Blog Reflection (Final Blog Post)

Writing in a blog is extremely different from writing in a notebook because when you write in a notebook, it's assumed that the writing is private, while you know blog posts are public. People don't really have online diaries because a diary is for very personal feelings, some you probably wouldn't want other people seeing. Also, I'd assume that writing with a pencil is much more personal than typing with a keyboard. Blogging is focused on sharing, while diaries/notebooks are much more focused on personal thoughts and ideas.

I would probably not keep up this blog or make any other blog. First of all, I, probably like most people, saw this as an assignment. I might have subconsciously learned something about myself or how I read and analyse, but I havn't really noticed. As for making another blog, I probably don't need to. With tumblr and all those other blogging websites, anything I want to say has probably already been said 1000 times before. Even if I see a lot of blogs backing an opinion I don't agree with, I would probably think nothing of it.  I'm not really interested in blogging, in general.

Blogging is both limiting and liberating, it depends on the person. Some one could see it as a way to express themselves online, if their society is oppressive on some issues. Some could see it as pretty frightening, as they might fear putting an unpopular opinion on the internet and being immediately shot down. The internet is a tool, and its use is dependant upon each person that uses it.

Personally, I agree that some people may create a persona to use on the internet. The internet is a place where people can pick and choose what they show the world. They could make themselves seem as interesting as possible. They could also lie as much as they wanted, from their favorite food to race or gender. I feel that everyone does it, even if they don't notice it.

I feel that some people probably abuse this power. It's much easier to say something to someone indirectly than directly to their face. It's why gossip exists. I don't think this is neccassarily good or bad. This could be used to tell someone something about themselves without risking a friendship. It could also be used to be unneccassarily cruel to someone but don't want to suffer the concequences. The issue isn't black or white. It's in a weird grey area.

The Matrix Extra Credit

In the movie, "The Matrix", the main character finds out that his entire world is a lie. It's a false reality that was designed to enslave humans and house them while machines feed off of the natural energy created by the body. The actual world is dark and grim, with only one human city remaining. Most of the people on the small ship where they live believe that the Matrix & the machines are evil and that the humans should be freed. Only one person disagrees, a man named Cypher. He makes a deal with the machines to be put back into the Matrix, even though he knows it's a world that doesn't physically exist. Both have valid points, which are more valid when you think of this story as based off of the story "The Allegory of the Cave".

In the movie most of the characters believe that the Matrix is evil. They adamantly oppose it and try to free people from it. They consider themselves at war with the machines. None of them would want to go back because they see it as a prison. Technically, they're points are valid. The humans are trapped in a world created for them, while they sit in a bubble. The machines only see them as resources, which is why the humans that are freed fight back. When they have to go back, they know the world isn't real, and because of that, they can manipulate it. Nobody would ever want to go back to this prison... except for Cypher.

In the movie, Cypher betrays the rebels so that he can go back into the Matrix. He knows that the world isn't real, commenting to that fact when eating a steak dinner with a machine representative. Even with this, he really wants to go back, which he shows by offering all the freed humans in exchange for him going back in. Again, Cypher has valid points too. He would've gone back and he would've been famous. He would've lead a nice, normal life. He would've had expensive dinners and been loved by many. I'm not saying he should've betrayed people, but he had a nice life waiting for him if he did succeed in betraying his allies.

While both sides have relevant points, this argument exists in other stories, like "The Allegory of the Cave". In this story, a philosopher explains the story of a group of people who only knows being chained up in a cave, and they believe the shadows are the actual objects and the echos are the actual sounds. Then, one day a man is freed, and he slowly learns the actual objects and the actual sounds and eventually sees the sun. He then feels sorry for the other cave-dwellers. Later he is put back in the cave and cannot see anything. People do not believe that the outside world is better because when he reentered the cave, he couldn't see anything and were stopping him from freeing them. This story is related because of the earlier parts of the Matrix, when the main character is forced to either stay the same or learn the truth about his (fake) world. Most people will chose the red pill, which is related to the man in the cave being freed. Then they learn about this new world, like the man. This is where the story becomes different. In the Matrix, the fake world is light-hearted and a lot nicer than the normal world. while in the cave story, the normal world is nicer. Because of this, it can be hard to compare these stories because of the swapping of good and bad. It's can be hard to similarities unless you look at the story as broadly and generally as possibly.

In conclusion, Both the freedom fighters and Cypher have valid points and the answer to which is better is not obvious. This story also relates to "The Allegory of the Cave", but only slightly, which helps the with the understanding of the argument although slightly. This is because "The Matrix" is a lot more relatable than the cave story.

Rick Santorum Critical Analysis

In the article "Santorum says Pope Francis has ‘more pressing problems’ than climate change", the author talks about Rick Santorum and his criticism of the pope. The piece is not very opinionated, but includes info that encompasses all aspects of this story, but the article seems to be focused on Santorum & his chance for presidency. Santorum says that the pope should be focusing on " more pressing problems on Earth". After, it mention Rick Santorum's policies on other issues, like imigration and work permits. After, it mention's the pope's plan to bring the issue of climate change into the catholic church. The article tries to convey the facts, with no real opinions. 

One way the article does this is by never using strong or any adjectives. While reading the article, the author never stated his or her's opinion on anything, even the hot topic of climate change. The author never sides with either the Pope or Santorum. Also, the author uses a lot of quotes from Santorum. Finally, the author goes into detail on the pope's actions by saying "The pope, who has a chemistry degree, is expected in the coming weeks to send a letter to Catholic bishops arguing that climate change adversely impacts the poor and that the church has the moral and religious imperative to address the problem.He also will reportedly follow the letter with a 12-week campaign on the issue."

In conclusion, this article is purely an informative piece, as it is focused on the facts only. I learned about this issue, and I don't feel like I was influenced to pick a side.