Final Draft

Here is the link to the final draft of my essay.

The Final Reflection

After making my way through this semester and this, the final English class of my entire life, I cannot say that I have many memories that particularly stick out in my mind, but I feel that this class and everything that it taught me has strengthened my writing abilities and has helped me learn to form my own opinions. Let me elaborate. For instance, one particular quasi-revelation that I had was when I was writing the blog post in response to Carr’s “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” I distinctly remember reading that article and wondering why someone would bash the use of the internet. I had never really heard of people claiming that the internet is a bad thing; I just assumed that it was assumed that the internet was a good thing for our society. Hearing a different view than mine caused me to have such a deep and heated reaction and I am sure that that showed in my blog post. So because of this “revelation,” I feel that I have learned new methods of debate and I feel that I can now hold my own in an argument.

As I said before, I feel that blogging really helped me open up to be a better writer. The audience I was writing to was expanded to my peers, not just to the teacher. For this reason I wrote in a different tone in order to suit my audience. This tone forced me to write in more of an aggressive and persuasive manner, which I have never really been exposed to before.

As for my reading habits, I feel that they still have not changed very much. Even after reading two blogs and the New York Times on a daily basis for half a semester, I still do not find much enjoyment in reading the news. Yes, I do feel like I benefit in being informed on what is going on in our world, but for some reason it is very difficult for me to find the time to sit down and search out the news.

1st Draft of 2nd Essay

This is a very, and I mean very rough draft of my essay.

Approaching the Approach

In Harris’ Rewriting, he describes “Taking an Approach” as “working in the mode of another writer” (74). He also goes further in describing it by breaking it down into three component methods of relating one’s work to another: Acknowledging influences, turning an approach on itself, and reflexivity. Acknowledging influences is to define those writers whom have served as a model for you to write. Turning an approach on itself deals with asking the same questions that another writer has asked of something else. Reflexivity can be described as turning inward on the choices that you have made in order to construct your text. All three can be ways of taking an approach to what you are writing in the respect of the views of another writer.

I like the analogy that Harris uses to describe taking an approach when he compares it to a musician covering a song. Taking an approach is like covering a song in that it requires taking the work of another musician, staying true to the original phrases and ideas, but at the same time fusing it with your own creativity and expression.

Taking an approach is evident in a blog post by Andrew Sullivan that describes all of the times that Sarah Palin has “lied” to the public. Sullivan compiles a list of about thirty different lies that Palin has told spanning the time that she has been in politics. He accumulated this list from other sources that I am sure were not as forward and hurtful as he was, and made them seem his own and laid them out for the reader to see. Even though he did not come up with the information, he makes it seem like it by laying it out in a simple manner for the public to view.

Using the New Method of Countering to Refine

This is my revised edition of the post where we responded to Chris Hedges article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” I used Harris’ method of countering to respond to the article. Whereas in my first post, I was genuinely trying to completely nullify Hedges’ views and opinions, in this post I am trying to point out his valid points but at the same time, “counter” them with my own views.

In Chris Hedges’ article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” he brings up some very valid and probable points, but I will say that I do not really agree with what he is saying. Hedges claims that the use of the Internet is making the general public more lazy when it comes to research, which may possess some truth. However, I believe that even though the innate laziness that is created in this medium of information and technology, the benefits definitely outweigh the downfalls. The uses of the Internet are limitless, and I believe that we should make use of this tool as much as we can.

Even though it may be easy for laziness to settle in while making use of the Internet, I believe that we still have the capability to overcome this laziness. I feel that laziness falls under personal control, though it may be difficult to avoid. If anything, it will add a challenge to our lives which will make us stronger people.

In my own personal experience, I am just as distracted when I read a book or a newspaper as when I am surfing the web. There are just as many distractions around the house, workplace, etc. as there are on the Internet.

So, in conclusion, I feel that my response to the initial question, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” is that maybe yes, the Internet may be making us lazy, but it is not making us stupid. No matter if it is making us lazy, we are still being exposed to more information, which is in turn making us smarter.

