Interactive Oral Activity 2 - Rationale

The same as with the first IOA, Michelle and I did this one together. It was once again about Media & Culture, the specific focus this time being on Social Media. We got the idea to make a Vlog, of which we were both really pleased it was allowed. We taped our Interactive Oral the day before we had to show it in class. In fact, we had one night and no advanced editing program to get the job done. The result was only taken from 3 different takes, but it's slightly messy at best and vastly chaotic at worst. We did think about the fact that we were being really informal, but supposed that would be alright because of our chosen medium. In the end though, it would have been much better if we'd thought out the order of things a bit better beforehand, because as I said it was quite chaotic. Also, I talked too much, leaving little room for Michelle. Apart from that, the cooperation was as always great, we never seem to have to worry about that.
Pointers for next time:
- define audience and purpose first
- maybe speak a bit slower and more intelligible because the people listening, unlike you, have no idea what you're trying to say.

Growing Up Online – Personal Response

A while ago, we used a few lessons to watch a documentary called “Growing up Online”. It was a documentary about all of the horribly detrimental effects the internet has on a poor, helpless child’s emotional development. Right. Well, not really. The documentary was probably earnestly trying to inform us and give us different views about the effect the internet can have on teens.

The main problem with it was that, although clearly showing the dangers of the internet, the cases given were more often than not the exceptional ones. Like a teenage girl who acts all happy at school but spends her time at home cooped up in her room looking at pro-Anna sites. Believe me when I say that not every teenage girl does that.

There was also the girl, Jessica, who had an entirely different personality as some kind of self-made internet model called "Autumn Edows". She had been living that way for a few years before her parents started to suspect anything. Although it is true that the internet allows you to reinvent yourself, not every teen does so. Let alone in such a drastic way.

Or what about the story of a boy who got bullied at school. He'd come home and go on the internet, and he'd be bullied there, too. He started going to this suicide site ('Take this test to find out what for you personally is the best way to kill yourself'), and started chatting online with a 'friend' who allegedly also wanted to commit suicide. After a while, the boy had one last conversation with him, in which the 'friend' told him that it was just as well he was finally going to do it, for he was getting sick of the boy's whining. The boy did kill himself, and his father found this conversation. When he tried to talk to the 'friend', that boy said they'd never talked about such things. The man called, at the same time, that 'friend's mom, but she covered for her son.
This extensive tale really signifies two of the main ways in which children can do bad and irresponsible things on the internet, but it does certainly not mean any child would use the internet in such a way.

Then there is the other side of the spectrum: a mother who restricts her practically adult children from using social media and enforces this by putting the only computer in the house in a place she can see it. But really, that's not all that makes her really annoying to the typical teen, including the ones watching the documentary. Because with her, it doesn't stop at the internet. Apparently she has at one point in time felt the need to inform every parent of every student via e-mail that many children had gone to a certain party they weren't allowed to be at. She said she was surprised when a few of those parents told her to mind her own business. She was also surprised, but mostly saddened, when her son wouldn't speak to her because she'd ratted out all his friends to their parents. Unbelievable. Really, after a while it was starting to get funny: whenever you heard her voice every student would groan or mutter something under their breath.

It was an interesting view into the minds of people so concerned with the internet, but the examples it gave to illustrate it's point were a bit too 'out there' to make most people fear or be increasingly wary of the internet.

Interactive Oral Activity 1 – Rationale

Michelle and I did our first IOA together. We’ve worked together before and expected there to be no problems with that, which did indeed turn out to be the case. The subject was to be Media & Culture, and we exploited that by doing a double interview about celebrity privacy – one with a celebrity, one with a paparazzo-photographer. We switched roles in-between the two interviews, so as to show more variety in attitude and such.

Overall I didn’t think it went all that badly. I read most of it though, or at least kept my eyes on the paper. It did make me sound somewhat coherent; a feat I quite probably would not have been able to pull off had I tried to do it correctly. Michelle, on the other hand, did really well. She looked at the class and looked the part, trying to accurately depict the interviewer or interviewee. She may not have been perfectly fluent but she, like me, feels a certain trepidation when supposed to speak in front of the class.

