Ahhh....I love football game commercials, and football games.
Commercial One
1. Southwest Airlines
2. They show a young man at a dance club, and the dude is jamming out in order to impress his babe. He goes for the sure dance move that would truly impress her, the head and shoulder spin. On his first spin to the rear he kicks over the mixing table. The music stops and the girl has an unimpressed look on her face. A voice comes on and says, "Wanna get away?" Then the camera pans to a jet airliner flying serenely through the clouds.
3. The commercial wants me to purchase tickets from Southwest Airlines and fly away whenever anything doesn't go the way I plan.
4. No, the commercial does not work. While I find the fact that the idiot kicked over the mixing table entertaining, it doesn't effect whether or not I would fly Southwest. Besides, I can't afford airline tickets, if I could it would be cheap tickets through Expedia.com or another site like that.
Commercial Two
1. Pontiac automobiles
2. The commercial is in all black and white except for the Pontiac symbol on the vehicles and the tail lights. It shows the cars driving through a black and white city, with water around. At the end of the commercial it has some quotes like "Faster than a Porsche".....blah, blah, blah
3. Buy a Pontiac
4. No, I do not want to buy a Pontiac. In the first place I own a minivan, and you know what they say; once you go minivan you never go back. On top of that I about fell asleep during the commercial and that's hard to do in 30 seconds.
Commercial Three
1. The Olive Garden
2. The commercial shows extended family and friends sitting around laughing and having a wonderful time while consuming great quantities of delectable delights. They obviously enjoy their company and the food. There are such wonderful delights like; chicken tuscany, fetticine alfredo, and shrimp scampi. Then they show their recent specials, and they conclude with their infamous motto; You're family here.
3. They want me to go spend money and eat at the Olive Garden.
4. Like all the others; no the commercial didn't work for me. In the first place, I just polished off about a rack and a half of ribs. I wouldn't touch a plate of pasta right now. In the second place, I can make better pasta at home than the Olive Garden, on top of that if I were to go out for pasta I would find a better place than the Olive Garden, unless of course they could offer me the same great time all those beautiful and happy people were having.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Week 7 Blog Assignment
1. The debate I watched was the opening of the 1992 presidential debate among Ross Perot, George Bush and Bill Clinton. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-W4GWjN2kg
2. I picked this debate because I remember watching these three debate a couple of times back then. I also watched for a few other reasons they are; Ross Perot is hilarious, Bill Clinton was a stud at public speaking, and I wanted to see where Dubbya got his intelligence from.
3. Because it was the first part of the debate they only touched on introductory issues. "What separates you from the other candidates." Perot went first and he talked about the American people getting him on the ballot without being a member of either party. Clinton was second and he discussed how America needed change and he could provide. Bush went third and said you don't need to change just for change sake.
4. I got the impression that they discussed different things and they did have opposing views on the issues.
5. At least Clinton and Perot discussed the issues. Clinton talked about the low wages in America and the need for reform in education. Perot made a hilarious quip about experience raising the country's debt to over $4 trillion. Bush didn't really talk about any issues, just said that he had a plan.
6. Bush used a lot of rhetoric without saying anything, Clinton and Perot say a few things that are not rhetorical.
7. Clinton won the opening of the debate in my eyes, followed closely by Perot, Bush was a distant third.
8. I would have liked to see Bush tackle even a single issue.
9. Sometimes I watch the debates. It would usually depend on who was debating and what issues they were going to debate about.
2. I picked this debate because I remember watching these three debate a couple of times back then. I also watched for a few other reasons they are; Ross Perot is hilarious, Bill Clinton was a stud at public speaking, and I wanted to see where Dubbya got his intelligence from.
3. Because it was the first part of the debate they only touched on introductory issues. "What separates you from the other candidates." Perot went first and he talked about the American people getting him on the ballot without being a member of either party. Clinton was second and he discussed how America needed change and he could provide. Bush went third and said you don't need to change just for change sake.
4. I got the impression that they discussed different things and they did have opposing views on the issues.
5. At least Clinton and Perot discussed the issues. Clinton talked about the low wages in America and the need for reform in education. Perot made a hilarious quip about experience raising the country's debt to over $4 trillion. Bush didn't really talk about any issues, just said that he had a plan.