Harris' View of Countering

To Harris, “countering” is not what I suspect that one would typically think. Most would think that when countering, you would offer an argument against a point of view. The term countering seems to have somewhat of a negative connotation in that it is a method of “fighting back” against something that has attacked you. However, in Harris’ view of countering, it is more of a peaceful way of responding to someone else’s idea. He defines it as “not to nullify but to suggest a different way of thinking” (56). He also breaks the term up into three ways of attaining this: arguing the other side, uncovering values, and dissenting. Arguing the other side is the process of noting problems with a term or idea that the author has argued for. Uncovering values is the process of bringing forth a word or idea that the text has failed to completely define or examine. Dissenting is the process of identifying a similarity with your own views that the text possesses in order to note its limits (57). So, as you can see, Harris’ view of countering is probably not as in-your-face or aggressive as you would think.

Countering is evident in Andrew Sullivan’s blog, “The Daily Dish” in his post entitled “The Development Cure.” This post is in response to the DiA’s (Democracy in America blog) critique of John Nagl’s prescription for Afghanistan. The DiA agrees with Nagl when he says that threats are not coming from the overpowering states, rather they are coming from the weak states. They also agree with him when he says that responses need to be made economically and political-diplomatically, not militaristically. However, they criticize him when he suggests to build an enormous organization to solve the problems through heroic expeditions. This is an example of dissenting, because the DiA shows where they agree with Nagl, but they then point out where they believe that his view are limited.

The Art of Forwarding

Joseph Harris breaks up his idea of “forwarding” into four different criteria: illustrating, authorizing, borrowing, and extending. Each of which is a particular method for an author to use to forward or pass on a previous author’s ideas to another group of people. Basically, I believe that in this chapter of Harris’ book, he is saying that in virtually every reputable text, be it a book, an essay, a movie, or what have you, it is imperative to have the reinforcement of a prior source in order to strengthen the work. However, just citing the source is not all that it takes to make an excellent statement. Harris makes this clear when he says, “Quoting the lyrics of a song doesn’t always get at how it feels to hear it performed, and describing the subject of a photograph or painting can only begin to suggest its total impact as an image” (41). This is a very relevant point in that it shows that once you cite an example from another source, you need to be able to add your own description to elaborate on the issue. Writing would be way too easy if you could simply use other people’s words alone.

An example of forwarding that I found came from one of the blogs that I have been following, Xtreme Music. The title of the blog post was, “Have Your Ears Adjusted to MP3’s?” The author of the blog post alludes to a study from a professor at Stanford University who researched how teenagers of today have become accustomed to the sound of mp3’s. Mp3’s are of lower sound quality than typical files that are on a cd. The study concluded that over the past few years, it seems that teens have more and more preferred the sound of mp3’s over the files on cd. I would say that the category of forwarding that this blog post falls under would most likely be illustrating. Harris defines illustrating as: “When you look to other texts for examples of a point you want to make” (39). The author of this post is using an example of a study to illustrate a point. The only real problem with his act of forwarding is that he does not really provide his own explanation to the story. This is what Harris warned about in this chapter. It is important to not fall into the trap of only using information from another source.

The Press Sphere

When comparing the New York Times to the blogs that I have been following, I would say that they are quite different, yet I also feel that they harmonize with each other. The two blogs that I am following are Andrew Sullivan’s “Daily Dish,” as well as a site called “Xtreme Music.” Andrew Sullivan mostly comments on a lot of the issues that appear in the New York Times. However the New York Times is strictly factual whereas the Daily Dish is mostly opinionated. I’d say that “Xtreme Music” is a major oddball compared to the other two resources. It is only focused on rock music news. Most of the stories that I read about on this blog site cannot be found in the New York Times. However, news is news and it doesn’t matter how or where you get it, as long as you are learning new things that relate to your interests.

