A Cogitative Countenance

Looking back at this year in English class, there are not too many, in fact possibly not one negative thing to say. I like that, and I think that that is the key to a successful education. I’m definitely learning, although sometimes it is unconsciously due to the fact that the class can be a bit rowdy and off on a tangent occasionally. One of the major things this year has been these blogs. It is quite a new way of teaching and learning, so there have been some issues with blogging and all, but overall they are a great tool. I prefer sitting down and writing a brief but insightful blog post, rather than being trapped in the confines of an 8 x 11 sized essay. Most of our in class assignments and discussions have been brought onto the blogs, which allows for both a more in-depth discussion and analysis, and it also frees up more class time for even greater learning potential.

Reading classic novels such as Huck Finn and A Lesson Before Dying have also been good. I enjoy the deep discussions that our class gets into, whether or not they are strictly following the curriculum. I think that whatever we are discussing is learning, which is great about our English class. Mr. Wasserman usually never stops us and redirects us to discuss the “right” thing, which I believe to be a unique and very successful instruction method. In Mr. Wasserman’s latest blog post he really nails this issue when speaking about grading students’ papers:

I found myself losing sight of the big picture (Did Young Sir interact with the book, did he learn anything about literature or life, does he have something to write or talk about that he didn’t have before?)

I think that he is right to say that the little grades don’t matter, because except for looking “good” on your transcript, getting an “A” wont help a bit when you’re forced to face new real-life situations that you would have been better apt to deal with after interacting and analyzing a work. And I feel that in the first semester of English we really did gain something much more than just an “A” out of the pieces that we read.
Mr. Olmstead offers another great insight, saying that it was

virtually impossible for students to construct something that has value outside of the immediate classroom. Great lessons and projects usually end with a grade; rarely do they progress beyond the school setting. For this reason, one of the single biggest complaints that students have about school is its lack of relevance to their own lives or the world outside the school house gates.

This couldn’t be more realistic. There probably hasn’t been a day in the past five years where I haven’t said to myself “this is so ridiculous! Why do I care? What has this got to do with me or anything?” I personally do not see why I need to learn history or chemistry or other things; I usually think that I have this perspective because I just don’t care, but in actuality it is also because I do not make the mental link between this information and my own life, therefore having no use for the information. I never go home and start solving quantum physics equations or write a perspective paper about the Civil War. But the internet and new technology, as Mr. Olmstead says, holds the potential to break this cycle and begin a new era of schooling, and a new type of learning. By going home and blogging about our in-class current events discussion or about the concepts of fate versus free will in Macbeth, I am opening up and actually putting this newly acquired information to use. By “writing to the world” in this blog, I am creating an impression of myself to whomever may be reading this all. The connection between expressing myself through the information completes that mental link for me, making it all worth while.

Overall I can safely deem this first semester very successful in so many ways.

     This article from The Onion was actually quite amusing.  However, even if it had not been included in this satire study of ours, it would have been very obvious that it was not for real.  The concept of having a remote control to control a second remote control sounds completely crazy and impractical and far from logical.  But doesn’t it also sound like something that could totally happen one of these days.  I mean, with all of the new technology and everything hitting the markets today, we wouldn’t be at all surprised to see “a great remote for controlling all of your other hard-to-reach-from-the-couch remote controls!” advertised in stores.
     I think that the satire in this article is about how Americans can sometimes be attached to their TVs, and stuck in their couches.  It is scary to see how some people would be bothered by “an annoying task [of locating a remote] that can sometimes result in missed programming and, in some cases, serious waste of valuable television-viewing time,” because people actually think this way.  I know that I myself can get angry or upset over missing an “important” television program.  This is not the only problem with the way that people think today.

Should the second remote end up under a magazine or newspaper, the third remote will still be capable of controlling the second remote, enabling the second remote to change channels on the first one, and ultimately the television itself, with just the touch of a button . . . To ensure that the third remote is not lost as well, it will come with a handy adhesive pad affixing it to the owner’s forehead at all times. Or, in the case of more expensive models, it be implanted directly within the sinus passages of the user.

     Although this is highly amusing, it is very true and frightening.  Many people would push aside magazines and newspapers, which if read would enrich their minds, in order to grab that remote and watch TV.  The point of this “remote controlled remote control” would be to allow the user to make minimal movements while watching television.  The remote control itself allows watchers to move less, let alone prevent people from ever having to move for hours at a time.  Obesity is a growing problem in America, and this shows that it is becoming easier and easier for people to remain occupied while making minimal physical movement.  To go back to an original definition of satire, it humorously exposes a severe social issue, which is exactly what this piece from The Onion does.

Addition ! - Jan. 7, 2007 5:45pm
     What I said about obesity and how sitting in front of the television is a severe problem was true.  In fact, “sitting kills more than 300,000 Americans a year” according to this article.