. If our religious and political leaders were to help show people the truth we would not have an issue with dehumanization. Religious and political leaders have so much power to influence others. Currently our political leaders are really abusing this power especially. They are actually contributing to dehumanization. But if these two types of leaders joined together with their immense power, and strong language, they could accomplish a lot. Everything that we hear about on the news about the war needs to be straightforward. We need to know exactly what is happening over there. We need clear concise language, as well as accurate accounts of what happens over there with visuals. This would most definitely make people view those in the war as humans. This would make people no longer accept the unacceptable, and people would actually do something about it. This applies to any situation of dehumanization. If you can get people with power, to use effective language, you can fix dehumanization.
Haig Bosmajian connects Dehumanization, language, and power in his article called Dehumanizing people and Euphamizing war. He looks at examples of this in history, as well as in everyday life. Dehumanization was used during the holocaust. Hitler referred to the Jews as a “disease” and “parasites”. Hitler also spoke of the “Jewish bacilli” and the “demon of communism.” So by calling the Jews by these names, people no longer thought of the Jews as human. They began to actually think of them as a disease rather than actual human beings. That is why people were able to accept this atrocity that was occurring around them. They were able to accept the extermination of millions of people. People accepted this because they didn't even think that it was people being killed, only a disease being killed.
As I mentioned before Haig Bosmajin sees a connection with dehumanization, language, and power. This connection really makes a lot of sense to me. The most effective way to dehumanize is to use language. Language allows you to influence people without them seeing anything at all. If people had actually seen the Jews being murdered in the gas chambers they would have come to realize a lot sooner that there were actual people being killed. But during this time people saw nothing. They only saw their Jewish neighbors disappearing without return. While they saw nothing, they were constantly being influenced by language. Hitler and the Nazi's told people what what happening. The words of a murderer were the only “facts” anybody was given. But Hitler was in a position of power, so people listened to him. People believed what he said and regarded it all as fact. By listening to Hitler people no longer though of the Jews as human. Hitler had now turned them in to a disease that he was curing. He was being the good guy, he was solving a problem. Through his language he was able to influence a large amount of people so much to the point where they accepted the mass killing of millions of Jews. So language is the first step, next is power. At first I thought that the purpose of dehumanization was to gain power. But I realized that the real connection was that power is what is necessary to initially dehumanize. You need to convince a large number of people that a certain group is no longer human. To refer to these people as terrorists, a plague, evil, or a disease. This use of language is very effective, but it is useless unless there is a way to reach people. The goal is to influence through language, but how is this possible? It is possible if you have power, and a lot of it. You can use highly effective dehumanizing language all you want, but its not going to influence anybody unless you have power. You need to have enough power to be able to reach all of these people to start with. So possibly have control of the news or many television stations. So once you have the power to reach these people, you still need enough power for them to listen to you. That really takes a lot of power. Then once you have the power to reach a large audience that will listen to you, you now use language. As I said before, language will influence people the most especially with dehumanization.
As I previously mentioned, this technique of dehumanization through language and power was used during the holocaust. Hitler convinced millions of people that his extermination of the Jews was merely the cure to a disease. That they weren't actually killing people anymore because he had completely dehumanized the Jews. I actually don't think that the holocaust is the best example for this. People commonly disregard anything that they hear about the holocaust. The holocaust is considered the worst thing that has ever happened in humanity. So by saying that Hitler dehumanized the Jews through language doesn't really say much because nobody thinks that anything like the holocaust will ever happen again. So why not take a look at dehumanization in our everyday lives. There are many examples of our media/government dehumanizing even today. The best example would be the war in Iraq. Although many Americans are not in support of the war, the majority of the victims throughout the entire war have been dehumanized. Words in the news such as victims or losses make us forget that it really means the death of our American troops, as well as middle easterners. Everything that I see in the news about the war is so dehumanizing. Those who are currently fighting in the war seem so unreal to me. They refer to the opposition as the enemy or a virus. When in reality I actually have no real clue what they actually did wrong. We really have no idea what is going on in this war. We don't know who is fighting within Iraq, we don't know what the goal of the war is, and we really don't even know why we are at war anymore. I don't see these people being killed in the war as humans because I know nothing about them. I cant even picture a dead person in Iraq, because I don't know what type of war is even being fought. Is it one where you only shoot if shot at. Is there a giant battle line with opponents charging from both sides. Is the war only little battles here and there? I don't know, I have no idea, because I know nothing about the war. I believe that I am a fair representation of the average American, and I really have no idea what is going on in Iraq. Therefor I see none of the people in the war as actual humans. The tool of language in this case is more the lack of language. The lack of language and information in this case is what has lead to dehumanization. Even though I am aware of this dehumanization, by the media and government,of the people in the war it is still effective. It has still managed to do its job. I really do not view them as human anymore.
