The Man, The Myth, and The Magic

The Man, The Myth, and The Magic

     Id like to start by saying that I am not a Tebowist. I do not participate in the act of Tebowing, nor was I one of the 94 million people to search John 3:16 after Tebow sported the numbers on his eye black during the 2009 BCS National Championship. But on the other hand, I wouldn’t say I have a problem with him. I recognize that he has “it”. Whatever “it” is, be it his leadership skills, his fearless broadcasting of his faith or the fact that he is one of the greatest athletes (notice I said athletes, not quarterbacks) ever to play the game, that man is in no short supply of “it”. These attributes mesmerize everybody and your mother and, for a while there, it seemed nothing could get Tebowists out of their warm stupor. In essence, Tebow was (and still is) a drug. And that’s what the news feeds on; this drug that evoked the controversy of the year in the sports world.

     Being a news icon is no new gig for Tebow: he has been talked about since he was a senior in high school. His recruiting profile describes him as “[having] a strong arm and above average speed and elusiveness…shows positive leadership ability…” (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/recruiting/player-Tim-Tebow-31436) Attributes like this got him recruited to the acclaimed football powerhouse, University of Florida, where the coaches had nothing but positive things to say about their new quarterback. Even ESPN college analysis’s loved him, saying that he was “revolutionizing the position…as a dual threat quarterback” (http://web.archive.org/web/20071111084832/http://www.thestate.com/sports/story/225436.html) A quarterback who can run and who can throw. And Tebow did nothing to disappoint his fans. He first helped the Gators win the national championship during the 2006 college football season. The next year, he was named the Gators' starting quarterback during which he became the first college sophomore to win the Heisman Trophy. In ’08, Tebow led Florida to a 13-1 record and its second national championship in three years, and was named the offensive MVP of the national championship game. The Gators again went 13–1 in 2009, Tebow's senior year. At the conclusion of his college career, he held the Southeastern Conference’s all-time records in both career passing efficiency and total rushing touchdowns, appearing second and tenth (respectively) in the NCAA record book in these categories. (http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/2011/FBS.pdf)

     Fast forward a couple years, and Tebow is about to start his first NFL game for the Denver Broncos. Nobody knows what to expect. He has been both raved about and criticized for weeks before this deciding day. Down 15 points with less than 3 minutes to go, it seemed all hope was lost. But then, by a stroke of God, or so it would appear, Tebow rallied the Broncos to an 18-15 OT win against the Miami Dolphins, ironically in the same stadium that he won a High School title in 2005 and a College National Championship in 2008, silencing critics and starting an era of what would be hence fourth known as Tebow Time. The ensuing news stories were a mix of joy, disbelief, and at the very least, acknowledgement of what this young quarterback had just accomplished. Most of the post game analyses noted the poor late game performance of the Dolphins mixed with strokes of luck for the Broncos as opposed to skill coming from Tebow. CBS’ Bill Cowher says, “He has limitations but ultimately can become a legitimate quarterback. But they won’t win a championship with him.” They give him credit…but not that much credit. (http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/21/2464362/tebow-mania-upstaging-miami-dolphins.html) Tebow went on to lead the Denver Broncos to an 8-8 season, and another come-from-behind OT win in his first ever playoff appearance against the powerhouse Pittsburgh Steelers. Not bad for a rookie.

     When I searched “Tim Tebow” on Google, an astonishing 91,600,000 results appeared at my disposal. Now I cant imagine all of these are entire articles about America’s new golden boy, but even so, he is at least referenced that many times. As a point of comparison, when searching for David Beckham, arguably the worlds most popular soccer player, a mere 75,000,000 results came up, despite the fact that soccer has a significantly larger worldwide following.