6. Bush used a lot of rhetoric without saying anything, Clinton and Perot say a few things that are not rhetorical.
7. Clinton won the opening of the debate in my eyes, followed closely by Perot, Bush was a distant third.
8. I would have liked to see Bush tackle even a single issue.
9. Sometimes I watch the debates. It would usually depend on who was debating and what issues they were going to debate about.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Week 6 Blog assignment
Saturday night deadlines are hard to remember. Even though there is a chance that I will get a zero on this assignment because it is late, I still feel obligated to complete the assignment.
The first site I looked at was Azzaman, the Iragi paper. In answer to the second question about objective reporting, I say no. One of the lines in the article I read the author expressed his desire to have Pres. Bush electrocuted. While I don't whole-heartedly support that concept, I still think the idea has it's merits, it is not objective reporting.
The stories covered in the paper are similar to the stories published by CNN, FOX, etc. because they are focused on the situation in Irag. However, I actually think that the Iraqi paper may be more biased that our own publications.
I did find that kind of blatant bias appealing in the paper. It is basically an opinionated paper, and they advertise that. In that respect they should report how they feel about their current situation.
The second site I looked at was the Islamic Republic News Agency, from Iran. I actually went to this site to read some more biased coverage, but was relatively disappointed. One of the articles I read was about the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, saying that the U.S. and the occupiers are responsible for all of the catastrophes in Iraq. The author of the article only sited what was said and never offered his own opinion in the article.
Some of the stories they were covering were very similar to what is being covered by our own news agencies. Most of the stories related to things that were happening throughout the world, such as the India/U.S. nuclear agreement.
I found this site to be appealing because of the lack of biased reporting. As I stated earlier, I was surprised by the objective reporting. I assumed that the Iranians would jump on any opportunity to bash the U.S., and they didn't.
The third site I looked at was South Africa's the Star. I felt like the news was being reported objectively throughout the paper. The authors of the articles didn't relay their opinions, and appeared to only report facts. Most of the articles were about local stories, mostly South African stories.
The stories in this paper are not front page headlines in our news sources. If you want to find similar articles in American papers, you would really have to dig. There may be a blurb somewhere in the world section of our papers, but that would be the extent of it.
I found this paper to be appealing because of the fact that they are not reported on in our papers. It gave me a perspective on what was happening in South Africa, but not many other places in the world. If you want to find out what is going on in another country in the world, it is better to go to their local papers.
Go Vikings.......Kick the Bears' collective ass!
The first site I looked at was Azzaman, the Iragi paper. In answer to the second question about objective reporting, I say no. One of the lines in the article I read the author expressed his desire to have Pres. Bush electrocuted. While I don't whole-heartedly support that concept, I still think the idea has it's merits, it is not objective reporting.
The stories covered in the paper are similar to the stories published by CNN, FOX, etc. because they are focused on the situation in Irag. However, I actually think that the Iraqi paper may be more biased that our own publications.
I did find that kind of blatant bias appealing in the paper. It is basically an opinionated paper, and they advertise that. In that respect they should report how they feel about their current situation.
The second site I looked at was the Islamic Republic News Agency, from Iran. I actually went to this site to read some more biased coverage, but was relatively disappointed. One of the articles I read was about the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, saying that the U.S. and the occupiers are responsible for all of the catastrophes in Iraq. The author of the article only sited what was said and never offered his own opinion in the article.
Some of the stories they were covering were very similar to what is being covered by our own news agencies. Most of the stories related to things that were happening throughout the world, such as the India/U.S. nuclear agreement.
I found this site to be appealing because of the lack of biased reporting. As I stated earlier, I was surprised by the objective reporting. I assumed that the Iranians would jump on any opportunity to bash the U.S., and they didn't.
The third site I looked at was South Africa's the Star. I felt like the news was being reported objectively throughout the paper. The authors of the articles didn't relay their opinions, and appeared to only report facts. Most of the articles were about local stories, mostly South African stories.
The stories in this paper are not front page headlines in our news sources. If you want to find similar articles in American papers, you would really have to dig. There may be a blurb somewhere in the world section of our papers, but that would be the extent of it.