So what can we do to reverse the effects of dehumanization? What can we do to make people realize that those who die in the war are real people? Even more, how do you reverse the effects of dehumanization in any situation beyond the Iraq war? Lets first look at the definition of dehumanization before we try to come up with a solution to the problem. In the article Dehumanizing people and Euphemising war by Haig Bosmajian gives a very good explanation of what dehumanization really is, more specifically, what the language of dehumanization really is. It is “words and phrases that fool us in to accepting the unacceptable.” So we are dealing with things that really are unacceptable, but people are blinded by the dehumanizing language used by people in power. So the simple solution, or “antidote”, to this problem is to show people the truth. Americans need to understand how real the war is. After that they will no longer accept what is happening. Why would they? Remember that this is something that is unacceptable that people have come to accept. People just need to be shown the reality of the war and they will no longer accept these things that are going on today. This applies to any other case of dehumanization. All you need to do is bring the people back to life. You just need to show people that these groups that have been dehumanized really are people. So it is obvious what needs to be done to fix dehumanization, simply bring the people back to life. The real question is how to go about doing this. This situation with the Iraq war is a tough one. You're pretty much up against an entire government. But I think that it is possible. If news were to be as unrestricted as it was during the Vietnam war, we would not still be at war. If we were to see the graphic reality of what is going on in Iraq, people would not be okay with it. News should no longer have so many restrictions. Then people would be able to see the real truth. But the media is only oh thing. If our religious and political leaders were to help show people the truth we would not have an issue with dehumanization. Religious and political leaders have so much power to influence others. Currently our political leaders are really abusing this power especially. They are actually contributing to dehumanization. But if these two types of leaders joined together with their immense power, and strong language, they could accomplish a lot. Everything that we hear about on the news about the war needs to be straightforward. We need to know exactly what is happening over there. We need clear concise language, as well as accurate accounts of what happens over there with visuals. This would most definitely make people view those in the war as humans. This would make people no longer accept the unacceptable, and people would actually do something about it. This applies to any situation of dehumanization. If you can get people with power, to use effective language, you can fix dehumanization.
essay 2
Mason Newstead
Pam Baker
English
10/13/08
California High Speed Train
On the ballot this year is a proposition to begin building a high speed train throughout California. The train will run from San Diego to San Francisco. It will have many positive affects on California. One affect of the high speed train being reducing traffic as well as CO2 emissions. Another is that the high speed train will provide extremely fast travel times at a low cost all throughout California. Driving from San Diego to Los Angeles usually takes about two to three hours by car, while the high speed train the trip would be around an hour and twenty minutes and would only cost thirty dollars. (High-Speed Train System). Another benefit of the train is that it will take many drivers off of the road. Not only will this relieve traffic congestion, but according to the official high speed train web site, it is predicted to “avoid over 10,000 auto accidents yearly with their attendant deaths, injuries and property damage when compared to exclusive reliance on highways” ( High-Speed Train System). This November voters will be able to vote to approve the high speed train. If approved, the state will provide about ten billion dollars to fund the project (High-Speed Train System). This money will partially cover the construction of the line from San Francisco to Los Angeles. The total cost for the project is estimated at around forty billion dollars, and the remaining thirty million is expected to come from federal funding as well as private partnerships. The construction process of the high speed train is expected to take about 12 years. During this time over 450,000 Californians will be provided with jobs (High-Speed Train System). Once created the high speed train will “generate $1 billion in annual profits.” ( High-Speed Train System). So it will really help boost our economy by providing thousands of Californians with jobs. The high speed train is perfect for the state of California because it resolves many of our traffic, economic, and environmental problems.