Concerning the overall press sphere, I feel that Sullivan’s blog and the New York Times complement each other because one is giving the news story and the other is acting as a filter to make the news story more understandable or to present an opinion of the news story. One can form their own opinions based on other people’s opinions, in this case, Sullivan. When it comes to Xtreme Music, it contributes to the press sphere by offering a different genre of news. Where the New York Times offers a broad perspective in many different areas of news, Xtreme Music offer a detailed perspective on only one category of news.

Jarvis vs. Sullivan

I feel that it is relatively difficult to compare and contrast the opinions of Jeff Jarvis and Andrew Sullivan. Jarvis’ article contains virtually no opinions, whereas Sullivan’s article is almost completely opinionated. I believe that at the root of it all, both Jarvis and Sullivan share some similar opinions, but they also have some differences.

Jarvis and Sullivan are similar in that they both realize the fact that the Internet seems to be taking over the newspaper industry. However, Sullivan seems to see this fact in a positive light while Jarvis only cites the negative aspects. Jarvis claims that the many forms of news that the Internet provides ultimately distorts the original story. Sullivan sees the Internet as a gateway for searching for and extracting information, mainly through the form of blogging.

I feel that both authors have very good points, but I think I agree more with Sullivan. I feel that the Internet provides us with many opportunities, and we should take advantage of what we have. I have never been a big on reading the newspaper rather, I have always used the Internet for many things. This is most likely the reason why I feel the way I do.

"The Press Sphere"

Jeff Jarvis describes today’s news in his model of the “Press Sphere.” This model is characterized by many different factors that in the end seemingly distort the original news story. Whereas the old method of obtaining news by print was very direct and the reader was obtaining the news through only one filter, which was the press. Today, there seem to be many different issues that cause the news story that the person hears to be less reputable. Online, there is a system of links that cause the reader to in turn become the editor and the synthesizer of the information. The news story also usually has to pass through the government, companies, witnesses, and aspects of such nature before reaching the average person. I find it interesting when Jarvis claims:

“Stories and topics become molecules that attract atoms: reporters, editors, witnesses, archives, commenters, and so on, all adding different elements to a greater understanding. Who brings that together? It’s not always the reporter or editor anymore. It can just as easily be the reader(s) now.”

I actually was very interested in what Jarvis was saying in this article. His points seem to make sense, and it is interesting to think about whether the internet is actually causing more harm than good. I personally believe that the internet is helping more than it is hurting, but reading this article has definitely tempted me to sway my opinions. I admit that whenever I am reading something that uses links, I tend to ignore them even if they may hold great importance. I guess this is just my laziness at work. I had never thought about the importance of these small pieces of information until I read this article.

New York Times Observations

Recently I have been reading stories in the New York Times. So far, I have mostly just been sticking to the stories on front homepage, but I hope to venture further in depth throughout the newspaper. Most of the stories that I have been reading are mostly political, such as what is going on overseas, healthcare, and vaccinations for the H1N1 (Swine Flu) virus. As I said before, I have been reading these stories because they are the first stories that I see when I enter the website. It is not that they really catch my interest, but they are obviously important, so I read them.

As I keep reading the New York Times, I hope to get into more of a variety of stories. I hope to use the sub-categories to find things that interest me more. Typical categories that I may eventually search through would be science, technology, music, and sports. At the same time, I hope to still read about political issues that are important in our world, because I realize that they are important but they do not catch my interest.

I have not been reading the New York Times quite long enough to say that my attitudes or views have changed, but I feel that if I can make it a habit of staying updated, I will gain more intelligence and will be able to relate more clearly with other people. It will allow me to interact with people in a way where we can both talk about something that we have heard, and be able to discuss it thoroughly.

Coming to Terms with My Blogs

The two blogs that I chose to follow are Andrew Sullivan’s “Daily Dish” and “Xtreme Music” (various authors). I will be honest, I only chose the Daily Dish because I had to choose a blog off of the list. I chose the Daily Dish because we read some of his stuff earlier in the semester, and it seemed interesting, so this is why I chose to read more of his posts. I chose Xtreme Music because I am very interested in music, and I would like to find a new way of obtaining information about music.

