Milblogs

I found Officer Toby Dunn’s article You Think or You Know to be very interesting. He uses humor to relieve some of his worries in a bad situation. Earlier officer Dunn had encountered a dilemma in which one of his vehicles had gone missing but was later found in poor condition. During his investigation to find the source of the damage he stumbled across a man who said, “I think I might have hit a tree.” Officer Dunn replied by saying, “A tree is something you know you hit.” Later, while in the middle of a vicious mortar attack, a soldier spoke over the radio stating he “thinks” that a mortar struck next to him. Dunn wittily replied “You think or you know?”

This article helps illustrate how soldiers make the best of bad situations by incorporating humor to boost morale. Officer Dunn was able to make this remark all while under a heavy attack showing a great deal of character. I admire Officer Dunn’s ability to think rationally under pressure while others, myself included, would fail to do so.

Another article I read entitled A Close One by Eddie details a near death scenario. What I found most interesting about this article was his use of very common English and sometimes emotes to make fun of a bad scenario. It demonstrates that the men and women of the Army are just like civilians in many ways. They have flaws (the soldier accidentally forgot his rifle in this story) and are just as sociable as anyone else. Another intriguing aspect of this story is the brotherhood that forms between soldiers. They act to aid one another without even giving a second thought. This is a very admirable quality to have.

Overall reading these “milblogs” was an enjoyable experience. I learned how many soldiers in the military have different reactions towards unpleasant situations, how they overcome them, and how they used modern writing techniques (i.e. common dialogue, etc.) to explain their stories. This is an excellent example of modern writing and one that I would like to review at another time.

Internet Monitoring

I took a particular interest in this topic because I know of someone who had an experience described in Bahrampour and Antari’s article. A high school student I knew posted a negative comment related to another student’s death on My Space. The student was immediately suspended for nine days. I could not believe the school could have the authority to suspend or expel students for posting comments on the internet.

I believe that the internet should be used with a user’s discretion; what you post can be viewed by anyone even the person you would least want to see it. Obviously this issue will be very serious considering that the internet is used extensively in today’s society. Some may contest that singling out students because of an internet document is infringing upon their right to freedom of speech. Students should be aware that there is no such thing as real “freedom of speech,” everything has peripherals and guidelines. I can not walk into a crowded theater and yell, “Fire!” and not expect my actions not to have repercussions. Although I should not be silenced because I believe in something.

I also believe that disciplinary action should exist if it may lead to the physical harm of another student, not emotional harm. Everyone gets their feelings hurt sometimes but one has to move on. If you’re offended by a web posting then simply ignore it. The internet would not exist if people could not post whatever they wanted upon it (or it would just contain spam and advertisements). I don’t understand how someone can talk negatively about a dead student and get suspended but he could have also joined an online extremist group with no penalty. Too much emotional attachment can lead to censorship, which can lead to the downfall of the internet.

Hypertexting

James Sonoski raises several intriguing topics in his article entitles Hyper-readers and their Reading Engines. Sonoski contends that technology has been moving at such an accelerated pace that a normal person can not keep up with the new demands. He illustrates this point by discussing the relationship between hypertexting and reading in manuscript form. Normal human perception has been focused on reading through manuscript for thousands of years. Switching to reading from a digital screen fairly quickly is troublesome to those not used to it. I believe that this situation can be rectified by the upcoming generation. This generation has become accustomed to reading text on a computer screen instead in a book.

Another interesting observation I gleaned from Sonoski’s article was the idea that computer technology will eventually become an essential component of modern society. It will exercise considerable control over our lives even though we may be unwilling to convert to such demands. Sonoski makes this clear by stating, “We cannot on the conventions that governed the reading practices of the previous generations.” Our society is shifting dramatically to emphasize more computer-based programs. We, as individuals, must do the same. However, I do not believe that we will eventually have computer overlords controlling every aspect of our lives (a horror story derived directly from Asimov’s writings), but it is an interesting point.

Another compelling argument I got from the article is the principle that most communication has lost its meaningful component. Today’s texts ramble on about the benefits and promises but it only means to speak to gain something valuable from yourself, whether it be money or a vote for office. Soon texts will eventually become flashier and have less meaning to them than written text. Others and myself fear, eventually, there will come a time when all value is lost from hypertexts or any type of communication and viewers will only be interested in the visual appeal. Even now the pitfalls of modern communication become evident.