     I think there is essentially two ways that the news analyzes Tim Tebow. One is with logos, the other with pathos.  The use of logos is generally on the negative side, seeing as statistically, he really isn’t that great of a quarterback. (In his defense, this statement is comparing him to all current quarterbacks, including the many to-be hall of famers. His first year stats, compared to stats of even the best during their first season is respectable) According to a telecast of SportsCenter, Tebow had the lowest quarterback rating of all eligible players in the position. I wouldn’t generally associate someone with this ranking as being a winning quarterback, much less the most popular athlete in the America. (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2012/01/poll-tim-tebow-most-popular.html)

The Harvard Sports Analysis Collective is a “student-run organization at Harvard College dedicated to the quantitative analysis of sports strategy and management.” After all they hype on this young quarterback, they decided to figure out statistically how he should be doing. The article turned out to essentially augment the skepticism of Tebow’s success. According to their calculations, “for the last 5 weeks, [during which Tebow led the Broncos to a record of 4-1], taking into account strength of opponent and location of the game, the Broncos would have been expected to win 1.9 games over that 5 game stretch.” So, what, did he just pull the other 2.1 wins out of mid-air? The article uses the terms EPA and WPA, or Expected Points Added and Win Probability Added, respectively. They go on to say

Tebow [compared to Kyle Orton] has a much worse EPA – meaning that he has objectively produced worse results over all of his plays – but a significantly better (though still negative) WPA – meaning that his plays have contributed more to the chances of his team winning. While Tebow’s plays have produced much fewer expected points than Orton’s, Tebow’s positive plays have come at crucial points in the game, when they have a much larger impact on the final result.

Unfortunately for Broncos fans, however, “the vast majority of players who started their careers with similar characteristics (a relatively high WPA given their EPA) eventually regressed towards the mean and saw their numbers come in line with expectations” (http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/a-statistical-analysis-of-the-miracles-of-tim-tebow) So what does this mean? The news coverage that utilizes logos as the primary way to analyze Tebow seem to suggest that he is really no more than a lucky, albeit mediocre quarterback. But this isn’t what brought Tebow into the spotlight, and it’s definitely not what kept him there.

     The stories using pathos to analyze the star are much more interesting and revealing about how he came to be the most compelling story in sports. Chuck Klosterman, a contributing author to the widely read blog Grantland, explains the unorthodox divide between those who like him vs. dislike him most eloquently. In this, he notes that the people who dislike him, dislike him essentially because he is “too good of a person”. The people who like him like him because he “succeeds at his job while being uniquely unskilled at its traditional requirements.” For the life of this story, Tebow has never been a great passer. And everybody from SportsCenter to church blogs has acknowledged that. But, like I said earlier, he has “it.” Tebow is more than football. He has a knack for saying just the right things at just the right times. Yes, it’s intertwined by his arguably obnoxious references to his “lord and savior Jesus Christ”, but maybe, as much as we moan and gripe about him shoving his faith down everyone’s throats, we have a subconscious appreciation for his antics.

The crux here, the issue driving this whole "Tebow Thing," is the matter of faith. It's the ongoing choice between embracing a warm feeling that makes no sense or a cold pragmatism that's probably true. And with Tebow, that illogical warm feeling keeps working out. It pays off. The upside to secular thinking is that — in theory — your skepticism will prove correct. Your rightness might be emotionally unsatisfying, but it confirms a stable understanding of the universe. Sports fans who love statistics fall into this camp. People who reject cognitive dissonance build this camp and find the firewood. But Tebow wrecks all that, because he makes blind faith a viable option. His faith in God, his followers' faith in him — it all defies modernity. This is why people care so much. He is making people wonder if they should try to believe things they don't actually believe. (http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7319858/the-people-hate-tim-tebow)

Is it this that landed Tebow an entire hour long special on SportsCenter, a very rare occurrence that puts him in a class with the likes of LeBron James and his “decision?” Maybe. And for those of us who don’t shut the door on Tebow because we are “annoyed” by all the talk about him, columnist Rick Reilly sums up the feelings of the fans quite well.

So that's it. I've given up giving up on him. I'm a 100 percent believer. Not in his arm. Not in his skills. I believe in his heart, his there-will-definitely-be-a-pony-under-the-tree optimism, the way his love pours into people, right up to their eyeballs, until they believe they can master the hopeless comeback, too."

