Exercise 3.3

Joshua Steele

October 31, 2012

English 115

Professor Macklin

How Technology Has Changed The Political Landscape

1. An important claim: Since the late 1990s, successful political candidates have utilized the Internet to their advantage, with President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign being one of the most prominent examples.
2. An opposing claim: People are less reliant on traditional sources of political information, such as newspapers, leaflets, “snail mail,” and posters.  The decreased reliance on newspapers has forced newspapers to cut back on coverage, go out of business, or require readers to pay when reading the newspaper online. The decreased reliance on traditional mail has given the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) a severe budget deficit that threatens the closure of hundreds of post offices, many of them in isolated rural areas that lack efficient Internet service.
3. The problem with these claims: According to the National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO (NALC), the budget deficit at the USPS is partially caused by the fact that Congress has been using the postal service as an ATM for over a decade, which is contributing to the agency’s budget deficit (NALC).
4. My claim: Successful political campaigns, such as Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, have utilized the Internet to their advantage. Obama’s campaign allowed volunteers to work at home, calling voters through an online database. Before the Internet and cell phones, volunteers had to go to a local campaign office and pour through stacks of lists while making phone calls on a landline.  With regards to the USPS, I do acknowledge the fact that the usage of traditional mail is decreasing. In addition, I would like to learn more about the NALC’s arguments.
5. What scholars would say about my claim: Scholars would say that technology has changed the way that political campaigns operate, while eliminating longstanding methods of operation that some people would view with nostalgia.


















Works Cited
1. “How Technology Changed American Politics in the Internet Age.” MediaShift. PBS, April 6, 2010. Web. October 31, 2012.
2. National Association of Letter Carriers. National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO. Web. October 31, 2012.

Susan Greenfield vs. James Paul Gee

Joshua Steele
October 29, 2012
English 115
Professor Macklin

Susan Greenfield vs. James Paul Gee

Moderator: Welcome to the first Effects of Modern Technology Debate, located at UC Berkeley in Berkeley, California. I’m Robert Birgeneau, Chancellor of UC Berkeley, and I will be moderating this evening’s debate. The audience has agreed to remain silent for the duration of this debate, except for now. Please welcome Susan Greenfield and James Paul Gee.
(The two of them shake hands before sitting at their respective seats.)
Moderator: Our first question is for Susan Greenfield. Ms. Greenfield, why do you believe that humans are facing a crisis?
Susan Greenfield: I believe that humans are facing a crisis that is caused by the proliferation of gadgets and by the fact that, “Increasing numbers of people already take Prozac for depression, Paxil as an antidote for shyness, and give Ritalin to children to improve their concentration.” If you are not worried yet, I suggest that you ask yourself, “But what if there were still more pills to enhance or ‘correct’ a range of other specific mental functions?”
Moderator: Mr. Gee, would you like to rebut Ms. Greenfield’s statement?
James Paul Gee: Yes, I would. I feel that Ms. Greenfield’s is oversimplified and I believe that, “Next to nothing is good or bad for you in and of itself and all by itself. I believe that video games and television, for example, can be good for your soul when you reflect on what you are watching or playing. However, I do agree with Ms. Greenfield when she stated in 1984 that watching television is bad when people are sitting and watching passively while relying on television as a babysitter.
Moderator: Thank you. Our next question is for Mr. Gee. Mr. Gee, what do heaven and hell and your soul have in common with the supposed merits of video games?
James Paul Gee: I once had the opportunity to go back and time and experience life in the Middle Ages. I stated that currently, as opposed to the Middle Ages, people from various religious groups believe that those who disagree with them will go to hell as opposed to heaven. Perhaps-
Susan Greenfield: Oh really? Do you consider burning heretics and non-Christians at the stake a form of religious tolerance? How about the Spanish Inquisition and the persecution of Jews throughout Europe? What about the Catholic Church’s backlash against the Protestant Reformation? In my opinion, the modern world is much more tolerant of people with differing religious beliefs, or a lack of religious beliefs. Perhaps your so-called nostalgia for the Middle Ages comes from playing a lot of flashy video games.
(Susan Greenfield’s and James Paul Gee’s voices cannot be heard, since the two of them are consistently cutting each other off and attempting to talk over each other.)
Moderator: Ms. Greenfield and Mr. Gee, thank you very much for your insightful contributions so far. At this point in time we will be taking a 15 minute break.
(The debate ends temporarily.)



