I do not watch very much TV so I do not know much about TV programs. When I was little, or when we went to see my grandpa in California I used to watch the Andy Griffith show. It was one of those good programs that were rare on the TV that you could actually watch. It has always been the kind of program that would start out normal than it would go through the plot of the movie than it would end back to normal. This is said in the essay when he says,”What’s most comforting about this show, however, is that things return to normal. That is, The Andy Griffith Show offers us a normal that can be returned to.” This has always been my favorite show if any that I have enjoyed. They always have the same people on the show; they do not change the cast for every show like many of the shows do now days. Every show was always very good; there was never any violence like many shows have today. Every show that you watched was always able to take you right to Mayberry, it was like you were there right in the middle of everything, it was so interesting. I think that the Andy Griffith Show was one of the best shows ever made. I think that this expressed in the essay when the author says, “The Andy Griffith Show, I believe, sets out to entertain and comfort and it succeeds as no other show ever has… or ever will.” The show gives you the feeling like the book says, “that it tells us that blue skies are normal” even though it’s not always like that in this world.
Exploring ideas
#2: I think that Bells essay encourages us to look differently at those old movies that we all used to watch when we where little. He wants us to see the difference they made in people and the world. They were alot different then the kind of movies that are on today.
#1: He wants us to see the difference that these movies actually made. The old movies like the Andy Griffith Show had a meaning the ones they make now don't.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
My response to " Is Hunting Ethical?"
My response to, Is Hunting Ethical?
The beginning of this essay starts with a very emotional story of dying fawn. The writer of this story Ann F. Causey is holding the fawn as it breaths its last breaths. They try their best to breathe life back into it but to no avail, after a few attempts at CPR and chest compressions the fawn finally dies. Then she asks the question, Is hunting ethical?
To me she takes the side in this essay of being for hunting. She clearly states that her husband is a hunter and they eat venison a lot. She defends hunters from people as she says that, “see all hunters as bloodthirsty, knuckle-dragging rednecks.” But I also think that she is more thought full of hunting and looks to the other side, the side that says that hunting is just not ok, and that we should not do it. She talks about how she knows a few hunters who do not have that deep reverence for nature and just kill for the fun of it. I personally feel that this is not the right thing to do. With the increase of people in the country I think that animals like the cougar and other top predators have moved out or have been hunted far to much, which have led to an up rise in dear and other small game. Even though I don’t think that hunting is really supper bad I still don’t really see the need of hunting. Many years ago when people were just coming to these parts of the country hunting was something that kept people alive. If people didn’t hunt for food they would most likely starve. I’m sure there are people that still hunt for their food at the table. But, for most there really is no need to hunt. I have always loved to target practice but personally I don’t think I could even shoot a squirrel. It’s just not in me to do it.
Writing Strategies
#2: Yes i think that she makes her purpose clear to the reader. She clearly say that she does not like the killing that is envovled in hunting but that she does not think that hunters are all killers looking for something to shoot.
#5: I think the only way she alienated me in this essay was by the short story she put at the front of her essay. it was very sad! but then i think about how if they did not hunt we would have tons of dear.
The beginning of this essay starts with a very emotional story of dying fawn. The writer of this story Ann F. Causey is holding the fawn as it breaths its last breaths. They try their best to breathe life back into it but to no avail, after a few attempts at CPR and chest compressions the fawn finally dies. Then she asks the question, Is hunting ethical?
To me she takes the side in this essay of being for hunting. She clearly states that her husband is a hunter and they eat venison a lot. She defends hunters from people as she says that, “see all hunters as bloodthirsty, knuckle-dragging rednecks.” But I also think that she is more thought full of hunting and looks to the other side, the side that says that hunting is just not ok, and that we should not do it. She talks about how she knows a few hunters who do not have that deep reverence for nature and just kill for the fun of it. I personally feel that this is not the right thing to do. With the increase of people in the country I think that animals like the cougar and other top predators have moved out or have been hunted far to much, which have led to an up rise in dear and other small game. Even though I don’t think that hunting is really supper bad I still don’t really see the need of hunting. Many years ago when people were just coming to these parts of the country hunting was something that kept people alive. If people didn’t hunt for food they would most likely starve. I’m sure there are people that still hunt for their food at the table. But, for most there really is no need to hunt. I have always loved to target practice but personally I don’t think I could even shoot a squirrel. It’s just not in me to do it.