(http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/7455943/believing-tim-tebow)

Giving a Reteat

Of the three chapters, Id have to agree with other classmates in saying that it was probably the most jumbled and poorly written. Although, eventually after a little bit of re reading, I was able to figure out the jist of the chapter. Id be willing to chalk up the poor performance to Harris' editor having the stomach flu during the week designated to revise this chapter and due to their extremely tight schedule, they were not able to go back and take a second look at it.

Ultimately, what I drew from this chapter, "taking an approach" is taking somebody elses work and giving it your own signature flare to appeal to whatever audience you are trying to reach. The best example of this would be the cover of a song. There is a station on XM radio that my mom (thus, in turn, I do as well during road trips) called the Coffee House, whose entire agenda is to play acoustic music covers. Take John Mayer covering the late great Bob Marley's "No Woman, No Cry". When I think of Bob Marley and John Mayer, I think of weed smoking musicians with glorious voices. Not at all the same style, though. But in his cover, John Mayer takes Bob's song and his signature reggae style and turns it into a piece of his own acoustic brilliance.

In terms of writing, this could be seen when news stories are stretched to evoke a different emotion from the audience. I feel like this would be much harder for an publication such as the NYT, seeing as they have an image of professionalism and honesty to uphold, but for something like the Onion, I think taking an approach fits right in. They are transforming headlines and articles to appeal to a different audience. Just like a cover of a song, the Onion takes the story from a reputable publication and then generally tweaks it just enough that its obvious what the first story was on, but leaves the reader with something completely different than they would have gotten if they had just been boring and read NYT.

Hmm..On the Contrary

This is a tough post. It seems like it should just be reading a given blog post as a rough draft and revising it into a final copy. But, for whatever reason, it doesnt seem to work that smoothly in blogging. When I blog, I pride myself on the fact that what I write first is what stays. I dont generally think too much about writing entrys in a way such that they can be revised. 

If I needed to revisit one post, however, It would probably be the most recent one on "countering". At first, I was thinking of countering as tool used solely in writing, as opposed being used in conversation to push forward a discussion. People counter every day-- thats how discussions last longer than 2 sentences. (Kids, take notes for first dates. Use countering throughout the awkward dinner and it fly right by) I mean I guess everybody could agree on everything...but how fun would that be?

I suppose I didnt necessarily understand the whole idea of countering while writing that first post, seeing as I said that the Onion doesn't use all too much countering. On second thought, it seems they absolutely do. They present a biased and satirical side of a story which is just the thing to push the discussion forward. They (although not always in a completly truthful way) make observations about a story which absolutely provokes discussion. If nothing else, their articles start conversations. The headlines are so absurd that people go up to one another and say, "Did you see that article in the Onion?! HAHAHA" The ensuing conversation doesnt necessarily always relate back to the specific article but at the back of each parties mind, they know at least one side to the story, and how at least some people feel about a given issue.  

What Lovely Marble

Countering: the act of installing a formidable platform in a kitchen environment on which one can place countless items?

Maybe not so much. Harris, as the author of this lovely book, describes countering as "not nullifying, but rather suggest[ing] a different way of thinking." Unlike an arguement, where each party is trying to point out the flaws in the other's defense, this idea of countering is more of a constructive criticism of sorts.

In a debate, it is generally accepted that every point each person makes is either an attempt to defend their stance or attack the other persons. Countering, however, suggests that "ones own position has evolved in response to ideas and findings."

The Onion doesn't necesarily do this. They are pretty biased on their stance in a given story. Its not that any of their points are necessarily condescending, but rather they dont offer both sides to the story. Its hard to envision there being another side to an article titled "Hampered Kevin Garnett To See Age Specialist..."

Eat Fresh

The word forwarding has been used in many a context, however Id be willing to bet most in my generation associate "forwarding" with email and maybe the occasional text. It offers a quick, mindless way to get the information you've just read to a vast audience, that being anyone in your email contacts or phone book. Harris goes a step farther and uses the term as a writer "forwarding a text by taking words, images or ideas from it and putting them to use in new contexts." Its a way of taking someone elses ideas and expanding on them, or writing about the topics in a way that offer a new angle in the analysis of the situation/text.