I found this paper to be appealing because of the fact that they are not reported on in our papers. It gave me a perspective on what was happening in South Africa, but not many other places in the world. If you want to find out what is going on in another country in the world, it is better to go to their local papers.
Go Vikings.......Kick the Bears' collective ass!
Monday, October 8, 2007
Blog Assignment: Vietnam
Whoops....long weekend......forgot!
Video 1: Vietnam War Through the Things They Carried
That was a hard video to watch at times. There was a picture of a Vietnamese women with a gun pointed to her head. Another picture was of one Vietnamese soldier shooting another Vietnamese soldier, I believe that was the picture that was the one discussed in class, the one that turned the Americans against the war. The picture that I thought said the most was the one of the soldier standing at the Vietnam Memorial with the flag in his hand and he was leaning up against the wall, it says a lot about the experience of the war.
Some of the stats also caught my attention. I was unaware of two of them for sure. The first was that I was unaware that there were over 9,000,000 Americans on active duty during the time. The second was that the total cost of the war was over 2 billion, all for a war that was never declared.
Video 2: Dear America; Parts 1 and 2
After watching the first video I felt it was unnecessary to watch the second. The first video was about a letter from a soldier to his parents. It was about the death of one of his friends in Vietnam and how he had a hard time coping with it. The symbolism of it raining all day was quite dramatic, it was like he said, the sky cried for him.
Part 2 was a letter from a mother to her son fifteen years after his death in Vietnam. I found this video hard to watch without getting choked up. I can't stand listening to someone cry. The whole video was set to the backdrop of the Memorial, images of soldiers appeared on the wall. One thing I must see in this lifetime is the Wall, I can't imagine the profound effect it must have on people who see it.
Video 3: All's Fair in Love and Police Actions
When you post a link to a video and express that it may be the most offensive thing you have seen, I can't help but to watch it, in fact twice! I have to say that I should go watch Oprah or something to get back in touch with the part of me that cares. That was truly offensive, yet quite amusing. I love it when he offers Timmy a smoke, and Timmy responds by saying only if he can pay for it, he doesn't need a fucking handout....oh my god! Some of the other things said in the video I can't repeat with a good conscience. I do feel that often sarcasm is needed to get a point across, and the point was not lost in this video. That said I feel like I should go take a shower after viewing it.
Video 1: Vietnam War Through the Things They Carried
That was a hard video to watch at times. There was a picture of a Vietnamese women with a gun pointed to her head. Another picture was of one Vietnamese soldier shooting another Vietnamese soldier, I believe that was the picture that was the one discussed in class, the one that turned the Americans against the war. The picture that I thought said the most was the one of the soldier standing at the Vietnam Memorial with the flag in his hand and he was leaning up against the wall, it says a lot about the experience of the war.
Some of the stats also caught my attention. I was unaware of two of them for sure. The first was that I was unaware that there were over 9,000,000 Americans on active duty during the time. The second was that the total cost of the war was over 2 billion, all for a war that was never declared.
Video 2: Dear America; Parts 1 and 2
After watching the first video I felt it was unnecessary to watch the second. The first video was about a letter from a soldier to his parents. It was about the death of one of his friends in Vietnam and how he had a hard time coping with it. The symbolism of it raining all day was quite dramatic, it was like he said, the sky cried for him.
Part 2 was a letter from a mother to her son fifteen years after his death in Vietnam. I found this video hard to watch without getting choked up. I can't stand listening to someone cry. The whole video was set to the backdrop of the Memorial, images of soldiers appeared on the wall. One thing I must see in this lifetime is the Wall, I can't imagine the profound effect it must have on people who see it.
Video 3: All's Fair in Love and Police Actions
When you post a link to a video and express that it may be the most offensive thing you have seen, I can't help but to watch it, in fact twice! I have to say that I should go watch Oprah or something to get back in touch with the part of me that cares. That was truly offensive, yet quite amusing. I love it when he offers Timmy a smoke, and Timmy responds by saying only if he can pay for it, he doesn't need a fucking handout....oh my god! Some of the other things said in the video I can't repeat with a good conscience. I do feel that often sarcasm is needed to get a point across, and the point was not lost in this video. That said I feel like I should go take a shower after viewing it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
