GIVE US A BREAK!

Right around this time of the academic year I begin to wonder why the students of UW-Madison, myself included, do not have a fall break. Sure the administration may think that we have a long enough break between the fall and spring semesters, but they wear suit to work everyday. What do they know about how students feel? They only say we don’t need a break because they hold a job as an administrator. An old boss of mine who is an expert in Education Academic Services and in DARS reporting told me that we should have a fall break like many other campuses in close proximity. She’s an expert so I’ve sided with her. I have heard so many people say they believe UW students should have a fall break and 90% of the people in my current courses would agree so given such a high percentage shouldn’t we get a break.

If UW-students were given a fall break they could take a mini-vacation or sleep a few days and feel rejuvenated and refreshed and they will produce better quality work. During the spring semester when there is a mid-semester break (spring break) I am less stressed than in the fall so I know what we UW-students need is a fall break. If for no other reason, I need a break to help my stress level not go through the roof. Other UW system schools have a fall break for their students and so should UW-Madison. If fall breaks weren’t a good thing then why would other campus and more specifically UW campuses have a fall break? The administrators are silly if they think that Professors, TA’s and students are all doing above average work when they don’t give them just a short break. I think that the administration/regents need to prove that students don’t want a fall break before they just decide they won’t allow for one. So I ask you, the students to help me appeal to the decision makers of UW. If we don’t demand that we get a fall break now we may be opening doors for them to close doors on us by eliminating school breaks altogether!

Blog #5 California Halloween

http://www.politicalcartoons.com/cartoon/8cbbf998-7a76-42bd-8cb2-6f8d5d9abd2f.html
The general subject of this cartoon is the spreading wildfires in California. This is a something that is being shown on local and national news daily and nightly. The piece seems to be addressing the general public. Because this is a highly publicized issue it would seem that most people know about it. The meaning would probably change if the audience were the people who are having their homes destroyed by the fires. The idea here is that people really get into halloween with costumes, parties and decorating and sometimes it's hard to tell if their houses are really haunted or if their characters are really fake and it's as if California is putting on the costume of a burning state. In reality this isn't true but it is true that these wild fires are really going too far and destroying much of southern California. The tone of the text isn't exactly serious but I don't think it is laugh-out-loud funny either. It seems more like a relief piece. So while having your house burned down is not funny, seeing trick-or-treaters who think this is part of halloween might be. The visual of the large fire in the background is hard to not notice. That is why I assume it is the problem with fire (more specifically fire in California as mentioned in the caption) that is the context for this cartoon. To understand the meaning of this cartoon the audience has to be in a Discourse that is knowledgeable about halloween, the annual occurrence of wildfires and the huge problem with combating the fires at this time.

Blog #3 Colbert Rant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQDnXpSJQtA

The two actors in this clip are handing out an award for best reality/competition show. It seems that Colbert is going to hit on a controversial topic: people of Hollywood and the reality of reality TV. I don’t believe that the meaning would change unless the audience was a group of reality TV “actors” who didn’t realize it was a skit. It seems the argument is about how silly Hollywood, reality TV, and handing out golden statues is, but Stewart alerts the audience that this is much more than a rant about this. Colbert has a hidden agenda. He is angry that Barry Manilow won the Emmy for outstanding individual performance in a musical, variety or comedy over him. You can sense through Colbert’s tone that he is upset about something. While I think that Colbert could be a tad serious about being angry I don’t think that is the effect he wants to pass on to the audience. The audience is supposed to be amused and at the climax, highly entertained. It helps that Stewart acts like a puppet of the awards and continues to go against what Colbert is “preaching” about. Colbert’s argument is pretty specific, but doesn’t stick to one topic. Of course he is using a lot of sarcasm, which is typical of his acts. The arguments Colbert brings up are very extreme and use language that perhaps would be used during religious persecutions. So while Colbert uses this technique, even with a very stern demeanor, the audience must know that if the venue is not serious and he is a comedian they can laugh at this. This is pretty typical of an award show, but I think it that it makes it hard for someone to truly be serious about a cause or issue related to the business when the Discourse is comedy and humor most of the time.

Blog #2 Googly Eyes and Pipe Cleaners

The overall subject of this Onion article is school funding or lack thereof (budget cuts). It is blanketed by a story that presents a ridiculous anxiety that stems from a school losing funding for googly eyes and pipe cleaners. I think that the audience is anyone who knows anything about educational budget cuts, so basically everyone. Although, I do think the meaning changes depending on who the audience is or there are just two meanings that the audience on either side could take from it. One could interpret it as showing just how ridiculous budget cuts are becoming or you might think that it is making fun of those against budget cuts for areas such as the arts that aren't seen as crucial to education. The article is presented in a sort of hysterical way. The teachers and parents that the article quotes are worried that if it's googly eyes and pipe cleaners today, what will it be tomorrow? The article in and of it itself is pretty ridiculous because there probably aren't many educators who are nit-picking at the small things they can't buy anymore, but it's not having these classes/disciplines altogether that's the big issue. When reading this article, depending on which side you stand, you could be disgusted when thinking about the reality of it or it's just amusing for it's absurdity. The author uses quotes to help string along his argument that this is really something to be noticed. If it was true it would seem to appeal to emotion in that people would feel the need to be sympathetic but really it just makes you wanna chuckle...or laugh. The author is writing as though he has a stake in this issue. He pulls comments from the oppressed side and it seems as though he is part of their Discourse. If one were to take this article seriously it might seem like he really doesn't want budget cuts to affect the use of those great googly eyes and pipe cleaners we all know and love!

