For starts, the post I’m commenting on:
"Why Obama Won Big"
I watched the whole debate. It was the first presidential debate I had ever watched. I might be inexperienced in matters of politics, but Obama seemed to win the debate hands down. He provided some pretty clear points, explained what he was talking about, and he seemed to attack McCain a lot less than McCain attacked him. A good example of Obama being clear is when McCain was accusing him of wanting to have talks with Afghanistan without preconditions. He was trying to be very clear that he understood what preconditions were and would still have preparations for the meeting. McCain’s constant belittling of Obama on being inexperienced and not understand anything was really more annoying than anything. It made McCain look silly, as if he was just attacking Obama because he could not quite a make a good point on his own. In actuality, contrary to what McCain was saying, Obama quite well seemed to know what he was talking about, and he got that across very well in his arguments.
However, Obama did seem a little too submissive in his arguments. Every so often he would just agree with McCain without much argument. This was evident when they were discussing Georgia, where Obama said that he agreed with what McCain said. He really should have thrown in some small differences if there was not a large difference between their arguments, which he did do, but he should have done it with saying he did not quite agree with McCain. Obama also seemed to be a little weak in how he approached how he was going to deal with the threat of Iran. Obama actually seemed to be getting weaker in the last thirty minutes of the debate. McCain seemed to verbally trump over Obama in that, for the most part, though it was not always in a good way. With his point over Obama about going into talks with Ahmadinejad, McCain kept going on about preconditions and he verbally overcame Obama with that, but he did no seem to know what he himself was talking about, even though he said Obama did not know what he was talking about.
In his essay “Why Obama Won Big”, Andrew Sullivan clearly thought Obama won this debate. He made a very interesting point about body language and how McCain very rarely looked at Obama and put it out as a sign of insecurity. I thought it was more that he did not really want to acknowledge Obama as an opponent, which would make sense with how condescending he was with him. However, I did not really notice that McCain did not really look at Obama until I saw it in Sullivan’s post, and as I re-watched the debate, I noticed it well where Obama would look at McCain while he was speaking, and McCain would just look down while Obama was speaking. In a situation where you are supposed to be arguing with someone such as a debate, this seems disrespectful in the sense that you should acknowledge the person you are arguing with. This just made McCain seem more condescending along with his words of “Obama again doesn’t understand” and calling him naïve. I agree with Sullivan that Obama did seem very presidential like. He felt pretty good in his presentation of himself, very sure of what he was saying, while McCain did not quite seem so sure of himself. Most of his answers to questions seemed to loop back onto his experience in the military and how he knows how to do things without present evidence of actually knowing how to do them, which would probably be that sign of insecurity that Sullivan pointed out.
Overall, I really agree with what Sullivan said. Obama did seem to win the debate big time, especially in after thought. When checking the facts in the New York Times, Obama seemed to mess up his facts less than McCain, or, when he did mess them up, the mess ups were more minor. He consistently seemed to trump over McCain in being prepared and making good valid points. He even seemed to have a better physical presentation of himself. This could just be my own biases coming into play though. Therefore Contrary to how it was said that there was a tie between the two, it really seemed like Obama came out more on top that night.
Citations:
1) Sullivan, Andrew. “Why Obama Won Big” The Daily Dish. 27 Sept. 2008.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/why-obama-won-b.html#more
2) Bosman, Julie, Calmes, Jackie, Luo, Michael, Rohter, Larry, Wald, Matthew. “Check Point: The First Debate” The New York Times. 26 Sept. 2008.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/check-point-the-first-debate/?hp
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Is the Internet the best way to talk? Who Knows?