The high speed train is going to be great for the environment. California has always lead the way in fighting Global warming, preserving our natural resources, and conserving energy. The high speed train will address all of these. By having the high speed train thousands and thousands of cars will be off of the roads. When this happens it will reduce CO2 emissions by 12 billions pounds a year (High-Speed Train System). This would be a great thing to help prevent global warming. By taking so many cars off of the road, this is also helping to save one of our very precious, limited, and expensive natural resources...oil. California would save 1.65 billion dollars each year. The high speed train uses much less energy than cars and planes. The train uses about 1/3 of the energy of an airplane, and 1/5 the energy used by an automobile (High-Speed Train System). The high speed train is great for California from an environmental standpoint. It takes many cars off of the road which cuts down CO2 emissions and saves a large amount of gas. The train itself uses very minimal energy. The train is great for everybody. The train will relieve traffic, it is good for the environment, and it saves our natural resources.
Another benefit of the high speed train is the travel convenience. The train will be faster and cheaper in most cases. The drive from San Diego to San Francisco takes about 9 hours. On the high speed train it would take about 4 hours and would cost only 70 dollars (High-Speed Train System). So that means you could take the train to San Francisco hang out there for forty five minutes then take the train home, and you would have made it home before you would have even made it to San Francisco by car. It is hard to calculate the cost of driving to San Francisco because all cars have very different gas mileage. On a long drive like that you would stop for food multiple times, increasing the cost. Although it is hard to estimate, it would cost about 80 dollars to drive to San Francisco. If you were to fly it would cost around 100 to 150 dollars. The flight itself would take about an hour and a half. But the process of flying on an airplane takes a lot longer than the flight itself. After going through security, checking bags, finding bags, another hour has easily been added on to the trip. So you have three options. Spend 100-150 dollars to go on an airplane that will altogether take you about two to three hours. Spend 80 dollars on gas and food on a 9 hour car ride. Or spend 70 dollars to be on a train that will get you to San Francisco in only four hours. The high speed train is the perfect solution for all commuters. It is cheap, easy, and faster than any other means of transportation other than flying.
Another great thing about the high speed train is that it will really help California's economy in a variety of ways. Firstly, the construction process will require mass numbers of laborers, architects, engineers, etc. The construction of the high speed train will take around twelve years. Over the course of these twelve years the High Speed Train Foundation predicts 450,000 jobs will be provided to Californians (High-Speed Train System). This will be really great for our economy. Thousands and thousands of people having a stable job for at least twelve years. Another way that the high speed train will be great for the economy is because it will be a tourist attraction. People will come from all over the country to ride the high speed train. They will each pay at least 30 dollars just to ride the train. Then even more money on food, and on souvenirs. Money will just be flowing in from out of state because of the train. It will also be good for our economy because the train will be used by thousands of Californian's each day. The Foundation expects to transport well over 150,000 passengers each day (High-Speed Train System). Each of these passengers will be spending a minimum of 30 dollars per ticket. So at the very least, the high speed train will bring in almost five million dollars each day. It is predicted to make about one billion dollars in profit each year (High-Speed Train System).The train is predicted to carry “up to 117 million passengers annually by 2030, with the capacity to also carry high-value, lightweight freight.” (High-Speed Train System). All of this money will be enriching California's economy, making our state richer and more stable.
Although the High Speed Train has may benefits it is understandable for Californians to be reluctant to vote for the high speed train. 10 billion of their own taxed dollars is a lot to spend on a train. Although 10 billion dollars is a large amount of money, it is small compared to the amount of money that would be spent on improving transportation if the train is not built. To support the growing number of people in the state, California would end up spending around 80 billion dollars on making transportation able to support more people. This 80 billion dollars would be spent on widening the freeways, widening the airport runways, and expanding all airports (High-Speed Train System). So although Californians are reluctant to vote on something that will be spending 10 billion dollars. They should be thankful that it is saving them from having to spend 80 billion later.