Blog #2

Pipe Cleaners, Googly Eyes Cut From Elementary School Arts Budget

PARAMUS, NJ—With students set to arrive in about three weeks, teachers at Washington Street Elementary School were scrambling Monday to deal with a new round of budget cuts that slashed funding for the pipe cleaners and googly eyes they say are the cornerstone of a humanities-based education.

Enlarge Image

Pipe cleaners have been used as a form of artistic expression for generations.

"We are closing the door on our children's creativity," said Melinda Jarvis, a first-grade teacher who has used bendy and twisty materials in her art lessons for more than 15 years. "Without pipe cleaners, these kids will be totally unable to transform everyday objects into things with skinny arms and legs. We'll just have a bunch of egg cartons sitting around. How is that going to teach them anything about the rich artistic traditions that have shaped our civilization for millennia?"

Jarvis, who plans to lead an Indian-style sit-in on the first day of school to protest the cuts, is only one of thousands of educators across the country to face dramatic drops in their arts budgets over the past several years. In Boca Raton, FL, there were reports of up to 16 kindergartners sharing the same pine cone. More than half of Iowa's elementary school students gave their mothers crumpled-up Kleenex wrappers taped to tongue depressors as Valentine's Day "roses" last year. And a school in Oxnard, CA was reduced to having students draw crude eyeballs on scraps of construction paper handed down from third-grade classes.

Enlarge Image

A petition decrying the cuts drafted and signed by concerned third-graders in Ida Rosen's class in Marquette, MI.

Bergen County superintendent of schools Jim Eckford said his office was forced to make some very difficult decisions, and that Washington Street Elementary School students and teachers alike would simply have to adjust to the new reality this fall.

"I would love nothing more than to see every student be able to make as many Santa Clauses with big, bushy beards as their hearts desire," Eckford said. "But these are tough times, and the fact of the matter is, cotton balls don't grow on trees."

In light of the budget tightening, Eckford suggested teachers develop creative outlets for their children that involve pebbles or paper-towel rolls, or somehow combine art class with lunch period.

Local parents have joined the chorus of opponents, pointing to the need to stay competitive with better-funded private schools in which students have unlimited access to pipe cleaners and have been known to glue googly eyes to other googly eyes.

"Cutting pipe cleaners and googly eyes is simply going to lead to the elimination of more items from school budgets, like Popsicle sticks and yarn," said Geraldine Mailer, president of the Washington Street Elementary School PTA and a mother of four. "To write out one's name, or the name of one's mommy, by pasting dried macaroni to colored paper is to illuminate the human soul. We're going to wind up raising a generation of mindless conformists."

Mailer said that the deprivation could lead to future problems, including low self-esteem, juvenile delinquency, and a chronic inability to create homemade cards and scrapbooks.

"If we're going to deny our children access to diverse forms of mixed media, we may as well just shove a piece of paper in front of them, stick a pencil in their hands, and tell them to have at it," Mailer said. "But is that what we want for our kids? Is that what we want for art?"

Blog#1: Post

This blog is about the role and impact of a teacher through the eyes of one teacher. The subject is terribly controversial and this blog really hits home on who might be on each side of the debate or just what the debate might look like. The piece seems to be addressed to the audience that is attending this slam, but also it seems to the general public and more specifically those who may not give good teachers the credit they deserve. I believe that this would be more motivational if it were recited at a teacher’s conference for example and would be more persuasive/defensive if it were recited to a group of people who Mali is arguing against (he names the Others, “lawyers”).

The argument appears to be that teachers “make a difference” and that they can be looked up to by students because of this. Mali attempts to lay out how making a difference looks. Because Mali is so emotional about it I think that it is hard not to involve your emotions as well. The slam has a sort of upward momentum and ends right at what is the climax of his performance/argument. There seems to be more than one purpose here. On the one hand is seems that Mali is attempting to bash and ridicule the people who may not think like him but at the same time is informing him of what teachers are doing for students and what impact they are making.

Mali starts out by putting the audience in the opposing group’s shoes and starts to make fun of them, but then instead of ridiculing lawyers, he starts to support his side of the story. The author uses real world and seemingly true experiences to support his claims and it seems to be very effective. Because teachers are usually in their classrooms alone it would seem very weak for him to just say it is to because it is so since no one besides the students would really be around to see it. Each example is pretty specific but does involve different realms and disciplines of school (calling home, reading, math, grades, etc.)

Mali uses humor and sarcasm and examples to build up his argument and it seems very effective. Perhaps I am biased because I am a pre-service teacher and would need to ask a range of people to know if it is effective for all audiences. The quote of the lawyer in the beginning of the clip (“Those you can do and those who can’t….teach”) seems to be an Argument Ad Hominem or Ad Populism, depending on how one sees it. Mali body language also helps his ‘act’ and while Mali is talking from at least a comic and teacher Discourse, he seems to also be wearing the common man/teacher persona so as to be on the same level with the audience, whoever they may be. Since this is on YOUTUBE there is of course a place for comments and on this particular video (of which there are many duplicates) there is a lot of positive feedback—as least as far down as I have read. Perhaps I had not been exposed to this kind of argumentation before, but I thought he was pretty spectacular! Enjoy!

Blog #1: Taylor Mali On What Teachers Make

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxsOVK4syxU