I watched CNN's live feed online. It seemed that they knew the whole time that Obama had won the election. One problem I had is that the online map that showed what states were voting was very inaccurate. I had to keep refreshing the page to get the updates and some of the percentages that the states were projecting made no sense. The percentage would say that one of them was winning but the other one would not be checked. I think that for this particular type of coverage you would want to definitely be watching the live feed.

The only problem that I had with the live feed was that it wasn't projecting a tally in the corner of the screen. I wish I could have stayed up to watch the coverage of the final announcement but it was pretty obvious around 10 so I wasn't really worried about it. I don't really think that there is much rhetoric to discuss in this type of coverage. I feel like just about any of the stations are going to have a biased portrayal for the winning candidate. I should have watched FOX News to see if they looked sad throughout the election.

I think that rhetoric takes a backseat in live coverage that is this exciting. It is hard to tell whether the reporter is presenting in a credible manner or what kind of rhetoric they are using when you are just waiting for the next state to be displayed.

blog #6

I read the Real Problem with Obama's Tax Plan. Lasch's description of modern journalism really hit this article right on the nose. I don't really think that it would apply to all journalism though. I think that it only really hits on the political side of journalism. He talks like jounalism is only about polotics, like everything revolves around it. I can clearly see that a lot of jounalism does deal with polotics especially in this time with the election and all, but what is the real problem with just the regular old news. I don't think that the normal news is really dumbing down america.
However after reading this article I do agree that politcal news is dumbing down america in its politcal sense. Not many people really know the true stances and issues that our presidential candidates believe in. Especially after reading this article on Obama's tax plan I can understand why. The only information that you ever hear is changed by the media which seem to always be run by a political party. That article made Obama's tax plan sound horrible and it had no mention of John McCain's plan for our taxes. With the internet and television all of the information that we get seem to be changed by the media.
Lasch explained the medias affect to be so strong that the candidates are not trying to even show what they believe it doesnt matter its more about looking good for the media. Your politcal views could be perfect but if you look nervous and sweaty the media will bring it out and over portray it to the public.
After reading Lasch's thoughts and reading a political article I feel that the media blows the bad things about candidates so far out of proportion that it is to hard to ever see the good. You can even see this in political commercials even if they are going to say something good about a candidate it is not until after they say something bad aboiut the other one.
I agree with Lasch that true head to head debate is one of the only true tests for truly good intentions. I think personally that the best debate is when you have nothing to lose. No public eye to judge you and of course in this day and age that is virtually imposible for a presidential debate.

blog #5

I am going to have to use my last classes lecture for my presentation, because I am in the library without headphones. I just listened to a presentation in my Buisiness Statistics class. The presentation was about a type of statistic testing that is very complex. She was trying to explain the way that it is done without a calculator. She only had 50 minutes to present this information and for the particular audience or at least for me it was definately not enough time to get in depth about it. As you can imagine the presentation was your standard just like most classes involving math. She attempted to explain everything as she wrote it down. I really don't like that the presentation was only an hour long because you have to take notes through out the whole thing and it makes it much harder to pay close attention. In most classes I can get away with just going over my notes and I will understand everything but on this particular lecture I am still kind of lost.
She tried to make sure that no one had any questions as all teachers do, but sometimes you know you have a question but you don't really know what it is. When your class is only 50 minutes long you are going to definately have questions on something this complex. Through out the majority of the lecture she used a projector to illistrate the math that needed to be done. I liek that she does the work along with us but I do feel that if we had time to do some on our own and ask questions I would have a much better understanding of the subject matter.
She did run her presentation through very smoothly, she had no technical dificulties or anything that stopped the flow of the presentation at all. She handled questions very well and you can tell that she is really good at what she does. She can understand exactly what people are asking and what they are wandering through out her presentation. She does a good job at addressing every part of the presentation.

Free Blog

I am going to talk about the problems that I have with this college and other colleges around the country.  When I was in high school I always had teachers telling me that I had to go to college to succeed.  I had it drilled into my mind that if I didn't go to college I would not be able to get a good paying job.  I also got the idea that community college was for people who were not as smart as me or could not afford to go to a more credible or renowned school.  I blame the unconscious thought that I needed college on the way that these colleges market themselves and the way that my teachers have been trained to explain the need for further education.  

Only when I had been in college for two years did I really realize how little sense it makes for me to go here.  I don't know if its just because I have had a bad experience at this particular school or if it just because what I want to do doesn't really require a four year degree.  I have recently realized that this school cannot accommodate me to create a major that will suit my career goals.  I would talk more about how the school has not looked out for my interests and has not tried to offer me any suitable alternatives.  

I feel that many public colleges are like this and it is a sad state of affairs.  The good thing is that most students can find their major but this is not the true problem its just my problem.  There are many things that I feel are wrong with public colleges.  I can understand that not all people can get into all programs because they are just not qualified, but I do feel that it is a little extreme, I feel like they are making it tougher for people to get into programs so that they can raise prices.  How can a public college tell you that you have to live anywhere, for any amount of time?  You are going to college not prison.  Schools tell you that you have to buy their housing and eat their food, and then they overprice them to an appalling rate. 