The High speed train is a win win for California. It effects so many different things that need to be worked on in our state in a positive way. We need to work on ending global warming, The high speed train does that. We need to reduce our massive traffic problems throughout the state, The high speed train does that. We need to provide Californian's with more jobs, The high speed train does that. We need to strengthen our economy, The high speed train does that. It is great all around. California has a very bright future with the high speed train. By 2020 you can live in San Diego and be able to go on a day trip to San Francisco and pay less than 100 dollars. You can live in Los Angeles and take the train down to San Diego after work to see a show and come home that night. In 2020 we will have a magnificent train that runs all throughout California. This train will be unlike anything that Californians have ever Dreamed of. The high speed train will be just one more thing that makes this state so great. A train that boosts the economy, fights global warming, and provides an excellent service to this great state. This dream will become a reality if Californians can see the amazing benefits that the high speed train has to offer while they cast their vote this November.
Pam Baker
English
10/13/08
California High Speed Train
On the ballot this year is a proposition to begin building a high speed train throughout California. The train will run from San Diego to San Francisco. It will have many positive affects on California. One affect of the high speed train being reducing traffic as well as CO2 emissions. Another is that the high speed train will provide extremely fast travel times at a low cost all throughout California. Driving from San Diego to Los Angeles usually takes about two to three hours by car, while the high speed train the trip would be around an hour and twenty minutes and would only cost thirty dollars. (High-Speed Train System). Another benefit of the train is that it will take many drivers off of the road. Not only will this relieve traffic congestion, but according to the official high speed train web site, it is predicted to “avoid over 10,000 auto accidents yearly with their attendant deaths, injuries and property damage when compared to exclusive reliance on highways” ( High-Speed Train System). This November voters will be able to vote to approve the high speed train. If approved, the state will provide about ten billion dollars to fund the project (High-Speed Train System). This money will partially cover the construction of the line from San Francisco to Los Angeles. The total cost for the project is estimated at around forty billion dollars, and the remaining thirty million is expected to come from federal funding as well as private partnerships. The construction process of the high speed train is expected to take about 12 years. During this time over 450,000 Californians will be provided with jobs (High-Speed Train System). Once created the high speed train will “generate $1 billion in annual profits.” ( High-Speed Train System). So it will really help boost our economy by providing thousands of Californians with jobs. The high speed train is perfect for the state of California because it resolves many of our traffic, economic, and environmental problems.
The high speed train is going to be great for the environment. California has always lead the way in fighting Global warming, preserving our natural resources, and conserving energy. The high speed train will address all of these. By having the high speed train thousands and thousands of cars will be off of the roads. When this happens it will reduce CO2 emissions by 12 billions pounds a year (High-Speed Train System). This would be a great thing to help prevent global warming. By taking so many cars off of the road, this is also helping to save one of our very precious, limited, and expensive natural resources...oil. California would save 1.65 billion dollars each year. The high speed train uses much less energy than cars and planes. The train uses about 1/3 of the energy of an airplane, and 1/5 the energy used by an automobile (High-Speed Train System). The high speed train is great for California from an environmental standpoint. It takes many cars off of the road which cuts down CO2 emissions and saves a large amount of gas. The train itself uses very minimal energy. The train is great for everybody. The train will relieve traffic, it is good for the environment, and it saves our natural resources.
Another benefit of the high speed train is the travel convenience. The train will be faster and cheaper in most cases. The drive from San Diego to San Francisco takes about 9 hours. On the high speed train it would take about 4 hours and would cost only 70 dollars (High-Speed Train System). So that means you could take the train to San Francisco hang out there for forty five minutes then take the train home, and you would have made it home before you would have even made it to San Francisco by car. It is hard to calculate the cost of driving to San Francisco because all cars have very different gas mileage. On a long drive like that you would stop for food multiple times, increasing the cost. Although it is hard to estimate, it would cost about 80 dollars to drive to San Francisco. If you were to fly it would cost around 100 to 150 dollars. The flight itself would take about an hour and a half. But the process of flying on an airplane takes a lot longer than the flight itself. After going through security, checking bags, finding bags, another hour has easily been added on to the trip. So you have three options. Spend 100-150 dollars to go on an airplane that will altogether take you about two to three hours. Spend 80 dollars on gas and food on a 9 hour car ride. Or spend 70 dollars to be on a train that will get you to San Francisco in only four hours. The high speed train is the perfect solution for all commuters. It is cheap, easy, and faster than any other means of transportation other than flying.