Superior. It is a word which means that something or someone is at the top of something. Better than something. In this case, one form of communication is to be better than the others. It is at the top, nothing better. Can one pick one form of communication and say that it is better than every other form of communication? Seeing as how there are many facets to every way of communication, it is incredibly difficult to argue that one form is superior to every other kind. However, there are some that are clearly better than some others, with one to keep in mind that just might make the case that it is close to superior. First of all, the top forms of communication should be put out. It should be noted that some will be collapsed together mostly for the sake of convenience. If one were to look at all the different ways of communicating, it would take more than a page or two to analyze them. Anyway, there is verbal communication face to face, verbal communication not face to face (phone conversation), physically written communication (books, letters, notes, etc), and virtual communication (everything typed up onto a computer, television, text messages, the internet, etc). So we have all of these different ways of communication broken down into these very dense and broad categories. Which one could be best? It would be good to start that investigation by looking at communication.
To start, communications are a form of interaction between people. This includes indirect communication between the author of a book and the reader of that book, though it is, for the most part, a one sided communication from the author to the reader unless the reader somehow establishes a conversation with the writer outside of the book. Therefore, written communications are still communications between people. To extend this reasoning, a lot the information we get about the world comes from words written down in some form, virtual or physical. Most of what we say is based off of these written down words we have learned in some form. Due to the introduction of literacy and writing, we have been able to retain knowledge and build upon it at quick rates. What we learned as kids came from other people who learned it from other people, most often with the origin of the source of the information relatively unknown. There is a huge fountain of known knowledge. Drawing upon this knowledge which is passed onto others through written means, radio, or other people who heard it from somewhere, we are participating in secondary orality. A sort of indirect communication of other people’s found knowledge, communication. Since our knowledge base builds upon itself, it is nearly impossible to speak and not be participating in this secondary orality.
With all of this in mind we can start to look at which form of communication is closest to superior. It could easily be said that virtual communication is far superior to other means, even if you just use the internet and computers and compare them to everything else. They can hold massive amounts of information in small amounts of space, are easily accessible and transported, can still communicate with other people through digital means (instant messenger and e-mail), etc. However, there are significant disadvantages to this medium which start to make it look less superior. For one thing, humans are social creatures, and do best when socializing physically with other people face to face. One learns to read actions, facial expressions, body language, say the right things in the right situations, all that goes with an interaction with two people in a face to face meeting. When one is communicating via virtual means, there is simply no way to get this across, so that socialization is lost.
The other forms of communication do still provide information, but all of that information could easily come from virtual means, such as an internet database or newspaper and therefore be secondary orality. However, that orality still serves to spread information which may not spread like it does via virtual means. Surroundings can serve as motivators for conversation and set a background for conversation, as opposed to anything which might come from a computer simulation of that (chat rooms, video chat rooms, etc. There is also definite quality of authenticity which comes from being in the “real world” that one does not quite get from the virtual world.
Is virtual communication the most superior form of communication? The answer is yes in relation to being connected to people and information in the most efficient manner possible. Focusing on the different facets of the forms of communication though, each one has their own benefits to be gotten.
Citations:
1. Crowley, David, and Heyer, Paul. “Communication in History - Technology, Culture, Society.” Orality, Literacy, and Modern Media. Ed. Bowers, Karon. Person Education, Inc., 2007. 66-72.
2. Gardner, Howard. “The End of Literacy? Don’t Stop Reading.” The Washington Post 17 Feb. 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502898.html
3. Jacoby, Susan. The Dumbing of America.” The Washington Post. 17 Feb. 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502901.html
To start, communications are a form of interaction between people. This includes indirect communication between the author of a book and the reader of that book, though it is, for the most part, a one sided communication from the author to the reader unless the reader somehow establishes a conversation with the writer outside of the book. Therefore, written communications are still communications between people. To extend this reasoning, a lot the information we get about the world comes from words written down in some form, virtual or physical. Most of what we say is based off of these written down words we have learned in some form. Due to the introduction of literacy and writing, we have been able to retain knowledge and build upon it at quick rates. What we learned as kids came from other people who learned it from other people, most often with the origin of the source of the information relatively unknown. There is a huge fountain of known knowledge. Drawing upon this knowledge which is passed onto others through written means, radio, or other people who heard it from somewhere, we are participating in secondary orality. A sort of indirect communication of other people’s found knowledge, communication. Since our knowledge base builds upon itself, it is nearly impossible to speak and not be participating in this secondary orality.