The blog/online newspaper The Onion exemplifies this concept of "forwarding." They take a standard issue news headline and tweak it in a brilliant, satirical kind of way that appeals to everyone reading it. Obviously, much is lost in translation; The Onions whole agenda is to take just a small part of a story or idea and make ridiculously exaggerated points about it. So most of the truth part is gone. As in anything that is "forwarded", Harris argues that "although you may gain readers for a text [thanks to the internet], but you lose control of it once you send it to the public sphere." He references Plato in that he thought that
"texts can become fatherless, detached from their authors and interpreted recklessly." But its not all bad. In the example of The Onion, whats lost in the information not being completely truthful is gained by the piece being so funny! The best part is that its not only funny, but incredibly witty at the same time. As such, it has more of an intellectual vibe rather than just the likes of a comic strip. 

Analysisisisisis

The purpose of The Onion is to educate through satire and exaggeration. The news is often relavent to what is actually going on, but usually something is made up to make the story funnier and richer. This site appeals to anyone with a sense of humor, although it has been said that there is a bit of a liberal bias to the stories. (It did originate in Boulder, after all) The authors are made up of a core of about 15 people, with a few outside contributors. One interesting thing I just learned is that everything is backwards at The Onion: "We start with the headline and then flesh out the story, as opposed to The New York Times, which writes the issue and then has a headline editor to make it snappy. We start with a joke."

Brilliance

The New York Times and The Onion.

 One is a factual, academically written piece that appeals to the likes of my grandfather, and the other is a humorous, satirical work that pokes fun at the "flaws" in everyday life.

At first glance, it would appear that the two papers have a completely different agenda for their news. However, if you look a little deeper into it, the Onion is really just the younger, funnier brother to the Times. Take, for example, the news about Peyton Manning being cleared to play football again. The Times says, "Peyton Manning Cleared to Resume NFL Career." The Onion says, "Doctors Clear Peyton Manning To Let 300 Pound Men Slam Him Into The Ground As Hard As They Can." Yes, Peyton was cleared to resume his NFL career, but the Onion goes a step farther and points out the elephant in the room (that being the absurdity of his clearance) in a funny way. If one was to read the title out of context, not knowing who Peyton Manning is, they would be very confused as to why anyone would want to let 300 pound men slam them into the ground as hard as they can, much less if he just recovered from an injury!

(Hopefully said 300 pound men dont permanently injure one of the best quarterbacks ever to play the game after his return.)

Another interesting comparison that can be made between the sources is about the current election situation. Because it is just now the primarys, most of the talk in politics has been about the potential republican candidates. In a stab at the "quality" of the current candidates, the Onion made a satirical video about a "mystery candidate, who will wear a paper bag over his head until elected, and at that point will reveal his economic plan and presidental agenda" And according to the Onion, he's winning!!


They also throws a little help Obamas way and makes a plea to Americans to have some decency and vote him in for another term so "his daughters wont have to switch schools!"

Brilliant.

Huh?

Im sure Jeff Jarvis is a wonderful person. Probably has a nice house, nice wife, nice dog and has nice kids. But his writing is far from nice. It took me a while re-reading his article and synthesizing the meaning using comments from other readers as well to try and grasp his point in this piece.

The overall impression I got from the article was that rather than the news being reliant on the press in order to be "news" (as it used to be), we now have other modes of getting information that should be embraced? I think he was trying to say that in our current technology era, people can get more of a well rounded view on an issue through comments, links and instant followup as opposed to reading an article in the paper and having just one interpretation of the information.

If that is a valid conclusion to this article, I suppose he kind of makes a point. It seems, however, that what he is trying to say isnt super intuitive - obviously through the instant communication we now possess, there can be more opinions presented and taken into consideration on a subject.

Feel free to disregard this post, however, as im still feeling uneasy with my conclusion. Because of his shotty writing, ive decided that I must stop re reading it to try and make some sense of his writing because its doing nothing but making my head hurt.