Another great thing about the high speed train is that it will really help California's economy in a variety of ways. Firstly, the construction process will require mass numbers of laborers, architects, engineers, etc. The construction of the high speed train will take around twelve years. Over the course of these twelve years the High Speed Train Foundation predicts 450,000 jobs will be provided to Californians (High-Speed Train System). This will be really great for our economy. Thousands and thousands of people having a stable job for at least twelve years. Another way that the high speed train will be great for the economy is because it will be a tourist attraction. People will come from all over the country to ride the high speed train. They will each pay at least 30 dollars just to ride the train. Then even more money on food, and on souvenirs. Money will just be flowing in from out of state because of the train. It will also be good for our economy because the train will be used by thousands of Californian's each day. The Foundation expects to transport well over 150,000 passengers each day (High-Speed Train System). Each of these passengers will be spending a minimum of 30 dollars per ticket. So at the very least, the high speed train will bring in almost five million dollars each day. It is predicted to make about one billion dollars in profit each year (High-Speed Train System).The train is predicted to carry “up to 117 million passengers annually by 2030, with the capacity to also carry high-value, lightweight freight.” (High-Speed Train System). All of this money will be enriching California's economy, making our state richer and more stable.
Although the High Speed Train has may benefits it is understandable for Californians to be reluctant to vote for the high speed train. 10 billion of their own taxed dollars is a lot to spend on a train. Although 10 billion dollars is a large amount of money, it is small compared to the amount of money that would be spent on improving transportation if the train is not built. To support the growing number of people in the state, California would end up spending around 80 billion dollars on making transportation able to support more people. This 80 billion dollars would be spent on widening the freeways, widening the airport runways, and expanding all airports (High-Speed Train System). So although Californians are reluctant to vote on something that will be spending 10 billion dollars. They should be thankful that it is saving them from having to spend 80 billion later.
The High speed train is a win win for California. It effects so many different things that need to be worked on in our state in a positive way. We need to work on ending global warming, The high speed train does that. We need to reduce our massive traffic problems throughout the state, The high speed train does that. We need to provide Californian's with more jobs, The high speed train does that. We need to strengthen our economy, The high speed train does that. It is great all around. California has a very bright future with the high speed train. By 2020 you can live in San Diego and be able to go on a day trip to San Francisco and pay less than 100 dollars. You can live in Los Angeles and take the train down to San Diego after work to see a show and come home that night. In 2020 we will have a magnificent train that runs all throughout California. This train will be unlike anything that Californians have ever Dreamed of. The high speed train will be just one more thing that makes this state so great. A train that boosts the economy, fights global warming, and provides an excellent service to this great state. This dream will become a reality if Californians can see the amazing benefits that the high speed train has to offer while they cast their vote this November.
ad project
This project consisted of making an Advertisement Poster & a write up description. My partner was Josh and we chose to use the Jonas Brothers as the main factor in our advertisement. The reason behind this was because they are an influential teenage band and they many teens listen to them and what they have to say. In short, if they see that the Jonas Brothers are endorsing something, they will be compelled to at least check it out.
Poster Write Up
The technique we used in this project is celebrity influence. With the Jonas Brothers advertising the Depends brand diapers, it is going to influence other teens to wear them. This is because the Jonas Brothers are a very influential teeny bopper band, and the teeny bopper crowd is an increasing population in American Society. If you can advertise and influence teenagers, then you control a large portion of the market because they are such a large force. With this advertisement we will be targeting age groups between 10 and 16 years old because kids that age are usually interested in teen boy bands. Within this age group, we will be targeting girls since they would be most likely to be into the Jonas Brothers.
Connection is a very important thing when it comes to advertising to a young crowd. They don’t want to feel like they are being talked down to, and want some sort of similarity and connection between a product and/or advertiser. The use of a quote also really helps advertise the product because the customer feels a sort of connection to the Jonas Brothers. It feels like the brothers are actually speaking to the customer and showing their feelings. With the Jonas Brothers directly saying that they endorse Depends, it makes a direct connection to the customer and makes them feel that if they wear Depends, they will be in a way closer to the Jonas Brothers. Also, the Jonas Brothers portray a very cool image, with glasses and very nice clothes, so if the customer purchases Depends, they will feel cooler too. They will feel like they own something that a celebrity owns, automatically elevating their status among their peers.
election project
In the fall of 2008, with the upcoming election, our English class gave us the responsibility of not only educating ourselves, but also educating the public on the propositions and issues facing the November election. It was our role as students to pick a proposition or issue, do both extensive and objective research, and then write a paper with our stance on the subject. After that, our school held an exhibition to educate the public on our discoveries in a fair and unbiased way by including students with both sides to the subject in each presentation of knowledge.