Works Cited
1. “Modern Technology Is Changing The Way Our Brains Work.” Susan Greenfield, 2008. Web. October 18, 2012.
2. “Why Video Games Are Good For Your Soul: Pleasure and Learning.” James Paul Gee, n.d. Web. October 29, 2012.

Exercise 3.1: Analyzing Claims

Joshua Steele
October 23, 2012
English 115
Professor Macklin

Analyzing Claims in "Modern Technology Is Changing The Way Our Brains Work"

    In Susan Greenfield’s article “Modern Technology Is Changing The Way Our Brains Work,” Susan Greenfield claims that modern technology and the increasing use of prescription drugs are negatively altering the way our brains work. On multiple occasions, she refers to these changes as a “crisis” that would make George Orwell’s greatest fears come true. Greenfield also states that even though the human brain is highly adaptable, the changes to our brains caused by modern technology are highly damaging and possibly irreversible.  She backs up her claim when she states that, “Attention spans are shorter, personal communication skills are reduced and there’s a marked reduction in the ability to think abstractly.”  Greenfield also compares video game addictions to drug and alcohol addictions when she says that, “However, playing certain games can mimic addiction, and the heaviest users of these games might soon begin to do a pretty good impersonation of an addict” (Greenfield).   In order to understand Susan Greenfield’s statements and the reasoning behind it, the reader must know more about her background.
    Susan Greenfield is a professor of pharmacology at Oxford University, neuroscientist, writer, broadcaster, and a member of the British House of Lords, which is the largely ceremonial upper house of Parliament. In the House of Lords, 84% of the members are appointed for life (House of Lords). Members are appointed by the Queen based on the advice of the Prime Minister. In addition to analyzing the effect of technology on the brain, Susan Greenfield has also published a neuroscientific theory of consciousness (Baroness Susan Greenfield).

Works Cited
1. Baroness Susan Greenfield. Susan Greenfield, 2012. Web. October 23, 2012.
2. House of Lords. UK Parliament. Web. October 23, 2012.
3. “Modern Technology Is Changing The Way Our Brains Work.” Susan Greenfield, 2008. Web. October 23, 2012.

The Use of Tone

Joshua Steele

October 20, 2012

English 115

Professor Macklin

The Use of Tone in "Modern Technology Is Changing The Way Our Brains Work"

  In Susan Greenfield's article, "Modern Technology Is Changing The Way Our Brains Work," the author frequently uses phrases such as "crisis," "threat," and "Orwellian," which shows that Greenfield is quite passionate about the topics of her article and is determined to get her point across. However, her tone could have the opposite effect on readers who disagree with her, since they would become defensive and view her as an angry person. 

Works Cited

1. "Modern Technology Is Changing The Way Our Brains Work." Science and Society, 2008. Web. October 18, 2012.

