Prompt : It is ok for the government to mislead in order to promote security. I do not necessarily agree with this statement, however, I do not disagree with it either. For the purpose of this task, I would agree to the statement in regard to the aftermath of watching the documentary : The Control Room. Firstly it is worth noting that this documentary is by Al Jazeera, a media outlet in that focuses and is based largely within the Arab/ Middle Eastern community. Although it is described as being objective, no amount of pure objectivity can be measured and thus subjectivity is present.
The statement just contradicts the position and role of the government. Although some may see it as ok to mislead to promote security , it falsifies claims of governments misleading in general. Furthermore, equating this, proves that not only would people be upset, but it would start to question the integrity of the government and position in general. In a Democratic system, one would elect a candidate based on policy,social agenda and attitudes. It isn't till however, action is put into place and real work is actually done. The way governments handle and manipulate within society such as media, is a prevalent factor in asking "Why did we even elect him/her if all they say is lies". This ties into international disputes as seen through propaganda/media manipulation in the Control Room and reaction to people/public to solidify false reasoning on entering the Iraqi War.
One perspective one can look at this is : It is illegal for Advertisers to mislead/change info of their product or what happens with the product in relation to consumers. Isn't Propaganda by the government just in fact, false advertising, yet somehow legal? How do we know that the product we consume(media, speeches, propaganda) is right from both internal and external sources?
Saturday, November 19, 2016
Prompt - Control Room
Prompt : It is ok for the government to mislead in order to promote security. I do not necessarily agree with this statement, however, I do not disagree with it either. For the purpose of this task, I would agree to the statement in regard to the aftermath of watching the documentary : The Control Room. Firstly it is worth noting that this documentary is by Al Jazeera, a media outlet in that focuses and is based largely within the Arab/ Middle Eastern community. Although it is described as being objective, no amount of pure objectivity can be measured and thus subjectivity is present.
The statement just contradicts the position and role of the government. Although some may see it as ok to mislead to promote security , it falsifies claims of governments misleading in general. Furthermore, equating this, proves that not only would people be upset, but it would start to question the integrity of the government and position in general. In a Democratic system, one would elect a candidate based on policy,social agenda and attitudes. It isn't till however, action is put into place and real work is actually done. The way governments handle and manipulate within society such as media, is a prevalent factor in asking "Why did we even elect him/her if all they say is lies". This ties into international disputes as seen through propaganda/media manipulation in the Control Room and reaction to people/public to solidify false reasoning on entering the Iraqi War.
One perspective one can look at this is : It is illegal for Advertisers to mislead/change info of their product or what happens with the product in relation to consumers. Isn't Propaganda by the government just in fact, false advertising, yet somehow legal? How do we know that the product we consume(media, speeches, propaganda) is right from both internal and external sources?
The statement just contradicts the position and role of the government. Although some may see it as ok to mislead to promote security , it falsifies claims of governments misleading in general. Furthermore, equating this, proves that not only would people be upset, but it would start to question the integrity of the government and position in general. In a Democratic system, one would elect a candidate based on policy,social agenda and attitudes. It isn't till however, action is put into place and real work is actually done. The way governments handle and manipulate within society such as media, is a prevalent factor in asking "Why did we even elect him/her if all they say is lies". This ties into international disputes as seen through propaganda/media manipulation in the Control Room and reaction to people/public to solidify false reasoning on entering the Iraqi War.
One perspective one can look at this is : It is illegal for Advertisers to mislead/change info of their product or what happens with the product in relation to consumers. Isn't Propaganda by the government just in fact, false advertising, yet somehow legal? How do we know that the product we consume(media, speeches, propaganda) is right from both internal and external sources?
Sunday, November 13, 2016
'Don't be Afraid' - Trump (Parody Post)
YOU Aren't Safe - Trump states after Presidential Win in his luxurious palace in New York
"Of Course, if I tell them, everything will be alright I would be lying. Indeed I would. People in this country aren't safe and that's the truth. Us, we, real American people are in danger and I will take action" said Trump after an interview on CBS News.