New York Times

I apologize for the belated nature of this post, I was not aware it was due yesterday along with the other one. Count it as my late entry.

The New York Times has a very accessible and professional site for their viewers. The format is interesting in that with the simple black and white colors it almost looks like a newspaper on the internet. It is easy to navigate between different "genres" of news through the side selection bar. Obviously the first stories that catch our attention are the big bold headlines in the middle of the page, usually with a picture associated with it. I find myself skimming all these headlines, and, if there is something interesting, I will delve deeper into the article. If not, however, I generally go straight to the "sports" tab. Not to say that I appreciate sports more than "hope and garden", but I really just appreciate sports more than home and garden. Is that so wrong?

I suppose because of this bias, I miss interesting things about seeds and fertilizers, but honestly, Im confident I wont lose any sleep over it. Through this reading, ive become more of a well rounded person in that If something sparks my interest, I may do more research on the subject to get a full view on the issue. It also allows me to draw connections between articles I have read and things I see in everyday life.

Good work, NYT.

Americas Finest News Source

I plan to follow the americas finest news source, The Onion.

As we all know, this site/newspaper provides a brilliant, satirical take on daily events that makes the news more fun to read.

It should be relatively easy to pull facts from the comical entrys and compare them to what is actually going on. This site will also be interesting to see how people are exploiting the "flaws" of daily occurrences.

Like a Flock of Sheep

Surprisingly enough, not too many people rely on Snapple tops to get their information. That could be attributed to the fact that some people are too good for random facts or more likely that college kids are too stingy to buy the delicious drink. Who says Snapple education cant make you a well rounded person?

No, instead it appears that the flock of sheep that is our generation uses the internet for at least some if not all of their information gathering. But is that a bad thing? I would argue that its not. As I said in my paper, it is time to accept, adapt and embrace the new technology era of which the internet is at the forefront. It is so easy to open your laptop, type in nytimes.com and figure out what is happening in our world. This is opposed to waiting until the next morning, walking all the way out to the driveway (usually uphill both ways in a blizzard), getting the paper (which is not environmentally chic and killing trees), open up the awkward sized thing (which, when you do, hits everybody in a pretty substantial radius in the face) and participating in the ensuing fight to keep it upright and readable.

Im sure Clive Thompson would agree with the above statement, whereas Chris Hedges would probably argue that this is exactly what is perpetuating our illiteracy problem.

Go away, Hedges. Be a debbie downer somewhere else.

We Were Supposed to Post Our Final Draft Here?

Apparently so.

Kyle Sundman

Professor Leake

Writ 1122

6 January 2012    

This essay is intended for the critics of the evolution of language. It is intended for those who are pushing away from the new internet era, who still like to read and analyze long texts and who blame the internet for the inevitable downfall of society. Whether that be the publishers of textbooks, who cant seem to make their information more interesting than a night folding socks, teachers, who wont accept that shorter or more involved readings really are better for students now a days, or anyone in general who refuses to adapt.

The Revolution of a Century

     Almost 250 years ago, a brilliant journalist by the name of Laurence Sterne wrote, “Writing, when properly managed…is but a different name for conversation.” He had a point then, but it almost seems to come into play today more than ever. Long, drawn out texts in this day and age are like college-age Andy’s toys in Toy Story 3 – frivolous, extraneous and superfluous; they are old news. With all the advancements in technology, its not that people are writing less (quite the contrary, actually), but we are writing differently. We are writing more like a conversation; arguably more casually, and with a bigger audience. Sure, one could argue that Americans are becoming ignorant because nobody wants to read the likes of an old 500-page manuscript, but when it was chic to read said text, bathing took place in rivers and clothes were robes – a lot has changed since then. It has come down to the need for somebody, somewhere, somehow, to remind the critics that language is constantly evolving; and this time, more than ever, we need to realize it, embrace it, and adapt.