When it comes to the Daily Dish, the author is obviously Andrew Sullivan. His audience would be the general public, and he provides his opinions and responses to current events. I believe that the purpose of his blog is to inform the public of what is going on, while offering Sullivan’s take on the issues themselves. I think that the reason that Sullivan’s blog is so successful because his posts are not too long and they are not too short, so the reader’s interest is captured. He is also very intelligent and relays his thoughts very well, which also makes him have more readers.

When it comes to Xtreme Music, there are many different authors. The audience, again, is obviously the general public because anyone can read it. However, it most likely favors people who are into rock music and enjoy following professional musicians. The purpose of the blog is to inform people news about musicians and what is going on in their musical careers. There do not seem to be any special methods used to gain viewers. It just comes down to if someone likes music, they may like this blog. If someone does not like music, they may not like this blog.

The Blogs I Will Follow

I will follow the following Blogs:

The Daily Dish
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/
I chose this one because we read an article from Andrew Sullivan, and it was interesting, so I chose the Daily Dish so I could read more of his material.

Xtreme Music
http://www.blogcatalog.com/blog/xtreme-music-rock-music-news
I chose this one because I am really interested in music, particularly rock, so I would like to learn a new way of obtaining information about it.

Are We All the Same?

After reading through my fellow classmates’ blogs about their news habits, I have come to the conclusion that most of us do not read up and familiarize with the news as much as we would like. First of all, it seems to nearly be unanimous that the use of the newspaper is being phased out of our choices as a method of obtaining news. The newspaper is just too time-consuming of a process for us to handle because we have been spoiled by the luxury of the internet. There are still a few people, however, that enjoy sitting and reading the paper on a regular basis. It seems as if the majority of my peers obtain most of their news from a combination of word-of-mouth and the use of the internet. Most of us hear about different situations from other people, and then later will go to the internet to get the rest of the story. Few of us listen to the radio or watch television for news on a regular basis, but there are still some that appreciate this way of being informed.

Someone may then say that based on the personal accounts of my peers and I about the way we obtain news is proof of decrease in civic literacy. It may seem to be true, but I think differently. I just think that we are at a certain point in our lives where we have too many things going on to concentrate on the news. We are around friends, we have studying for classes, as well as other responsibilities of living without parents, etc. I believe that this is why many of us wish that we were more up-to-date with the news, but we still do not search very frantically for it.

I am sure that Hedges and Carr would look at all of this negatively like they always do. Sullivan would probably be sympathetic and understanding toward our situation.

Obtaining News

Normally, I am not particularly outgoing when it comes to obtaining news. I don’t really find news, news finds me. There are a variety of ways that news will find me. I could come across it while surfing the web, listening to the radio, watching tv, or through other people.

When it comes to which of these is most prominent, I would probably say that through surfing the web is the way that I obtain most of my news. I do not usually directly go to a news website to learn about the news. When I come across something interesting whether through yahoo, facebook, youtube, or whatever, I may search to get more details. I also learn a lot of my news from other people. When someone tells me something that happened, I may either get the rest of the story from that person or someone else, or I may go use the internet to get the rest of the story. Considering that I do not watch very much tv at all, that is a very slim piece of the pie chart. Now that I am in college and I do not have normal access to a car, I do not listen to the radio much anymore either. When I lived at home, I would listen to the radio nearly every time I would be in the car. That was one way that I heard about different things going on. So I would say that the majority of my news is from either the internet or through other people.

I will admit that I should look into the news more often. It is definitely beneficial to be in touch with the rest of the world, and that is something that I am generally left out of. Hopefully, through the course of the second half of this semester, I will be able to get into the habit of finding news myself, rather than having news find me.

Is the Internet Good, Bad, or Both?---Final Draft

Here is the final draft of my paper.


http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ATMvchvxrOF0ZGQ2dGs0YzVfMWZ3cWR0ZmQ1&hl=en

Draft #1

Here is my first draft of the formal essay. You may edit it if you want.