Gay and Lesbian Parents and the Expanding Definition of Family

Joshua Steele
October 17, 2012
English 115
Professor Macklin

Gay and Lesbian Parents and the Expanding Definition of Family

    The video begins with a teenage boy at a restaurant, eating and saying, “I gotta tell you something.” He then tells his fathers that he is straight, and they nod in approval. An announcer then tells the audience, “Children raised by homosexuals do not necessarily become homosexuals” (The Gayest Commercials). In this video, the message is clearly presented to the audience, especially with the announcer’s message at the end. The message is that being raised by gay or lesbian parents is perfectly normal and that it is perfectly normal for the children of gay or lesbian parents to identify as straight. This advertisement relies on the use of pathos when the teenage boy anxiously tells his fathers that he is straight. The use of pathos is also used to encourage the audience to view the fathers and the son in a positive light. In this video, the use of logos is present when the announcer tells the audience, “Children raised by homosexuals do not necessarily become homosexuals” (The Gayest Commercials). In the advertisement, ethos is missing, due to the fact that the advertisement was created and funded by the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association, which lobbies for LGBT rights across the globe (ILGA).  However, the advertisement could contain ethos if it was produced and funded by an apolitical organization, such as a medical or mental health organization. In order to fully understand this public service announcement and this essay, the reader should be informed about the history of gay and lesbian parents and the current issues that they face.
    Until the 1960s and 1970s, adoption was limited to heterosexual couples who adopted a healthy white infant and adhered to traditional gender roles, where the father worked and the mother stayed at home. Single adults, divorced adults, older couples, and couples with health problems were typically forbidden from adopting children, while gay and lesbian couples were never allowed to adopt children. One prominent historical example of the strict adoption laws of the past was Joan Crawford’s legal battle to adopt her first child. In 1939, Crawford sought to adopt a child, but she was turned down by adoption agencies in California, since she had been married and divorced twice and lived alone. She was eventually able to adopt her daughter, Christina, through an out-of-state agency (Her Own Private Idaho, Mommie Dearest). Decades later, adoption laws were liberalized in response to massive changes in American society.
    Today, single people, divorced people, older individuals and couples, and same-sex couples are all allowed to adopt children in California. However, previous governors have attempted to issue regulations that would prohibit same-sex couples from adopting children. In 1987, Governor George Deukmejian issued a memorandum to the California Department of Social Services and to county adoption agencies, urging them to reject efforts by same-sex couples and heterosexual unmarried couples to adopt children (San Francisco Chronicle). This memorandum was widely ignored by state and county officials. In 1996, Governor Pete Wilson ordered the Department of Social Services to regularly reject efforts by same-sex couples and unmarried couples to adopt children (Los Angeles Times). Three years later, Governor Gray Davis ended the state’s ‘de facto ban’ on adoptions by unmarried couples and same-sex couples (San Francisco Chronicle). The ‘de facto ban’ on adoption by same-sex couples was motivated by the homophobia of Governors George Deukmejian and Pete Wilson and their desire to please right-wing extremists in California and across the country, based on the notion that gays and lesbians were “unfit” parents (Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle).
    In conclusion, unmarried people, single people, older couples, couples with health problems, and same-sex couples were prohibited from adopting children. Since the 1960s and 1970s, laws have been changed to allow same-sex couples, unmarried couples, single people, older couples, and couples with health problems to adopt children as long as they are viewed as capable.

Works Cited

1. “Davis ends de facto ban on gay adoptions.” San Francisco Chronicle. Hearst Newspapers, November 18, 1999. Web. October 17, 2012.
2. “Gays, Singles Also Targets of Adoption Rule.” Los Angeles Times. Tribune Corporation, September 8, 1996. Web. October 17, 2012.
3. “Her Own Private Idaho.” People Weekly. Time Inc., August 8, 1994. Web. October 13, 2012.
4. International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and Intersex Association, 2009. Web. October 16, 2012.
5. Perry, Frank, dir. Mommie Dearest. Paramount Pictures, 1981. Film.
6. “The Gayest Commercials.” Out. Here Media Inc., March 20, 2012. Web. October 13, 2012.
7. “The History of Gay Adoption.” Helium. RR Donnelley, September 22, 2009. Web. October 13, 2012.

   

