What is Literature?

Literature and The Giver

Literature is traditionally thought of as writings. In a literature class mostly books and short stories are read. These stories traditionally evoke a form of expression, and accurately present the authors ideas and emotions. Which in tern creates emotions in the reader. However I do not believe literature is limited to written works. I believe that music, movies, and TV shows are also forms of literature. All these forms accurately portray the creators intentions to convey a message with emotion. While creating emotions in the person experiencing the various forms of literature. Literature has value in society because we experience it everyday in almost every aspect of life. From watching TV, listening to the radio, or reading an except form an article.

My favorite piece of literature is the book called The Giver, by Louis Lowry. Even though the book is made into a movie, the movie does not accurately portray the concept and story as well as the book. The movie is still literature, but it is not as effective as the book. The book vividly portrays how life is like in a civilization where the citizens are extremely limited in what they can do by their government. The citizens cannot see colors and they have no memory of the past. The Receiver of Memory holds all the memories of the civilization, that the government chooses the people not to know. These memories include death, colors, and music. The citizens have no concept of these happenings. The citizens "send off" the elderly and weak babies. They are using euthanasia to kill these people and have no idea what they are doing. It is obvious when the care taker "sends someone off" by sticking an needle in their head and down a trash heap that they are dead. But the citizens have no idea. The book amazed me so much and it is so well written it almost feels like a history book at some points. The emotions it brings of anger, disgust and awe; make this an effective piece of literature.

Language as our Media and Still Living in the Age of Television

Postman’s concluding claim is that Our conversations about anything are conducted in whatever "languages" we find it possible and convenient to use. We do not see anything as what it is, but what our languages are. Our languages are our media. I agree that without language we cannot have much media. However his statement about the 10 Commandments contradicts that idea that languages are our media.                           

We may hazard a guess that a people who are being asked to embrace an abstract, universal deity would be rendered unfit to do so by the habit of drawing pictures or making statues or depicting their ideas in any concrete, iconographic forms. The God of the Jews was to exist in the Word and through the Word, an unprecedented conception requiring the highest order of abstract thinking. Iconography thus became blasphemy so that a new kind of God could enter a culture (Postman 9).

Postman states that since God can only exist though text, which was an unprecedented conception at the time, requires an abstract way of thinking. Because of this iconography became blasphemy so that this new God could enter the culture. If even God is too afraid of the media of depicting statues and pictures, when His way of conveying with the people is word. God must have felt that Word can be an inferior to iconography when expressing abstract ideas. “To say it, then, as plainly as I can, this book is an inquiry into and a lamentation about the most significant American cultural fact of the second half of the twentieth century: the decline of the Age of Typography and the ascendancy of the Age of Television”(8). Television is still the most primary media influence. The use of mobile devises is catching up to television. However the television companies still are the ones running the media on the mobile devises. People may not spend as much time watching cable or local television as was watched in 1984, but hours are spent on Netflix and ESPN 3 stations. These mediums are not directly from the local antenna or the cable provider, but they are still television. While we still get a lot of information off of our mobile devises, mostly we just get bits and pieces of information off these websites. Like our “news of the day” example mobile devises just give us bits and pieces of whatever seems to interest us. Television is still our primary source of media still in the year 2015.

Are the words on the tablets or the huge golden calf easier to conceptualize?

Fracking Regulations Retorical Annalysis

Fracking Regulations

     Fracking is one of the topics where in general most people do not know much about fracking or what it is. However these same people almost are always strongly for or against the use of fracking. The audience should have some knowledge about fracking. What exactly fracking is, that is not relevant to the situation of my rhetorical analysis. Since the issue is the amount of regulations on fracking, the only knowledge the reader needs to know is that fracking is presumed to harmful to environment, and is harmful to people’s health. There are also very few regulations on fracking at all, in the state of Texas there is no difference in laws between fracking and the use of a normal oil rig. According to the Texas Commission on Environmental Equality with standards determined from the railroad commission. There is also a lot of trouble getting any regulations passed. Some of George Bush’s officials where out with big oil companies, when they were supposed to talk about possible regulations. Instead, the “investigation also concluded that several of the officials “frequently consumed alcohol at industry functions, had used cocaine and marijuana, and had sexual relationships with oil and gas company representatives””(New York Times). The purpose of this paper is to control the situation of fracking. The majority of the people who feel strongly about fracking know that there are some negative effects of fracking that are pretty serious.  The health risks of the use of fracking need to be controlled before there can be genuine economic growth which everyone loves so much. There is nothing wrong with the people who try to bring growth to the economy through fracking. They are just creating a situation, which is starting to have very negative side effects in the regions where fracking are done. There the people who live in those regions are not even reaping the benefits of fracking. Often the town does not grow in the positive way that they would hope. The crime rates in those regions go up the people who work on the fracking unit itself do not need the same recourses that the average people in the town use, so even there the locals mostly see the negative effects of fracking. The oil companies need to be able to control the situation. The oil companies need to make it to where the locals are still healthy and are able to control their own employs. But are not over regulated and the economic benefits are taken away. The situation between making money and improving the economy needs to be controlled and balanced between heath and environmental concerns.