With all of this in mind we can start to look at which form of communication is closest to superior. It could easily be said that virtual communication is far superior to other means, even if you just use the internet and computers and compare them to everything else. They can hold massive amounts of information in small amounts of space, are easily accessible and transported, can still communicate with other people through digital means (instant messenger and e-mail), etc. However, there are significant disadvantages to this medium which start to make it look less superior. For one thing, humans are social creatures, and do best when socializing physically with other people face to face. One learns to read actions, facial expressions, body language, say the right things in the right situations, all that goes with an interaction with two people in a face to face meeting. When one is communicating via virtual means, there is simply no way to get this across, so that socialization is lost.
The other forms of communication do still provide information, but all of that information could easily come from virtual means, such as an internet database or newspaper and therefore be secondary orality. However, that orality still serves to spread information which may not spread like it does via virtual means. Surroundings can serve as motivators for conversation and set a background for conversation, as opposed to anything which might come from a computer simulation of that (chat rooms, video chat rooms, etc. There is also definite quality of authenticity which comes from being in the “real world” that one does not quite get from the virtual world.
Is virtual communication the most superior form of communication? The answer is yes in relation to being connected to people and information in the most efficient manner possible. Focusing on the different facets of the forms of communication though, each one has their own benefits to be gotten.
Citations:
1. Crowley, David, and Heyer, Paul. “Communication in History - Technology, Culture, Society.” Orality, Literacy, and Modern Media. Ed. Bowers, Karon. Person Education, Inc., 2007. 66-72.
2. Gardner, Howard. “The End of Literacy? Don’t Stop Reading.” The Washington Post 17 Feb. 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502898.html
3. Jacoby, Susan. The Dumbing of America.” The Washington Post. 17 Feb. 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502901.html
Sunday, September 14, 2008
McCain and Palin are liars like all politicians are
In his blog post McCain: Liar Who Won’t Correct in the Daily Dish, Andrew Sullivan talks about how terrible it is that John McCain is lying very explicitly in the media and seemingly getting away with it. I actually agree with his position here. I have long felt that politics is too much of a popularity contest where people just say what they want in order to get ahead and be regarded with favor by others. This seems to be what McCain is doing. He is lying about his vice president candidate’s record of the past in order for people to recognize his vice president candidate as better than she really is. He knows that people will not look favorably at all upon her for supporting a project that just seemed to be a total waste of money. However, since she is his candidate, he will just outright lie about it, regardless of the fact that she did actually support the Bridge to Nowhere project until it was stopped by Congress. He could be so openly lying about this when most people who have looked into Sarah Palin know this is not true because he is hoping that the people who have not looked into her see what he is saying and take it at face value.
Andrew Sullivan does seem to go too far with his claim that McCain is telling many lies. It is a universally agreed upon truth that politicians are all around big liars. His claim would be that McCain is one of the biggest liars. I have heard from news reports and friends that he has been lying quite a bit, but it seems his lies are just easier to see through than the other politicians. He is being a bit sloppy, but there are many presidents who have said one thing while running for president and never come through on their word or even attempted to. They were just saying what people wanted to hear to get them elected. Chief among this is just about any president’s claim that they will lower taxes or that they will uphold the people’s best interests. They more so tend to represent their party’s best interests. So he is slipping on his lies. It is no surprise that he is obviously lying. It would seem that Palin is making it really hard for him to keep a good image up for his candidacy by messing up in interviews and her beliefs seemingly not lining up with his. She appears to know very little about our foreign policy, as can be seen by her not knowing anything about the policy that Bush passed soon after getting into office where we can preemptively attack another nation if we believe they are going to attack us. It is really hard to cover up that sort of thing and make it look good.