Gay and Lesbian Parents and the Expanding Definition of Family- Rough Draft

Joshua Steele
October 13, 2012
English 115
Professor Macklin

Gay and Lesbian Parents and the Expanding Definition of Family

    The video begins with a teenage boy at a restaurant, eating and saying, “I gotta tell you something.” He then tells his fathers that he is straight, and they nod in approval. An announcer then tells the audience, “Children raised by homosexuals do not necessarily become homosexuals” (The Gayest Commercials). In this video, the message is clearly presented to the audience, especially with the announcer’s message at the end. The message is that being raised by gay or lesbian parents is perfectly normal and that it is perfectly normal for the children of gay or lesbian parents to identify as straight. In order to fully understand this public service announcement and this essay, the reader should be informed about the history of gay and lesbian parents and the current issues that they face.
    Until the 1960s and 1970s, adoption was limited to heterosexual couples who adopted a healthy white infant and adhered to traditional gender roles, where the father worked and the mother stayed at home. Single adults, divorced adults, older couples,  and couples with health problems were typically forbidden from adopting children, while gay and lesbian couples were never allowed to adopt children. One prominent historical example of the strict adoption laws of the past is the case of Joan Crawford’s legal battle to adopt her first child. In 1939, Crawford sought to adopt a child, but she was turned down by adoption agencies in California, since she had been married and divorced twice. She eventually was able to adopt her daughter, Christina, through an out-of-state agency (Her Own Private Idaho, Mommie Dearest).

Works Cited

1. “Her Own Private Idaho.” People Weekly. Time Inc., August 8, 1994. Web. October 13, 2012.
2. Perry, Frank, dir. Mommie Dearest. Paramount Pictures, 1981. Film.
3. “The Gayest Commercials.” Out. Here Media Inc., March 20, 2012. Web. October 13, 2012.
4. “The History of Gay Adoption.” Helium. RR Donnelley, September 22, 2009. Web. October 13, 2012. 

What Goes on in the Matador Bookstore Complex

Joshua Steele

October 8, 2012

English 115

Professor Macklin

What Goes On in the Matador Bookstore Complex

Today, I visited the Matador Bookstore Complex in order to make observations for my ethnography. When I was there, people were eating lunch or a snack. Some of them were eating alone, while others were eating with a friend or group of friends. At one table, a couple was hugging and kissing. At another table, one woman was talking to another woman about the flirtatious texts that a man sent her. Many of the people who were eating were also texting or using their laptops. Those who were not sitting down to eat were eating while walking or were carrying their food with them while it was still packaged. At the Matador Bookstore Complex, there were plenty of people who were just passing by. Some of them were headed to the bookstore, while others walked upstairs or rode up the elevator. Also, some of the people who were passing by were carrying skateboards or scooters. Other people who were passing by were listening to music, texting, talking to another person, or talking on their phone. The bookstore complex is a lively place, which does not work for somebody looking for a quiet place to study. The fact that the bookstore complex is a bad place to study is validated by the fact that the televisions are on. When a person enters or leaves the bookstore complex, they will notice that some people are smoking outside, since smoking in public buildings is illegal. Last but not least, most of the people at the bookstore complex were students.
    While our assigned readings in class give us an idea of what visual analysis is, doing an ethnography allowed me to visually analyze something on my own. One conclusion that I have reached from my ethnography is that plenty of people are more interested in their computers and iPods than each other. Another conclusion that I have reached from my ethnography is that eavesdropping on a nearby conversation without arousing suspicion is not very difficult.

My Scene

Progression 2: Exercise 2.2 “The Scene”

Gibran Sheikh, Ann Lim, Joshua Steele, Perla Lopez

Professor Macklin

3 October 2012

Note: The message of the following scene is to not text while driving, as these to actions do not mix and is a probable cause of accidents and sometimes death. This scene is meant to inform people about the dangers of texting while driving.

Cast: Joshua, Perla, Ann (Narrator, Pedestrian/Waitress), Gibran (Dad)

Narrator: It is a breezy afternoon in the streets of downtown Los Angeles, a Chinese restaurant with a big LED sign hanging on the door, flashes the word ‘OPEN’. Joshua, A young man enters the restaurant. He is dressed in his half-length pants and a casual T-shirt. The restaurant is packed with customers. Luckily, Joshua finds an empty table, sits down and ordered his meal from a young, pretty waitress. Cell phone rings. Joshua fumbles with his cell phone in his backpack as he exits the noisy restaurant to answer the call.

Joshua: Hello? This is Joshua.

Perla: Hey Joshua, what’s up? Are you free to come to my party tonight? It’s going to be awesome. Everyone's going to be there and we are all going to have so much fun partying the whole night.

Joshua: Alright, yeah I'll be there! That sounds cool!

