Hidden Itellectualism

Gerald Graff argues in his essay Hidden Intellectualism that pop culture can be a subject for serious intellectual analysis. Graff says, "Real intellectuals turn any subject, however lightweight it may seem, into grist for their mill through the thoughtful questions they bring to it, whereas a dullard will find a way to drain the interest out of the richest subject." Graff is saying that intellectuals can make any subject into a serious intellectual argument through their insightful new ideas they bring to the table about the subject. Graff also explains, " the rudiments of the intellectual life: how to make an argument, weigh different kinds of evidence, move between particulars and generalizations, summarize the views of others, and enter a conversation about ideas." All these things are present in an intellectual argument.

In Antonia Peacocke's essay, Family Guy and Freud: Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious, she presents an intellectual argument supporting the TV show Family Guy. If you have seen Family Guy the word intellectual is not the first word that comes to mind. Peacocke makes her argument intellectual by using Graff's advice. She provides the many view of family guy and summarizes arguments of many other authors opposing views. For example pages 262-263 are perfect ways Peacocke summarizes others beliefs. She brings her own ideas and thoughts to the table and explains why she stands on her beliefs. Peacock has written the "perfect essay" according to the book "They Say, I Say." She is in the they say, I say conversation, and makes a not-so intellectual show Family Guy into an intellectual, argumentative writing piece.

Rushkoff's Difficult Viewpoint

This might be how you are feeling when reading Rushkoff's essay


Douglas Rushkoff writes in his essay Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence, "The Simpsons is the closest thing in America to a national media literacy program." In this sentence Rushkoff is stating his view point, that the Simpsons is a good show because it teaches us to read the rest of media culture in America. The "they say" in this argument would be those who oppose the satire and somewhat offensive jokes in the show. The first time I read this essay, I was under the impression that Rushkoff was "bashing" the Simpsons. The reason that this might occur when other peers read it, is because although the Simpsons is directed towards young people, Rushkoff directs his essay towards a more intellectual individual. Rushkoff's essay is more on a high academic level, because of the complex ideas and vocabulary he uses. He is trying to show highly intelligent people that the Simpsons is not a "dumb" and offensive cartoon.





However, if Rushkoff were to write his essay geared toward the audience of the viewers of show he would have to change his tone, language, and arguments. He could first start of by using less complex of a vocabulary. In his essay, as it is now, requires a dictionary at hand for me to read. The tone of his essay would have to be more casual and attention catching to appeal to the teens of today. He might argue in his new essay for the reasons why we should be watching the Simpsons. Rushkoff could explain the deeper meanings behind the show, and how they are getting us to read the rest of media culture. Example's of this would have to be used in the essay. Overall his goal would be to write this essay and make it to where a younger individual would want to sit down, read it, and be interested in what he's saying.

Technology Takes Attension (blog 10)

Sherry Turkle addresses in her article, "Can You Hear Me Now?" how technology alienates you. It takes your attention from others around you and from yourself. She also mentions that it is bad for children to have cell phones, because they are always connected to their parents and don't get out in the real world by themselves. I agree with Turkle on the point that technology alienates us from our surroundings and somewhat ourselves, however I disagree that it is negative for children to own cell phones.

Turkle uses the reference of the PDA the Blackberry often in her article. As a Blackberry owner I have experience in being alienated from society. The Blackberry can receive your facebook and myspace updates, text messages, emails from all accounts you have, instant messages, and phone calls. Your phone is constantly chiming in with your new information. In most of the technology today they have phones that have all these and more features in your cell phone. This always gives people something to do in the technology world, you can check everything anywhere. I myself don't know what i would do without my cell phone. Turkle writes in her essay how technology like these can be addicting, and she is absolutely right. I myself have even had friends and relatives who spend all their time on their phones and text while your talking to them. I have gotten the "huh" and head nods a lot from friends not paying attention lost deep in their cell phones. Cell phones have disconnected us from society and ourselves.

Although I agree that technology is alienating, Turkle fails to support the opposition that we need these technologies to and extent. Turkle says in her article that children and teens these days should not have cell phones because it allows them to always be connected to their parents, not experience the real world, and not learn to fend for themselves. I disagree with this thought. The world has gone to crap. You are constantly hearing news stories of the increasing violence, kidnappings, homicides, and disasters. Do you want to be able to get a hold of your child in case they become a victim of the world's evil? We need these technologies to stay connected to our children and informed of whats going on around us in the world. Isn't that what parents are for anyways, protecting and being there for their children?

Yes technology is distracting, alienating, and disconnecting, but think where would we be without it. We need our cell phones, email, Internet, and other forms of communication to an extent. It all comes down to today's society, and how we have abused the technology given to us. Technology has made us rude. Next time your in class, having a conversation with a friend, or driving, put your phone down and have some respect.