The interview took place in the Trump Tower Penthouse and marked Trump's first televised sit-down since his brilliant and no contest win over Hillary Clinton. Topics were talked about, but what caught many eyes, is President Trumps focus on social divisions and global independence for the United States. Social divisions were controlled by Trump and part of his thought out campaign promises in his steamroll at winning the White House.
Trump admitted that despite his election day highs, he is focused on being our president and an amazing one at that. Trump also talked about policies such as a wall which would separate Mexico and USA and raised a question for our people: "Are you safe?" in which he backed up by saying that our country is filled with Mexican rapists and terrorists. Supporters from all over the east and west coast spoke about their joy and one was quoted saying 'Get them out of OUR country!'.
It's excellent to see such patriotism from Donald and his loyal supporters and us Americans. This country is going places and needs Trump to stay afloat. The only problem we face is "Can anybody be better than Trump"? To which many Americans don't need to say a word.
SOURCE : http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/11/13/trump-divided-america-dont-be-afraid
NOTE* THIS IS A PARODY POST.
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
Another One - IOC Outline for Coriolanus
A: Contextualize
-Act 1 Scene III
-Our first Introduction to significant secondary characters in Volumnia and Virgilia(Mother and Wife of Martius) in a domestic setting
-Shortly after Coriolanus/Martius returns from the victory at Corioli
B: Overview
-The Passage is a conversation between Virgilia and Volumnia.
-It involves both women who are close to Coriolanus and have a significant relationship
C: Purpose
-To indirecytly characterize coriolanus from his mother's perspective(secondary characters).
D: Structure
- Linear structure in sequential pattern
- This passage is a represented with two dialogue characters
-Passage situated in a calm setting(household/domestic) contrary to the tone of the previous scene
-Small Soliloquy by Volumnia expressing her opinions clearly, establishing some authority over Virgilia
-Out
E: Main idea
- Purpose and significance were to express how two secondary characters of close relations can help characterize Coriolanus, but more important the indirect characterization of Coriolanus through Volumnia(the mother's) perspective. It is worth mentioning that is very obvious to the audience where Coriolanus gets his attitude/values from based on the soliloquy which contributes to the mood and tone of the passage.
Comment on Shakespeare's Characterization of Volumnia
What is significant about Shakespeare's use of imagery in this passage?
1. In the following passage, Shakespeare's intentions are clear and simple with the characterization of Volumnia. It is worth noting that this scene takes place in Act 1 Scene 3, therefore this is the first time the audience is exposed to both Virgilia and Volumnia. Contrary to the previous scene of which Coriolanus returns as a hero from a blood bath in Corioli, the setting of the domestic(sewing in household) provides a calmness at first glance however, in regard to the first guiding question we can see this is not the case through Volumnia's speech. In Lines 1-5, Volumnia expresses how if Coriolanus was not her son, she would restrain him, but in lines 20-14, this can be argued against as Volumnia makes it clear about her values and attitudes towards Rome saying " I had rather had eleven die nobly for their country than one voluptuously surfeit out of action", which means she is proud of Coriolanus willing to fight and would rather lose him than essentially lose Rome. In retrospective we can see that this could foreshadow the conclusion of the plot, as volumnia is declared the hero of Rome toward the end of the story. Throughout the passage she is referred to using very aggressive vocabulary supporting her son's bloodlust and hunger to fight. Shakespeare does this intentionally to possibly contrast her to Coriolanus' wife Virgilia who is in fact the opposite.
2. Shakespeare makes significant use of imagery throughout the passage, describing bloody brows, vicious bears , and honorable men. Each of these are significant to Volumnia's speech of which she is describing her son and the valor of Rome. This is to display and characterize Coriolanus as a honorable and brave hero as well as an exaggeration to her values and morals toward Rome being superior to those such as Aufidius or previously independent Corioli.
-Act 1 Scene III
-Our first Introduction to significant secondary characters in Volumnia and Virgilia(Mother and Wife of Martius) in a domestic setting
-Shortly after Coriolanus/Martius returns from the victory at Corioli
B: Overview
-The Passage is a conversation between Virgilia and Volumnia.