All in all, the preparation went perfectly. We cooperate really well and know each other’s strengths and faults and are mostly able to make a good product. The execution could be improved, particularly on my side. A good thing might be to use flashcards instead of a full text next time. 

The Truth According to Wikipedia

The other day – or actually it was quite a long time ago – we devoted an English period to watching this documentary entitled “The Truth According to Wikipedia”. Then, we were asked to write a 300 word response, adhering to the Neutrality Principle. Basically, not taking (or advertising) an opinion on the matter, instead just reporting what other people said about it.

Basically, the documentary showed a couple of people with very opposite views on this particular subject. There was an abundant mention of advantages and disadvantages of Wikipedia. There was also a small discussion on the subject of ‘truth’. One argued that Wikipedia couldn’t hope to say they represented the truth; rather something he called ‘truthiness’.

The main opposing arguments had much to do with the fact that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that can be freely edited by anyone wishing, for whatever reason, to do so.  According to some, this would mean that Wikipedia is unreliable. On the other hand, the people actively involved in Wikipedia argue that while there are some pages that are ‘vandalized’ every now and then, there are always people online who immediately correct this change.

Another problem was that, because it is freely editable, Wikipedia casts expertise in the wind. An anonymous editor’s change to the article written by an expert on the subject is accepted and no one will so much as give it a second thought. Also, as argued by Bob McHenry, former editor-in-chief of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Wikipedia differs in many ways from an actual, traditional encyclopedia. While the publishing of an encyclopedia takes many years, countless reviews and considerations of whether an article is noteworthy enough to keep, and will always try to be as accurate and factual as possible, Wikipedia’s approach with constantly changing articles that may or may not actually add anything valuable to one’s well of knowledge is something else entirely.

Praise for Wikipedia includes the fact that it makes knowledge of any individual or group of people accessible to anyone, anywhere on the globe.

In the end, it becomes apparent that the verification of information is a tricky thing anyway, and truth is hard to define, as is ‘fact’.

Opinion Column - Political Manifesto by The People's Party

Can the manifesto published quite recently by The People’s Party be classified as a decent manifesto? Or should it rather be called a foolish sequence of grand declarations? Take your pick.

Take some of the first lines: “We stand for equal rights for everyone. We want the world to be a better place.” Really? I mean, seriously? Yes. Because that obviously quite heavily distinguishes this party from the gross of other contenders for the country’s power. Of course, everything is clearer now. The only thing we need to do is make the world a better place. Such a shame no one has ever thought of this before! And this party is going to make it all possible. I already feel the People’s Party is doing a fair job at convincing me to vote for them.

But lo! It gets even better. First, the goals to be achieved in the period of reign are mentioned. Nothing much wrong with them, save a few points based on opinion, such as the racism part (which I find myself agreeing on) and the reducing of bureaucracy to save money. That’s what they’re going to be saving money on?
I mean, not that it’s a bad idea, per se, it’s just that this system of government seems to be working pretty well, and to change it so drastically is going to be a big risk to take. Also, just for a second, hold this up to earlier claims, would you? Weren’t we just talking about making The World a better place? Nice job with the continuity, so far.

Then, onto the climax of the story. What follows is to be the prestige to the magician’s trick, the grand solution of things. And honestly we’re lucky no ancient Babylonian kings are involved, because if this conclusion, this grand (or not-so-grand) unveiling of the methods to secure such a perfect world were to be weighed in the balance, it would definitely have been found wanting.

There are so many holes in the bucket, it’s a wonder water still remains inside. One of the most important faults in this plan is the large amounts of money seeming to magically appear out of nowhere. Because even with the cuts on bureaucracy, there is no way to just accomplish this.
“More government money has to be available to invest in improving our education. Improving education methods, the training of teachers, etc.” Granted. This in itself would be fine, I even agree with this point they’re making. The problem comes along with the subsequent statements: “Improving the public transport by building more railways instead of highways and reduce prices of public transport.”, “Reduce the amount of regulations and the number of civil servants in order to save money on the government structure” and then “Stimulating multicultural activities and found more public schools.”

Aside from the apparent lack of grammatical cohesion, which although regrettable is not something I will be addressing here, the pure impossibility in the combination of these statements just strikes me.
Honestly. Building railways costs money, even aside from the fact that people are already antsy about conserving nature. Not building anymore highways does nothing to erase the number of highways that already exist and let me remind you – removing those would cost money as well. Then the reduced fees for public transport – without compensation, those are going to cost the government even more money.