Writing Strategies
#2: Yes i think that she makes her purpose clear to the reader. She clearly say that she does not like the killing that is envovled in hunting but that she does not think that hunters are all killers looking for something to shoot.
#5: I think the only way she alienated me in this essay was by the short story she put at the front of her essay. it was very sad! but then i think about how if they did not hunt we would have tons of dear.
Friday, November 2, 2007
My response to " Why doesn't GM Sell Crack"
My response to: Why doesn’t GM Sell Crack?
Written by Michael More
“Why doesn’t GM Sell Crack” is an essay that Michael More wrote, concerning the Outsourcing of American jobs to other countries. He believes that we should not send our jobs overseas just so huge companies can make a little more profit. He strongly argues the need for jobs to stay in America. He goes into explaining a time when he met the CEO of some large American company that made office supplies and was based in Taiwan. He asked the question to this CEO “How much is enough?” in which he replies “Enough what?” “How much is enough profit” he replied, “There’s no such thing as enough!” the CEO says.
He goes on describing how GM made nearly $7billion but wanted to move one of its factories from Ohio to Mexico just so they could make $ .1billon in profit. He then asks the question, “Why doesn’t GM sell crack?” if they want to make money they should sell crack. He talks about how much safer it is, he says that more people die in car wrecks then from doing crack.
I think that that he might not have used the right illustration for his essay. For one thing selling crack is illegal, selling cars is not. I think that he might have done this to make a more significant impression on the reader. I agree with him on the point that he is making, I think that we should not outsource are jobs to other countries. I think that we should keep them in the USA. I know that we will probably never be able to stop job from going overseas. I can’t even imagine what the people in a small town like the one in Ohio would do if such a large company moved from their town. So many people would lose their jobs it would be a disaster!
Writing Strategies
#1: I think that his voice is not very effective in this essay. He gives a lot of reasons that i dont think even match with what he is trying to say. comparing GM with selling crack is not going to work.
#2: He does it by showing that GM just moves all its jobs over seas just so they can make a little more money. So then he ask the question why dont they just sell crack instead? they could make a lot more money doing that.
Written by Michael More
“Why doesn’t GM Sell Crack” is an essay that Michael More wrote, concerning the Outsourcing of American jobs to other countries. He believes that we should not send our jobs overseas just so huge companies can make a little more profit. He strongly argues the need for jobs to stay in America. He goes into explaining a time when he met the CEO of some large American company that made office supplies and was based in Taiwan. He asked the question to this CEO “How much is enough?” in which he replies “Enough what?” “How much is enough profit” he replied, “There’s no such thing as enough!” the CEO says.
He goes on describing how GM made nearly $7billion but wanted to move one of its factories from Ohio to Mexico just so they could make $ .1billon in profit. He then asks the question, “Why doesn’t GM sell crack?” if they want to make money they should sell crack. He talks about how much safer it is, he says that more people die in car wrecks then from doing crack.
I think that that he might not have used the right illustration for his essay. For one thing selling crack is illegal, selling cars is not. I think that he might have done this to make a more significant impression on the reader. I agree with him on the point that he is making, I think that we should not outsource are jobs to other countries. I think that we should keep them in the USA. I know that we will probably never be able to stop job from going overseas. I can’t even imagine what the people in a small town like the one in Ohio would do if such a large company moved from their town. So many people would lose their jobs it would be a disaster!
Writing Strategies
#1: I think that his voice is not very effective in this essay. He gives a lot of reasons that i dont think even match with what he is trying to say. comparing GM with selling crack is not going to work.
#2: He does it by showing that GM just moves all its jobs over seas just so they can make a little more money. So then he ask the question why dont they just sell crack instead? they could make a lot more money doing that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)