-It involves both women who are close to Coriolanus and have a significant relationship
C: Purpose
-To indirecytly characterize coriolanus from his mother's perspective(secondary characters).
D: Structure
- Linear structure in sequential pattern
- This passage is a represented with two dialogue characters
-Passage situated in a calm setting(household/domestic) contrary to the tone of the previous scene
-Small Soliloquy by Volumnia expressing her opinions clearly, establishing some authority over Virgilia
-Out
E: Main idea
- Purpose and significance were to express how two secondary characters of close relations can help characterize Coriolanus, but more important the indirect characterization of Coriolanus through Volumnia(the mother's) perspective. It is worth mentioning that is very obvious to the audience where Coriolanus gets his attitude/values from based on the soliloquy which contributes to the mood and tone of the passage.
Comment on Shakespeare's Characterization of Volumnia
What is significant about Shakespeare's use of imagery in this passage?
1. In the following passage, Shakespeare's intentions are clear and simple with the characterization of Volumnia. It is worth noting that this scene takes place in Act 1 Scene 3, therefore this is the first time the audience is exposed to both Virgilia and Volumnia. Contrary to the previous scene of which Coriolanus returns as a hero from a blood bath in Corioli, the setting of the domestic(sewing in household) provides a calmness at first glance however, in regard to the first guiding question we can see this is not the case through Volumnia's speech. In Lines 1-5, Volumnia expresses how if Coriolanus was not her son, she would restrain him, but in lines 20-14, this can be argued against as Volumnia makes it clear about her values and attitudes towards Rome saying " I had rather had eleven die nobly for their country than one voluptuously surfeit out of action", which means she is proud of Coriolanus willing to fight and would rather lose him than essentially lose Rome. In retrospective we can see that this could foreshadow the conclusion of the plot, as volumnia is declared the hero of Rome toward the end of the story. Throughout the passage she is referred to using very aggressive vocabulary supporting her son's bloodlust and hunger to fight. Shakespeare does this intentionally to possibly contrast her to Coriolanus' wife Virgilia who is in fact the opposite.
2. Shakespeare makes significant use of imagery throughout the passage, describing bloody brows, vicious bears , and honorable men. Each of these are significant to Volumnia's speech of which she is describing her son and the valor of Rome. This is to display and characterize Coriolanus as a honorable and brave hero as well as an exaggeration to her values and morals toward Rome being superior to those such as Aufidius or previously independent Corioli.
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Practice IOC Outline : Royal Beatings
A : Contextualise -
-Royal Beatings was published later in Munro's career in the collection ' Who do you think you are'.
-A unifying feature in Royal Beatings, is the tight,claustrophobic and mundane setting of the shack that is set during the depression.
B: Overview -
-This passage is set shortly after the exposition and presents a scene of the narrator describing the shed and her father.
C: Narrator -
-The narrator used in this passage is first person narrative and the readers receive insights into the protagonist’s thoughts and feelings.
-The tone used in this passage is one that is reflective and evaluative of her surroundings and setting.
D: Structure -
-Since the protagonist is describing her environment, she is also reflecting on memories that relate within it which changes structure but the story generally follows a chronological order.
-A mix of exposition and dialogue but there is more exposition. This is to highlight the narrator’s position in her setting. She describes each area in vivid fashion.
E: Main Idea -
-The purpose of this passage is to exaggerate the effect of setting and character development in the short story.
Munro's uses direct comparison of Rose's father to the setting. This also intends to play a massive role in character development. It's dreary domestic setting, adds to significance of title, and Rose's attitudes toward her current situation and her father. Munro's purposefully uses this domestic setting to allow expression of the narrator, making it clear how she has been 'changed' and how life has affected her and her father.
Friday, September 23, 2016
PRACTICE IOC ALICE MUNRO
SoundCloud link : https://soundcloud.com/owais-tuba-jadwat/alice-munro-iochttps://soundcloud.com/owais-tuba-jadwat/alice-munro-ioc
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)