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ATMvchvxrOF0ZGQ2dGs0YzVfMGRucDY0N2d4&hl=en

Blogging Thus Far

Through the course of this whole blogging process that has begun to take place in my English 105 class, I will not be so bold as to say that I have greatly changed the way I think about things, but I can honestly say that I have been enlightened on a few different things. First and foremost, I have been exposed to blogging for the first time, and I have to say that it is more “fun” than I thought it would be. I like the idea of putting your own ideas out there for anyone to see and comment on. Secondly, I have been able to see my other classmates’ opinions on certain topics, and I have found out that there are multiple sides to an issue, and both sides can make valid points. Just because one side of an issue makes one good point, it doesn’t mean that that side is right. Through the course of this blogging process, I have come to realize that in most cases, both sides of an issue are usually “right,” based on how you look at the situation. Thirdly, I have had a new awareness of how some professionals look at how the internet is affecting our society. Most of the articles that we read were based on the internet and the fact that technology is making people lazy. I am not saying that I agree that the internet is increasing illiteracy in our society, but rather, I am saying that I have learned other people’s views on certain issues.

Surprisingly, I have not been faced with very much difficulty in writing these blog posts. Before, I am sure that I would have felt that it would be a pain to write these posts, but once I sat down to write responses to the articles, the words seemed to just flow out onto the screen. Most of the difficulty was in writing truly how I felt, knowing that my other classmates were going to read it. Sometimes, I was apprehensive to write the exact thoughts that were in my head, and I would try to find ways to twist my words in order to say my thoughts without thinking I would offend someone. Overall, I feel that I expressed what I needed to say, and I am glad that I am being exposed to writing blog posts.

"How We Failed the Next Generation"

This article is about just as it says, how the new generation of our age has been failed because they are so accustomed to the internet. I do not agree with this article, but it will serve as good counter-evidence.

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BzMvchvxrOF0ZmEyZWI0NDktY2FmMS00NDgzLThlODUtMjNmNWU1M2Y5ZjRl&hl=en

How is the Internet Affecting Our Society?

I think that we all get Chris Hedges’ point. He is sad that the age of newspapers is dying and he want to put all of the blame on the Internet. His negative and pessimistic tone that he uses about the way our society tries to obtain information is almost too much for me to handle. I understand that he must have a deep love and appreciation for newspapers, but no one ever said that he can’t read them anymore. They are still out there for anyone to make use of.

Our society is simply making the transition from one form of technology to another. Just as the transition of news being spread by word of mouth went to the newspaper, the newspaper is now evolving to the Internet. I am sure that there were many people that did not appreciate the newspaper when it first was invented. But the newspaper turned out to be a great invention. Yes there will always be some negative effects in this evolution process, but like anything, when placed in a new environment, it will adapt in order to fit the environment. Yes, newspaper writers and editors may be losing their jobs. But there are plenty of opportunities out there for them to find new areas of expertise. I personally think that the internet is a better way of obtaining news anyways. Because newspapers are so biased and slanted, you are only getting one perspective a newspaper story. On the internet, it is so easy to search for many different sides to a particular story, and you can form your views or opinions based on the many different perspectives that were offered to you.

When it comes to Thompson’s article, I was very appreciative of it. I agree based on my personal experiences that many adolescents are practicing poor grammar, etc. on a regular basis via text messaging, facebook, and so on. But when those same adolescents sit down and write an academic essay, it is no problem for them to make the transition into a more formal tone. I thought it was interesting when the author says, “The Stanford students were almost always less enthusiastic about their in-class writing because it had no audience but the professor: It didn't serve any purpose other than to get them a grade.” I had never really thought about this before. Writing is a lot more fun, at least to me, when I know that many other people will be reading it and judging me accordingly.

I also know so many people that use the Internet to discuss/debate certain issues with other people around the world. This is obviously a great way to not only practice writing skills in a more formal way, but also communication and debate skills with other people. I completely agree with Clive Thompson’s article. The use of the Internet may not be the most formal way of writing, but it is allowing the young people of our society to practice their writing in a way that they enjoy, so they will get more exposure to writing, and that will in turn make them more well-rounded people.