Overall, it would appear that Palin is still new at the politician game. She has not been scrutinized so much in the past, so she has probably not made much effort to really appear to be great. However, now she is being looked over by just about everyone in the nation, and they are seeing all of her flaws that she never bothered to cover up. McCain is trying his best, but he definitely has quite the job ahead of him while trying to do so. He would even go so far as to noticeably lie like this, which one would think is a very bad thing to do. However, maybe he has a few tricks up his sleeve that he has yet to pull out in choosing Palin as his candidate. We will have to wait and see. If Andrew Sullivan could stop picking at every little thing wrong with her and try seeing some positive things about her, she might not appear to be so bad a candidate in his blog posts.
Citation
1) Sullivan, Andrew. “McCain: Liar Who Won’t Correct.” The Daily Dish. 13 Sept. 2008.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Advent of this Blog
I am Chris. Many years ago I thought I was far separated from culture and the media. Over time I have come to learn that to be a huge falsity. Media is more than news, newspapers, politics, and everything pertaining to them. They are within just about every facet of life. From clothes that give messages to computers such as Macs that say you're hip, media is everywhere! However, I actively participate in specific parts of media. Like most college students, I have a Facebook account and I check it about once a day for updates on what could be birthdays or odd events. However, I really do not check it more than that. Another part of the media I engage in is video games. Often times they can reflect the popular opinion of the society at the time, and people's public opinions influence what goes into a game and generally what games get made. Though I play less video games than I used to before I got to college(I actually started the studying thing once I got here), I definitely still play them, especially when a break comes around. I do actually listen to radio more often than cds, though mostly for classical music. What I often end up hearing is the news, since the station I listen to most frequently broadcasts news around when I am driving and listening to the radio. Oh, but that music is darn good while it lasts...
I quite enjoy watching movies, if only because movies are interesting forms of media. They often show different perspectives on issues with the popular values of the times the movie was made in layered into it. Then sometimes they throw in perspectives that are new and different and make you think. Another thing about me...after a lot of thought, is how my clothes fit into media and who I am as a result. Fashion designers and their ilk produce different clothing lines and all that happy stuff. People see their advertisements on television and see their advertisements in department stores. Then they buy the clothing they like. Fashion people get feedback on what is liked and not liked and...I think most of you get the idea. My clothes I try to make as plain and blue as I can. I like not being a walking billboard of a brand or a walking billboard of some silly or stupid phrase that a lot of people get shirts of(I'm not suffering from laziness, I'm enjoying every minute of it).
I should really say more about myself than my participations in media. I am a laid back senior at UMBC. I enjoy wombats, almost all kinds of music, video games, Japanese animation, thinking about life, and David Bowie. Also, like all of you, I am a child of the media as a whole.
Oh, I almost forgot. I looked into the different blogs, and I know which one it is that I will be following. It's the Daily Dish by Andrew Sullivan. He is conservative but seemingly not to an extreme, and I am more edging on the liberal side. therefore, I think I will have stuff to say on his writings.
Link to his blog: The Daily Dish
Enjoy
I quite enjoy watching movies, if only because movies are interesting forms of media. They often show different perspectives on issues with the popular values of the times the movie was made in layered into it. Then sometimes they throw in perspectives that are new and different and make you think. Another thing about me...after a lot of thought, is how my clothes fit into media and who I am as a result. Fashion designers and their ilk produce different clothing lines and all that happy stuff. People see their advertisements on television and see their advertisements in department stores. Then they buy the clothing they like. Fashion people get feedback on what is liked and not liked and...I think most of you get the idea. My clothes I try to make as plain and blue as I can. I like not being a walking billboard of a brand or a walking billboard of some silly or stupid phrase that a lot of people get shirts of(I'm not suffering from laziness, I'm enjoying every minute of it).
I should really say more about myself than my participations in media. I am a laid back senior at UMBC. I enjoy wombats, almost all kinds of music, video games, Japanese animation, thinking about life, and David Bowie. Also, like all of you, I am a child of the media as a whole.
Oh, I almost forgot. I looked into the different blogs, and I know which one it is that I will be following. It's the Daily Dish by Andrew Sullivan. He is conservative but seemingly not to an extreme, and I am more edging on the liberal side. therefore, I think I will have stuff to say on his writings.
Link to his blog: The Daily Dish
Enjoy
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)