Standing Ovation

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

Mental Influence

1. “Glenn beck of Fox News, mounted an assault on Van Jones a White House Environmental advisor, who, in 2004 signed a petition saying that the Bush administration may have well been the cause for 9/11 to happen perhaps a pretext
for war.”

2. In this part of the text he refers to cable news influence on forty percent of America, and talking about the statistics of partisan bias.

3. It somehow seems that 9/11 is some democrat/republican issue that it has nothing to do with truth and nothing to do with lies, but conflict, which stirs up between the parties, as if somehow it had something to do with politics and not at all with money, drugs, and resources, overall an economic issue not even a religious one. Things that stand out are “mounting assault”, “9/11”, and “pretext for war”. On both sides there are people who believe it happened due to our government in the variety of ways this country seem to be involved, and then there are those that don’t who’s intention is either to influence other opinion for the sake of taking more power, or those who are blinded by authority and the “official” story, which is the real conspiracy theory?

4. The media on both sides seem to be funded by groups with special interests which lure the truth farther away. For this article, I don’t quite understand why it was added in the claim, it is one of those just over the surface issues that people don’t seem to like talking about, just mentioning, and have somebody else think about which no one seems to do. It frustrates me the amount of suggestive thinking, that changes perspectives there are, how the people seem to be sheep following the shepherd to the slaughter house, and blind in conformity.

Jonah Laugharn

No comments:

Post a Comment

Welcome

Welcome to our Eng 100 Blog “Standing Ovation”! The title of this blog refers to the audience of active readers we are creating by sharing our academic writing for Eng 100 with a larger group of students, instructors, academics, and just about anybody who chooses to follow our blog! When you write and post your reader responses here (and, later, as you write your essays for the course), I encourage you to use this audience to conceptualize who you are writing for and, most important, how to communicate your ideas so that this group of academic readers and writers can easily follow your line of thinking. Think about it this way: What do you need to explain and articulate in order for the other bloggers to understand your response to the essays we’ve read in class? What does your audience need to know about those essays and the authors who wrote them? And how can you show your readers, in writing, which ideas you add to these “conversations” that take place in the texts we study?
As students of Eng 100, you will use this blog to begin conversations with other academic writers on campus (students and instructors alike). We become active readers of each other’s writing when we comment on posts here. And, best of all, we are using this space to share ideas! I encourage you to use this blog to further think through the topics and writing strategies you will be introduced to this quarter. As always, be sure to give credit to those people whose ideas you borrow for your own thinking and writing (you should do this in the blog by commenting on their post, but you will also be required to cite what you borrow from your peers/instructors if and when it winds up in your essays. More details on that later).
Finally, keep in mind that writing to and for this audience is a good way to prepare for the panel of readers (faculty at WCC) who will be reading and assessing your writing portfolio at the end of the quarter. I hope that as a large group of active readers, we can better prepare each other for this experience. But, in the meantime, let’s have fun with it!