     “Throughout the ages, writing has been used by poets to incite love, and by warriors to incite hate. It has been the tool of revolutionaries and dictators to sway the masses.” (HyperHistory) We always have and will continue to use writing as the primary way to communicate and educate. Contrary to popular belief, we write more in the 21^st century than any other time in history. Although it seems hard to believe, we are currently out writing (solely in terms of length, that is) the likes of Homer and Tolstoy; our 250 character tweets, Facebook posts, emails, blogs and other short pieces of writing add up. And we are doing it in a way that we actually like! Nobody likes to write a paper for a class because all the other forms of writing (social networking, blogs etc…) we utilize are aimed at an audience, and in some way or another, no matter how small, "[have] an effect on the world." (Thompson 1) Contrary to this, a paper for school speaks only to one person; the professor, and "it [doesn't] serve any purpose other than to get a grade." (Thompson 1) Despite the fact that many of the things we write are somewhat irrelevant, is it possible that we are becoming experts? According to Malcolm Gladwell, (who may have just popularized the theory, but is at least the household name associated with it), there is a phenomenon called the 10,000 hour rule. The rule says that in order for an individual to master any skill, be it brain surgery or playing the cello, or in this case, writing, one must put in 10,000 hours of focused practice. Now in a situation like brain surgery, that could take a while; ten years would be generous on the low end. But what about writing? According to Natalie Wolchover, Americans spent 53 BILLION minuets, or roughly 101,000 YEARS on Facebook in ONE MONTH alone. Yes, one month. And that’s only on Facebook; not blogs, tweets, emails, or any other kind of writing. At that rate, it seems that it could take less, or at the very least roughly the same time to get to the magical 10,000 hours of “practice” as any other skill. Granted, it could be a stretch to say that writing a ton of Facebook posts or Tweeting constantly could make anyone an expert at writing - most would argue that the quality of the writing is much more important than the quantity. So maybe we are not becoming experts in the traditional sense of the word, but rather experts in this new age. The age in which the writing should be concise and flexible.  

     As our Internet usage increases while our attention spans shrink, its understandable that blogs and online sites are becoming the go-to way of communication. Andrew Sullivan is one of the more popular bloggers currently filling the web with his thoughts. Blogging is a type of writing that, as he says, "is what extreme sports are to athletics: more free-form, more accident-prone, less formal, more alive. It is, in many ways, writing out loud." 

Unlike formal print writing, where a journalist has time to collect information and organize it into a well thought out piece on a given issue, followers of blogs demand information regularly, in real time, in response to current events. This forces the author to take a more of a risk and write whatever comes to mind, despite knowing that a barrage of emails could be to follow about the inaccuracy of a point made in the sometimes-rushed post. In Sullivan's words, it’s more of a broadcast than a publication. It’s being willing to put your work out there, and let it be criticized by emails and comments until the truth about the issue is revealed. Despite the possibility of immediate scrutiny associated with a post on the Internet, blogging allows for more of a personal connection between the author and reader;

          "There is simply no way to write about [events] in real time without revealing a huge amount about yourself. And the intimate bond this creates with readers is unlike the bond that the The Times, say, develops with its readers through the same events. Alone in front of a computer, at any moment, are two people: a blogger and a reader. The proximity is palpable…whatever authority a blogger has is derived not from the institution he works for but from the humanness he conveys"

If nothing else, the fact that the reader knows the author not as "Mr. Sullivan", but rather "Andrew" lends just that more of a personal feel to the writing. He compares blogging to Jazz and writing to composed formal music. Jazz, as all musicians would likely agree, has not and will not ever replace composed music, but it offers a sense of improvised and intimate music, just as blogging has done with writing. 

     Critics can be heard all over the world. They suggest we have gone from reading and analyzing long texts to losing our attention span because of the need to gather the minimal amount of information on every ad or headline and efficiently decide if its worth our valuable time to read deeper into it! All this change is doing is making us LAZY! And were not doing anything except dumbing down America to accommodate the idiots!” Yes, you have a point. Its not all good. When the onset of writing came about, Socrates was worried about its effect on oral history in that he thought people would “cease to exercise their memory and become forgetful.” Is it possible that the quick processing and short attention span needed for our current internet era could stunt the development of our reading of things longer than a headline or ad? (Hedges 6) Journalist Chris Hedges attributes our declining literacy in part to the transition from a print-based society, where Voltaire was the most famous person, to more of an image-based society where "Mickey Mouse" takes the cake in the popularity contest. Why? Because "it feels good not to think." (Hedges 2) 