My choice in this project was Proposition 1A, which would institute a High Speed Rail that travels up the coast of California. The research process was mostly completed through online websites and articles
Friday, May 15, 2009
social experiment
VIDEO!!!
I'm sorry that there is no video, we filmed the experiment and it was a success, but Kathrin was unable to upload it on to her computer because it was too big. But basically it is the video of me skateboarding through seaport village with long john underwear on. you said that this was all I needed to put up for the video since we couldnt upload it
Social Experiment
Research Problem: How will people react when someone rides by on a skateboard in long tight underwear? Will people be shocked, confused, or pay no attention? If this is unresolved we will not know how people will react when they see someone dressed very differently. The purpose is exploratory.
Operation: The variables could be the location. If you are in a place where there are a lot of people dressed differently then you may not get much of a reaction. But if you are somewhere where people are all dressed similarly we may get much more of a reaction. So in downtown people may react less than they would at the mall. We will need a video camera to explain these observations. It has not changed from what I originally intended.
Hypothesis: My hypothesis is that people will stare and turn their heads as I pass. The independent variables are the number of people who will be there for the experiment. The dependent variable is how many people will react. The location could have made a difference in the experiment. People in society have specific norms for what people wear. Although many people dress very differently most things that people wear are accepted in society. So when someone drastically breaks the norm many people will be very shocked when they see that.
Research Design:
Mode: Experimental. The design is suited very well. By skating in a very deviant outfit we can get reactions from many more people because I can travel through everybody very fast. The hypothesis was definitely tested very well with this experiment. We got to see many reactions from many people.
Sample: It was a sample because it was a specific group of people at seaport village. The sample was people at seaport village, this is a great sample because there are a lot of local people there on their day off, as well as many tourists from around the country/ world. So we were able to test a lot of different people all in one place. It was representative of the population of San Diego because of all the people there on their day off. It is very likely that the findings will be generalized to other populations because there was such a wide variety of different people there.
Findings (analysis and interpretation):
When I skated through seaport village wearing my long underwear pretty much every person I went by turned around and stared at me. I basically got a reaction from everybody there. I was very noticeable because what I was wearing was so different. We filmed this experiment and it can be viewed on Kathrin’s camera.
Summary and conclusion:
When I skated through seaport village wearing my long underwear pretty much every person I went by turned around and stared at me. I basically got a reaction from everybody there. I was very noticeable because what I was wearing was so different. I don’t see this being looked at in any other way. Everybody had a very similar reaction of confusion and surprise. It could have been different in a place where there were a lot of people dressed in deviant clothing, because then I wouldn’t have stood out. My hypothesis was definitely correct. I got the reaction I was expecting from just about everybody. It shows that people in society are not very accepting of people wearing very different clothing because there was such a big reaction from each person as I went by. Another question could be would people react differently if I had been walking by, rather than skating. The weakness of the study is that I only studied one group of people. For this to have been a better study I would do the experiment in a variety of locations.
I'm sorry that there is no video, we filmed the experiment and it was a success, but Kathrin was unable to upload it on to her computer because it was too big. But basically it is the video of me skateboarding through seaport village with long john underwear on. you said that this was all I needed to put up for the video since we couldnt upload it
Social Experiment
Research Problem: How will people react when someone rides by on a skateboard in long tight underwear? Will people be shocked, confused, or pay no attention? If this is unresolved we will not know how people will react when they see someone dressed very differently. The purpose is exploratory.
Operation: The variables could be the location. If you are in a place where there are a lot of people dressed differently then you may not get much of a reaction. But if you are somewhere where people are all dressed similarly we may get much more of a reaction. So in downtown people may react less than they would at the mall. We will need a video camera to explain these observations. It has not changed from what I originally intended.