Illiteracy in America

After reading Hedge’s article, “America the Illiterate,” I am quite disturbed by the facts and figures that he presented. I have somewhat of an awareness of the poverty that is present in our country today, but I had no idea it was as bad as what Hedge projects. Although, I am not very surprised at my reaction, because I have not really been exposed to very many people in poverty throughout my life thus far. I was knocked off of my feet at the statistic that only twenty percent of adults in America have high school diplomas. It is hard for me to believe. This may sound very cliché, but article has made me appreciate the fact that I have been blessed with a high school education, not to mention a college education and possibly even a further education past the college level.

I do question one specific part of Hedge’s article. When he compares presidential speech levels over time, I do not really see the connection to the rest of the article. I was under the impression that the article was about the amount of illiteracy in America. Why should it matter how the literacy of our nation’s leaders is changing over time, at least in the context of this article. And furthermore, I don’t really see the point in classifying the way that our presidential candidates speak in a debate based on a grade level. As time goes on, language changes. For this reason, I do not think that it is plausible to compare someone’s speech skills of today’s generation someone’s of 150 years ago.

When comparing Hedge’s article to Carr’s article, there are definitely some similarities and differences. Both articles are making the audience aware of problems or potential problems that our society faces today. However, I feel that Hedge is bringing about a little more serious of a problem. I do seem to see a theme in each of the writers’ viewpoints: if they can create more awareness of problems that our society is facing, that may be the first step in solving the problems.

Response to "Is Google Making Us Stupid?"

I will say this flat out…I do not believe that the internet is making us stupid, and I completely disagree with the author’s point of view. The internet is a modern tool that has been given to us to use to “build” something—knowledge, friendships, etc. if you will. This is a very handy tool that we have at our hands, and our society has the potential to and can do many different things with it. I think that it is ridiculous to say that it is making us “lazy.”

To those who say that the internet is making us “lazy,” I believe that it is just those same people that are allowing themselves to become “lazy.” You are solely in control of whether or not you want to feel lackadaisical or not; the internet is not some feverish virus that infects our bodies and tampers with our brains. There are so many beneficial things that the internet brings to the table, and it is absurd to think that we should waste this God-given gift that is made available to us.

For me at least, I am just as distracted when I read a book as when I am reading an article on the web. Although it may be easy for me to procrastinate more on the web because of facebook, YouTube, etc., I believe that the internet can teach you good time-management skills. Now that I think about it I can also easily procrastinate when reading a book or something of that nature. There are just as many distractions around the house, workplace, etc. then there are on the web.

So, in conclusion to the initial question that was put forward to us in this article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?,” I say that no, Google is not making us stupid, rather it is the people that allow themselves to become stupid that are writing articles like this.

Harris vs. Sullivan

In Harris’ book, Rewriting, after reading the introduction and the first chapter entitled “Coming to Terms,” I am beginning to see how Joseph Harris defines reading and writing. In their most basic form, reading and writing is a process. That is what I took away from his text. When conducting a draft or any type of writing that contains support from someone else’s work, Harris says that the first step is to be able to get the author’s point across in one’s own words. This is defined as coming to terms with the resource that one is using. Coming to terms is just one of five steps in the process of “rewriting.” The other four are: forwarding, countering, taking an approach, and revising. This idea of rewriting is the art of taking someone’s ideas and “drawing from, commenting on, and adding to the work of others.”

Even though I personally do not see many parallels between Harris’ understanding of writing and Sullivan’s understanding of blogging, I do see one main similarity. Both take on the form of a response to something. Harris’ way of writing is a technique to write a good response/argument to another work, just as Sullivan’s way of blogging can be a response to a political, economic, social, etc. event/idea. However, Harris uses a more formal way of writing where there is a long and drawn out process of drafting a text, where Sullivan uses the form of a blog post where it is more spontaneous and less thought out.

I am not saying that one style of writing is more advantageous than the other. Both styles of writing are beneficial in their own ways. Harris’ style is more formal/professional whereas Sullivan’s style is more informal.