Then, the reduction of civil servants to save money. A fine point, be it I personally don’t really agree. The statement that accompanies it, though, leaves me worried. How is reducing the amount of regulations in any way going to save money on the government structure? It seems to me more like a lawless, kind of anarchical situation will be the result. This in itself does not seem like it will promote a better world, if you ask me.

And lastly, the stimulation of multicultural activities and the founding of more public schools. Because obviously it’s a good idea to found even more schools when it has already become clear that for the situation that is in place now, it is a necessity to invest more in education. Because founding new schools doesn’t in any way mean needing to hire more teachers, buy more furniture and necessities, etc. Not even wasting time on explaining the fact that the stimulation of multicultural activities in itself does little to fight racism. Can people really actually be this dense?

 I suppose the results of the elections will give the answer.

Written Response to Baz Luhrmann's "Romeo and Juliet"

One of the first things I noticed about the movie was the fact that while the scene that’s set is a modern version of that of Shakespeare’s famed play, the lines have been left nigh unaltered. While usually I find the original text quite charming, in this case it was one of the things that bugged me the most. In my opinion, in this modern setting, it just doesn’t work very well at all. All it really does for the overall atmosphere of the movie and the characters in specific is lessen the credibility. The same thing goes for the hugely annoying fast-forwarding that is used as a medium to speed up the action. Honestly it only really makes me think of something put together by a grade-schooler who thinks what he’s doing is “so totally awesome!” No, but seriously, I was more and more annoyed every time that happened. Then there’s also the even more annoying (and mercifully less frequently used) screaming-at-the-top-of-your-lungs-while-swaying-heavily-from-side-to-side thing that the Nurse did whenever she felt she was in a tight spot. It’s all just so… childish.

On the other hand, I thought the casting of especially Romeo, Juliet and Friar Lawrence was really good. For Friar Lawrence and Romeo I don’t really have any brilliant, conclusive arguments but the fact that I just felt the actors suited their respective characters very well, or were at least quite capable of portraying them as such. Juliet was wonderful, mainly because she’s got this whole ‘sweet and innocent’ thing going for her. Obviously the Juliet in the original play was the same.

I did find the joke with the guns pretty humorous. It was quite inventive to name them after the swords that get mentioned along the way, so as to not have to change those things in the text.

And, of course, no matter the rest of the movie or the fact that by now I’m pretty intimately familiar with the whole story, every time I see or read a version in its entirety (giving me time to get attached to the characters) I find myself hoping profusely – and, of course, in vain – that maybe, just maybe, this time they won’t die. Especially in the moment itself, when Juliet woke up while Romeo hadn’t yet ingested the poison, I was watching tensely, avidly. But alas, it is the very moment Romeo realizes Juliet is not dead that spells his demise, because of which the horrified bride-turned-widow puts a gun to her head. For some reason that was one of the details which inspired the most perturbation from my part, though not for the obvious reasons. The picture was so pretty, ethereal almost, with the pair of lovers on a bed, surrounded by innumerable burning candles, that it would be a shame for Juliet to meet such a violent end – “Like fire and powder, which as they kiss, consume” – though I’m sure they didn’t mean that quite so literally. And then she pulled the trigger, and she collapsed back onto the bed, next to Romeo, who by that point had splatters of her blood on his face. How’s that for ruining the perfection?

L, Did you know..

Why hello there.

If you're looking at this particular blog you are most probably already aware of its purpose.
For those who are ignorant as to the greater purpose of me securing myself a place on the internet to just kind of unceremoniously dump my deepest darkest thoughts - you should know that I won't.
This blog was created with a significant goal. That is, more than usually, I guess.

Anyway, the point is for me to post my completed assignments for the IB program we're following.
So yeah.

Supposedly the point is for us to "Personalize our writing assignments for IB and keep track of our language development". Also to give teachers (and fellow students, apparently) easy access to our writing and critical thinking.

So that means no talking about personal secrets or day-to-day affairs. You must be so disappointed.

Make sense?

Thought so.

- Sabine