The Internet is a Tool of Knowledge...If Used Correctly

Amy Goldwasser wrote the article "What's the Matter with Kids Today," in which she answers nothing. Parents and the older generation are under the impression that the Internet is "melting their teen's brain." In her article, Goldwasser says that he Internet is an educational tool and teens and the younger generations are reading and writing more than ever. In my opinion, Goldwasser is right in saying the Internet is a great learning tool but she fails to mention the problems that can come from the Internet. You have to use the Internet the correct way for it to be an educational tool.

Goldwasser reports, "the average teen chooses to spend an average of 16.7 hours a week reading and writing online." In this statistic she is pointing out that the Internet creates a voluntary learning experience. Teens can get on the Internet today and look up and research any information they are interested in. Teens find these interesting articles and some create blogs, in which they respond in writing how they feel about the issue and creating a debate. From experience, I know that reading things are far more likely for me to complete when it's something that I'm interested in and that I voluntarily choose to read. When teachers assign readings in class it is usually something not interesting to you, but using the Internet can allow us to search the web about anything our mind can think of. Teachers are also using the popular Internet tool, YouTube, now in classes for visual references. I love when teachers use YouTube in class, because it helps me apply information learned to real life and gives me a visual to better understand the information. Teens use the Internet for multiple reasons, whether it be blogging, using facebook to stay connected with old friends, or researching a topic on YouTube and reading articles about it, the Internet is a successful learning tool. Goldwasser praises this tool by saying, "Teenagers today read and write for fun; it's part of their social lives. We need to start celebrating his unprecedented surge, incorporating it as an educational tool.."

Golwasser, however, does not mention the negative effects the Internet has on teenagers. In a generation of high speed we have instant messaging, text messaging, and facebook and mypace. In these technologies teens are trying to look for a faster way to communicate. This results in abbreviations and misspellings in order to speed up the process. For example, the famous LOL, GTG, BRB, 2day, ppl, cuz, and many more. Yes, teens are reading and writing more, but how are they writing. The poor texting and instant messaging grammar spills over into these students school work. I can't tell you the countless times i have written ppl in a paper instead of people, unconsciously. In the Internet communication it is not rare to see many punctuation mistakes also or no punctuation at all. I know from personal experience that my grammar and punctuation skills suffer greatly from lack of practice and extreme practice of common texting or IMing language. The Internet could also be used for negative reasons also. You can have facebook and myspace stalkers, Internet porn that teen boys are attracted to, and many other dangers out there.

Yes, the Internet is a great learning tool, but we need to teach our society to use it correctly. So many people abuse the great technology. Our bad grammar used in the cyber world is now spilling into reality. Overall Goldwasser is correct, but fails to mention the negative side to the Internet.

example of metacommentary (8)

In Dana Steven's opening paragraph of her article "Thinking Outside the Idiot Box," she uses metacommentary and other context clues to let the reader know she is summarizing the views of another author, Steven Johnson. In summarizing Johnson's article "Watching TV Makes you Smarter, Steven's references Johnson's ideas of more complex plots, multi-threading, and his overall thesis of watching TV makes you smarter. She introduces the paragraph with the author she is arguing against and the piece he has wrote that she is going to be referencing. She comes out saying she "could make no sense of Johnson's piece," and this lets us know she is arguing against him and is going to summarize his thoughts she disagrees with. This sentence in her article summarizes part of Johnson's argument; "As far as I can tell, his thesis is that television shows have slowly grown more and more complicated over the last two decades, so that now, like rates in a behaviorist's maze, trained viewers can differentiate among up to 12 distinct plot lines in shows like The Sopranos." As you can see she uses the metacommentary "As far as I can tell, HIS thesis is," in other words she is starting the sentence off with "I," saying that she is summarizing "HIS" thesis of the article. Another great example of metacommentary is Steven's use of "In other words," in her sentence "In other words, if I understand correctly, watching TV teaches you to watch more TV.." The use of "in other words" lets us readers know that Steven's is going to put in her own words and her thought, what Johnson has written in his article. The last sentence of her first paragraph is her view on the subject. "..Like Teletubbies, which is essentially a tutorial instructing toddlers in the basics of vegging out," in this Steven's in making her point that watching TV doesn't make you smarter by referring to "vegging out" as becoming vegetable like.

In my opinion, I agree with Dana Stevens point of view. When i was reading Johnson's article I was thinking the same things, "so in order to understand these more complex plots you must watch more TV?" "Plots have become more complicated, so what? That doesn't teach you anything new it just requires you to think." Although I agree some TV can make you smarter, but it all depends on what your watching.

picture-http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/.a/6a00d83451c3cb69e20120a58fae9a970b-800wi

Metacommentary (7)

• In making a case for medical use of marijuana, I'm not saying that it should be prescribed for everything, but in certain cases it is acceptable.
• But my argument will do more than prove that one particular industrial chemical has certain toxic properties. In this article, i will also prove there is danger in using this industrial chemical.
• My point about the national obsessions with sports reinforces the belief held by many athletes that they are celebrities.
• I believe, therefore, that the war is completely justified. But let me back up and explain how I arrived at this conclusion. Tons of money is being put into this war to give Iraq there freedom, and many innocent people are dying. In this way, I came to believe that this war is a big mistake.