Hypothesis: My hypothesis is that people will stare and turn their heads as I pass. The independent variables are the number of people who will be there for the experiment. The dependent variable is how many people will react. The location could have made a difference in the experiment. People in society have specific norms for what people wear. Although many people dress very differently most things that people wear are accepted in society. So when someone drastically breaks the norm many people will be very shocked when they see that.
Research Design:
Mode: Experimental. The design is suited very well. By skating in a very deviant outfit we can get reactions from many more people because I can travel through everybody very fast. The hypothesis was definitely tested very well with this experiment. We got to see many reactions from many people.
Sample: It was a sample because it was a specific group of people at seaport village. The sample was people at seaport village, this is a great sample because there are a lot of local people there on their day off, as well as many tourists from around the country/ world. So we were able to test a lot of different people all in one place. It was representative of the population of San Diego because of all the people there on their day off. It is very likely that the findings will be generalized to other populations because there was such a wide variety of different people there.
Findings (analysis and interpretation):
When I skated through seaport village wearing my long underwear pretty much every person I went by turned around and stared at me. I basically got a reaction from everybody there. I was very noticeable because what I was wearing was so different. We filmed this experiment and it can be viewed on Kathrin’s camera.
Summary and conclusion:
When I skated through seaport village wearing my long underwear pretty much every person I went by turned around and stared at me. I basically got a reaction from everybody there. I was very noticeable because what I was wearing was so different. I don’t see this being looked at in any other way. Everybody had a very similar reaction of confusion and surprise. It could have been different in a place where there were a lot of people dressed in deviant clothing, because then I wouldn’t have stood out. My hypothesis was definitely correct. I got the reaction I was expecting from just about everybody. It shows that people in society are not very accepting of people wearing very different clothing because there was such a big reaction from each person as I went by. Another question could be would people react differently if I had been walking by, rather than skating. The weakness of the study is that I only studied one group of people. For this to have been a better study I would do the experiment in a variety of locations.
letter to Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NWWashington, DC 20500
Dear Obama
Hello my name is Clifford Green and I am a student at High Tech High International, at my school we had a project to try and confront problems throughout the world and come up with solutions, that if applied have the potential of working.
It seems as if we have reached a new era in the way America functions economically with the rest of the world. With the American economy the way it is, it seems foolish to continue to lose so much money outsourcing while at the same time to have complete disregard for the work force of many of the countries we outsource to. Now that we are in an era of change and growth it only seems necessary and reasonable to better out relationship with many countries we trade with. It also seems necessary with the state of our economy to correct the way we manage our countries business and finances.
I propose on putting a trade embargo on many of the countries we outsources to until they create a decent minimum wage for their underpaid workers along with strict labor laws that will be reinforced. Although big businesses would be losing money, it would be extremely beneficial for the world. It would also make sense to provide surplus packages to the companies which agree to stop outsourcing until working conditions improve. Until these counties instate a minimum wage and strong labor laws, it will give America a chance to bring much of the business back to home, providing many American jobs and boosting our economy.
In order for America to remain on top serious changes must be made. America must rethink many of the fundamental system they use today in order to provide a foundation for the new era and successfully remain one of the world powers.
Sincerely,
Clifford Green
Dear Obama
Hello my name is Clifford Green and I am a student at High Tech High International, at my school we had a project to try and confront problems throughout the world and come up with solutions, that if applied have the potential of working.
It seems as if we have reached a new era in the way America functions economically with the rest of the world. With the American economy the way it is, it seems foolish to continue to lose so much money outsourcing while at the same time to have complete disregard for the work force of many of the countries we outsource to. Now that we are in an era of change and growth it only seems necessary and reasonable to better out relationship with many countries we trade with. It also seems necessary with the state of our economy to correct the way we manage our countries business and finances.
I propose on putting a trade embargo on many of the countries we outsources to until they create a decent minimum wage for their underpaid workers along with strict labor laws that will be reinforced. Although big businesses would be losing money, it would be extremely beneficial for the world. It would also make sense to provide surplus packages to the companies which agree to stop outsourcing until working conditions improve. Until these counties instate a minimum wage and strong labor laws, it will give America a chance to bring much of the business back to home, providing many American jobs and boosting our economy.
In order for America to remain on top serious changes must be made. America must rethink many of the fundamental system they use today in order to provide a foundation for the new era and successfully remain one of the world powers.
Sincerely,
Clifford Green
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