Perla: Yeah, my parents aren’t coming back from their vacation until next week, so this party is going to be great. You better come!

Joshua: Yeah, yeah I’ll be there. What time does it start?

Narrator: Joshua, cradles the cell phone to his shoulders as he takes out a pen and a piece of paper.

Perla: It starts at ten! If you want you can come a bit earlier to help set up some of the tables for food and drinks. I’d really appreciate it. Oh and my address is 18110 Nordhoff St, Northridge, CA 91325.

Joshua: Uh, sure. I’ll be there by nine then to help you set up and stuff.

Narrator: Joshua notes down the information of the party on his sheet of paper clumsily.

Perla: Okay cool, I’ll see you later.

Joshua: Okay, bye.

Narrator: Joshua hangs up his cell phone and reenters the restaurant. Time passes after Joshua finishes his lunch, he has now gone home to get dressed for the party. It is now around 7 in the evening, Joshua is lounging lazily on a big, comfy sofa in the living room, texting non-stop using his cell phone.

Dad: Joshua, I see you texting all the time, every single day! Put away your phone! You have been relying too much on it! Don’t you have any homework to do? Or didn't you have some chores to finish?

Narrator: Joshua starts to frown and gets impatient with his father.

Joshua: Dad, it’s Friday! Perla is having a party at her house tonight and I have got to be there. I am just texting to find out who will be going to the party, and of course I finished the chores, and I already washed the dishes!

Dad: (Sighs) Oh, alright. What time are you leaving, then? Are you going to drive there, because you know I just got the car washed and I don't want any scratches or even the slightest bit of dirt to get on it.

Joshua: I will be leaving at 8.30pm and yes, I am going to drive, and don't worry about the car it'll be fine.

Dad: Oh, alright. Make sure you don’t text while driving, I'm more concerned about you than the car. Oh, and don't ever take your eyes off the road! That's really dangerous, and I don't want you to get hurt! (Shakes head while looking at Joshua who doesn’t look like he cares, and is still busy texting on the cell phone.) Look Joshua, I don't want anything bad to happen to you, are you listening?

Joshua: Yeah, yeah, Dad. I'll be fine, don't worry too much about me.

Dad: Well, be careful, I'll be in the kitchen getting something to eat. (Goes to kitchen.)

Narrator:  It is now 8:35pm. Noticing how time has passed by very quickly, Joshua gets up, and in a hurry grabs his car keys and his wallet. he quickly examines himself, looking at a full-body mirror, just to make sure that he looks good in his brand new plaid shirt from GAP. He dashes out the door to get to his car, without saying good-bye to his father, who is in the kitchen, asleep. Joshua starts his car, backs out of his drive way and makes his way to Perla's house. The ringtone of text messages sounds. Without a second thought, Joshua grabs his cell phone and begins to respond to his text messages.

Joshua: Oh man, I don't want to be late to help Perla out with the party, her house is nearly a half hour from here. I better tell her that I'll be there as fast as I can.

Narrator: Joshua creates his text. All of a sudden, *BANG!* An accident happened. A biker was hit by Joshua’s car.  In extreme panic and shock, Joshua looks up to see blood on his windshield.

Joshua: (Shocked) Oh my gosh, what was that?!

Narrator: Joshua exits his car door, and makes his way to the front of the car. He looks down, seeing something horrible. The nice, young waitress who took his order today lay dead in front of him.

Joshua: (Sobbing) Oh no! What have I done?!

End Scene

An Advertisement in a Magazine

Joshua Steele
October 1, 2012
English 115
Professor Macklin

An Advertisement in a Magazine

  
 The advertisement that I have chosen is a travel advertisement for New Orleans that appears on the website for a gay men‘s magazine. The ad is trying to encourage gay people to visit New Orleans, which is heavily reliant on tourism. In order to draw attention, this advertisement utilizes a common feature, which is the use of sex appeal to sell a product. In this advertisement, an attractive gay male couple is shown with their arms around each other, wearing plenty of Mardi Gras necklaces. Last but not least, the genre presented here is travel advertising.