Is the Spider Living in the World Wide Web Poisonous? Or Not?

After going through all of my classmates’ blogs, I have come to the conclusion that my peers and I seem very similar when it comes to surfing the web. In pretty much everyone’s case, Facebook takes up the majority of time when it comes to internet use. Time is also well spent checking and responding to emails, which actually can be very time-consuming. There are also many music websites that are popular to visit, because let’s just face it, everyone likes their own form of music. Then there is YouTube…anyone and everyone can find something to enjoy on YouTube. Whether it is music videos, comedy, or movie trailers, there is something for everyone on YouTube.

Other than these sites and maybe a few others, it then comes down to the more specific sites that one person may love and use all of the time, and another may despise and never use. Just to name a few, sites like espn, Wikipedia, blogging sites, and newspaper sites may be visited many times by some, but not so many by others. I am not saying that these sites are disadvantageous, but rather I am saying that different people have their own personalities, and these personalities naturally do not accommodate all forms of entertainment/learning.

So, I guess it is safe to say that the world wide web has become very prominent in our society, a very, very large crutch, if you will. People can use the internet for so many different things—that is the beauty of it. It is a place with no or very few regulations, where people can do seemingly limitless tasks. I feel that our society has definitely passed the point to where people will be bored out of their minds if for some reason the internet was unavailable. I mean, this is not completely a bad thing. At least we are using the resources that we have. But being too attached to something or relying too much on something is certainly never a good thing.

Internet Usage Over Two Days

These two days were over Labor Day weekend, so my internet usage was more sporadic and limited. If normal, I would probably spend more time on Youtube and Facebook doing pointless things to keep my time occupied...

Day 1:

11:36 am—Checked Yahoo email

11:39 am—Managed Youtube profile

11:44 am—Checked Louisville email and responded to emails

11:50 am—Checked Facebook

11:57 am--Offline

3:56 pm—Checked Yahoo email

4:00 pm—Watched videos on Youtube (mainly music videos)

4:17 pm—Checked Facebook, chat with friends, respond to wall posts, etc.

4:31 pm—Checked Louisville email

4:38 pm--Offline

10:21 pm—Facebook (chat)

10:42 pm--Offline

Day 2:

1:09 pm—Checked Yahoo and Louisville emails, responded, etc.

1:24 pm—Facebook (responded to messages)

1:35 pm--Offline

8:17 pm—Checked Yahoo and Louisville emails, no responses

8:20 pm—Facebook (mainly chat)

8:37 pm—Youtube (watching a video a friend sent me and then just music videos)

8:54 pm--Offline

Response to "Why I Blog" by Andrew Sullivan

In Andrew Sullivan’s article “Why I Blog,” he attempts to answer just that—why he blogs. Although he conveys many different advantages and benefits to blogging, I feel that the main reason he blogs is because it different. In his article, he highlights how bloggers and their readers have a special connection—more than that of a newspaper writer and his or her reader. He also compares blogging to jazz music—it is just a different way of writing and reading in the same way that jazz is a different way of playing and listening.

As mentioned before, Sullivan describes the special bond that a blogger has with his or her audience. Since blogging is such a personal and open way of writing, the only way to describe the relationship, in Sullivan’s opinion, is as a friendship. Both exchange their own thoughts and ideas interpersonally, which forms the unique bond between them.

Sullivan also compares the blogs that we have today to the logs that sailors kept on ships years ago. These logs were the only concrete evidence of the memories and events that would happen on the voyages. Where a memory on the voyage would escape the mind, a person would simply have to reference the log in order to be re-reminded. In a similar manner, this is what blogs do for people today. Sullivan recalls many of the historical events that have happened since he has been keeping a blog just by going back and rereading his posts.

So, in conclusion, I feel that Sullivan keeps a blog and supports blogging because of the many conveniences that it offers. It is also much more of a spontaneous way of portraying thoughts to the world, where one can feed off of the criticism that others have to offer.