http://www.tceq.texas.gov/assistance/industry/oil-and-gas/oilgas_air.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11royalty.html?pagewanted=all

Protecting the Freedom of Expression

Protecting the freedom of expression on college campuses and all places in public should be protected by the first amendment. As long as the way of expressing ones views does not deface property or physically harm other people. There is no way to regulate and if it were to be regulated, that would by definition inhibit the freedom and protection granted to Americans by the first amendment. No matter what is said there is someone somewhere who would take offense to that which is being said. Black and white racial slurs can be taken offensively, but are also commonly used as a joke by those taking offense to it. There cannot be a law made to regulate even black and white racial slurs, where it ok for those who take offence to it to be able to use it with each other. However it would not allow other people to use those same exact words because they were offended. Since, it is impossible to tell what is offensive the freedom of expression cannot be regulated. Even if just black and white “offensive” terms are no longer protected by the first amendment, there would be more and more terms and sayings that would have to be added every day. Certain stereo types can be taken offensive also. It is likely that me being a white male living in the south, I could be “offended” by someone saying nice boots sarcastically or “nice hat” or even “where is your horse”. Almost anything circling around the idea of free expression has to potential to be taken offensively, depending on what is said, how it is being said, or what you are displaying. These actions do not have to be taken offensively or with the intention to hurt someone. If someone is to choose to abuse the freedom of expression it is their responsibility to pay the consequences. There does not need to be formal consequences through the justice department, as in the case of violating the right to bear arms and shooting someone. However there are informal consequences, it is not a good idea to make fun of a specific race in a not so good part of town. There should be the restraint on a person that something might happen to me if I do that. It is also based on the person to try and not “offend” someone. But society as a whole needs to not worry about being offended by anything and everything somebody could possibly be offended by. When Bok, in “Protecting Freedom of Expression on Campus”, uses the example of a very common topic of what should and should not be protected by the first amendment he uses the Confederate Flag. There is no need to sensor the Confederate Flag. Just because the South had slaves and they were fighting a civil war it does not inherently mean if I wave this flag “I hate black people” or “I want slaves”. In most circumstances the Confederate Flag is a show of southern pride. It is no different than having a Texas flag displayed. The people who are offended by the flag have no idea what the intentions of the person displaying the flag. A few years ago there was an LSU Confederate Flag and the campus banned that flag, until the black student union petitioned for it to be allowed again, “Due to Southern Pride and to remember history”. Since the first amendment cannot be regulated there is no need to take away the freedom that most Americans do not abuse to try and curve the Americans who do abuse it and will not even fallow whatever laws are proposed anyway.  

Executed Man

I was present at this execution, it made me rethink my thoughts on the death penalty. A Texas inmate has been executed for the death of a corrections officer during a short-lived escape from prison six years ago.

Jerry Martin had requested that no additional appeals be filed on his behalf, clearing the way for his lethal injection Tuesday evening.

Martin was serving 50 years for attempted capital murder when he and another inmate bolted from a work detail outside a Huntsville-area prison in September 2007.

In the ensuing chaos and gunfire, a 59-year-old prison officer on horseback, Susan Canfield, suffered fatal head injuries. Both Martin and his partner, John Falk, were captured within hours after fleeing in a stolen pickup.

Martin's execution was the 16th and last scheduled for this year in Texas, which carries out capital punishment more than any other state.

Playing Uno

Playing uno destoys friendships. It is not a good game to play when trying to build friendships. It is also not good for younger children. There is no good in the game uno. It can also take a very long time and it will take away from valuable family time.

It doe not teach good erthics. Peokiple cheat sbnfd all is tau7ght to cheat and take away from love. In colclusion uno is bad.

Studing History

     History is important to learn from our mistakes in the pass. However sometimes we do not choose to learn from them. The Israelites, in the old testement choose not to learn from the past mistakes and from the warnings that God has given to them. The Israelites choose to go against God many times.

     The Isralites are thaught throughout history that God will always provide. The Israelites are lazy in their faith, and will defy God. When the Israelites build the false idol of the cow, they go against God and are punished for it. The Isralites went through fazes of loving and going against God, instead of loving him at all times.

http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philosophy/history/learning_from_history.html