Now that I have come to college I can see that it is ironically one of the most illogical moves of my life.  You would think that going to get a good education would be a logical step but after my first two years, I just know that college for me is not a logical step.  Once you have been in for two years you can't vary well just quit though, they have you too invested in your education to change your mind.  There are many more problems with how ironically illogical a lot of colleges are.  I feel like I could write about it for days but I am out of time.  I would really appreciate responses and peoples arguments for the pros and cons of college.  

Ad blog

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/images/Wonderbra%2520ad.jpg

This ad gives me mixed feelings. After looking at it for longer than the average second or two it makes me a little angry. The feeling that I get goes past the obviouse sexism you can see in the ad. It makes me feel angry because some people get this idea that these ads manipulate people more than they do. Its one thing to say that ads created our idea of beauty, advertising comes from culture and influences culture so I am not ashamed to say that advertising may manipulate my idea of beauty. I have never met someone in this day and age that isnt a senior citizen that actually thinks in the way that ads like this premote.

The design doesnt really evoke any emotions although I can see how it helps to objectify by focusing on the breasts but it is a bra ad so what do you want them to do. The message makes me feel kind of angry but it is kind of funny too. I kind of see it as a joke myself but Im not sure that, thats what the add writers were going for. I would hope that they don't seriously view women in this way. The ad seems to say that if a woman is attractive, she doesn't necessarily need to know how to do other things too.

From a rhetorical and visual design point of view, it uses the qualities described in the William's piece. There is proximity in that the words of the ad are placed right above the focal point and the place where your eyes start, the woman's breasts. The lighting makes the woman the main focus of the ad. The contrast of the white type against the woman and the burgundy background make it stand apart, just as the brightness of the woman makes her stand out. The main alignment is in the symmetry of thewoman's body, further exaggerated by the lines that the bra creates. Also, the lines and the black bra against the woman's body also draw your attention to the breasts. There isn't much repetition because the ad is so simple.

A review of Seeing Annie Dillard

Seeing is the second chapter of Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, the Pulitzer Prize for non fiction in 1975. It is a story starting with memories from her childhood and shifting toward her life living by Tinker Creek in Roanoke Valley, Virginia. It is about observation and how little you actually observe things as you grow older. She uses nature and its beauty as a metaphor for the beauty in life. She tries through out the story to grasp the beauty in the world. She uses people that have been cured from cataracts who are seeing for the first time as an example. They can see everything in its simplest form, in color patches as she describes it. She decides that if you were to really try to see everything in its purist form like this a normal person would go mad.
This reading is not for a lot of people. It is extremely metaphorical and I think if it were written less poetically it would be more for me and for many others. I like some of the points that the story makes. It makes you think of what we take for granted in life. One of my favorite quotes from the text is "If you cultivate a healthy poverty and simplicity, so that finding a penny will literally make your day, then, sense the world is in face planted in pennies, you have with your poverty bought a lifetime of days." I don't know if everyone thinks like me but this line makes me want to spend a year in the mountains and quit my job.
There were many very interesting parts to this reading and she is credible to talk about whatever it is she may be trying to explain here because she won the Pulitzer prize but like I said this article is not for everyone. I felt like she was describing a really crazy acid trip through the first half of the story, and at the time that it was written I wouldn't be suprized. I feel like I am bashing an reading that I shouldn't be messing with because it won the Pulitzer but its just not my style of writing. Ive never really like entirely poetic writing styles. I like a metaphor as much as the next guy but not an entire story full of them.

Blog #1

I am a marketing major and I'm in my junior year. I plan on changing my major to real-estate though because marketing involves a lot of classes that are of no interest to me. I feel like am paying three grand a quarter for a bunch of classes that have nothing to do with what I would like to do.
I want to be in large scale real-estate management. I plan on taking the money and knowledge I gain in my career and invest it into my own real-estate ventures. I could probably do this without a degree but I feel that it will help me get a job. Although I sometimes feel like I am wasting my time and money its not all bad because if I hadn't come to OU I would have never found the amazing real-estate market that exists on college campuses.
Once I heard how much rent was down here I started looking to buy houses. The prices of the homes are just as crazy as the rent they bring in though. I ended up buying a cheap house on first st. Its kind of a dump but with a few years work I think I will be able to make a good profit. I have to room mates that pay 300 a month and I pay 500 on the mortgage. All of the money that I make goes right into the house, including some of my own personal income.
I have learned more about what I want to do after I graduate from buying this house than
I have in any of the classes I have taken. I pay no rent and Im gaining equity and building credit. I would say that everyone should buy a house for their time in college, but not everyone can get a home loan pushed through. My father had to sign on the loan, because I have virtually zero credit. I make the payments and do the improvements and hopefully we can get the loan switched into my name by my senior year.