     You may even argue that America is becoming illiterate. Ok…but what is literacy? According to acclaimed journalist Sylvia Scribenr, it isn't defined well. Many scholars have conflicting ideas on what distinguishes an illiterate person from his more educated counterpart. They have tried, and subsequently failed to come up with a concrete definition, while still "crusading for a national effort to make literacy a reality." (Carr 6) How can literacy become a reality if nobody knows what it is? As Google is getting smarter, I suppose one could argue that comparatively we are getting dumber. The possibilities for the advancement of a computer are infinite compared to that of the human mind, which is “just an outdated computer that needs a faster processor and a bigger hard drive.” (Carr 6) Unfortunately, until we have some more major advances in medical technology, the size and processing speed of the human brain will probably remain relatively the same as we know now.

     So, all in all, what course of action is appropriate in our current situation? Adaption. I think textbook publishers, teachers, and society in general needs to stop pushing against this evolution, (or maybe revolution) and work to improve the systems in order to better synch with the rest of students lives outside of the classroom. The advent of the world wide web has allowed people to connect from Japan to New York and back in a matter of seconds, spawning ideas, discussions, and thoughts that have helped to advance our society in many ways, whether they be obvious or behind the scenes. For better or worse, it is changing the way the human brain processes ideas and information, “maybe even at a biological level.” (Carr 4) Maybe "technology isn't killing our ability to write, its reviving it." (Thompson 1) Maybe "we", (as in my generation), learn better in a different way. Maybe, just maybe, we are actually more literate than ever.

Works Cited

Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid? - Magazine - The Atlantic." The Atlantic — News and Analysis on Politics, Business, Culture, Technology, National, International, and Life – TheAtlantic.com. Web. 29 Jan. 2012. <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid

Chris, Hedges. "America the Illiterate." Truth Dig. Web. 28 Jan. 2012. <http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081110_america_the_illiterate/>.

Gladwell, Malcolm. Outliers: The Story of Success. New York: Little, Brown and, 2008. Print.

Sullivan, Andrew. "Why I Blog - Magazine - The Atlantic." The Atlantic — News and Analysis on Politics, Business, Culture, Technology, National, International, and Life – TheAtlantic.com. Web. 30 Jan. 2012. <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/why-i-blog/7060/>.

Thompson, Clive. "Clive Thompson on the New Literacy." Wired.com. Web. 07 Feb. 2012. <http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/17-09/st_thompson>.

Wolchover, Natalie. "Americans Logged 101,000 Years of Facebook Time in Single Month | LifesLittleMysteries.com." Home | LifesLittleMysteries.com. Web. 25 Jan. 2012. <http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/1763-time-americans-spend-facebook.html>.

"Writing through the Ages." HyperHistory.net. Web. 25 Jan. 2012. <http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/cot/t0w05writing.htm>.

Its hard to say where all my worldly knowledge comes from. Actually, no its not. Everything I know is from the lids of Snapples. For example, one taught me that in 1987, American Airlines saved $40,000 by eliminating a single olive from their in-flight salads. That was on the Snapple Apple bottle. I had to buy a whole pack of Diet Raspberry to learn about the War on Terror.

Ok, maybe thats not the only source of information, but definitely the primary.

I suppose I learn in many the same ways as most of my peers. Radio, TV, internet, and definitely word of mouth. For some reason, random facts seem to stick with me also. Not enough to warrant a Jeopardy appearance, but enough to throw a little flare into an ordinary conversation.

Obviously, one could learn quite a bit of information from watching TV because the news is always up to date, but most stations are too biased or at least too negative for my taste so I try and appeal to my (and the rest of our generations) need for constant stimulation and skim the internet for headlines. Whether that be on StumbleUpon or Reddit or something a little more sophistocated like NYT, its all making me a less ignorant individual.

I hope.