2. It is obvious that the interviewer doesn’t like the device. Her questions are posed towards the negative aspect of it. She also seems to have a skeptical view of it when she says “How do you see this working?”

3. The interviewer is skeptical and unsure of the idea. When the questions have a skeptical tone, the interviewee comes off as unsure as well, giving his argumetn a negative bias.

4.The the last two questions are focused around democracy and Americans and other world affairs, such as al-Qaida.

2. The poster creates a highly sarcastic and satirical tone. The pictures (parodying an in-flight saftey card) get the message across, but the jokes in the text are what make it hysterical- in particular, number four of panel one; “If your legs still work try to peel yourself out of the chair.”

3. It adds to the affectiveness by making it more humorous and satirical, but doesn’t add to the messege much.

2.Gitlin uses Japan as an example of “less real-world violence…” which is violence that is so outrageous that it is un-imatatable and therefore does not increase violence in the real world. Gerbner rebuts by stating that there is more to violence than just media. He also calles “‘The case of Japan’… the kneejerk reaction of apologists.”

3. They both agree that the V-chip is a useful resource for parents, but does not solve the REAL problem, which is corperate broadcasters and their irresponsability.

4. The over all verdict of the debate is that Media Violence is caused by global corperations and is used as a money making scheme. The question, then, is raised over whether or not this is a side-affect of capitalism.

                I recently spent some time in Indiana at a wedding, put on by a particularly un-liked wedding planner. She was the butt of many a joke the night at the reception and many thought she was overpriced, seeing as how it was apparent that she had not done much work. The next night, as me and my family (Grandparents, aunts, uncles etc) were gathered around the dinner table, the topic of discussion quickly became how horrible the wedding planner was at what she did. She charged them money for odd things; she didn’t do much work; she didn’t even seem to do any prior planning (my aunt had booked the catering company and the bride had booked the venue prior to hiring the planner). I watched in silence and listened as my family tore apart the woman over hamburgers and hotdogs. My dad, also, was strangely quiet. At a momentary break in the carnage, someone turned and asked his opinion on the matter. He simply said “we’re not sure what all she did. There may be a lot she did behind the scenes that we’re not aware of.” My relatives seemed took take a second to reflect upon that, before quickly shooting it down and returning to the gossip.

                In retrospect, this philosophy seems to be a hybrid between “don’t judge a book” and “cast the first stone,” (let he who is without sin judge a book by its cover? I don’t know). At any rate, we should all use this mindset to not prejudge and misjudge people until we have learned the whole truth behind their actions. This I believe.

1. Putman cites many credible sources and notes them at the end. This apeals to ethos and adds to his credibility.

2.  Robinson, Godbey and Kunstler are cited to in the selection. Robinson and Godbey wrote “Time for Life.” Kunstler wrote “Geography of Nowhere.”

3. Putman validates his sources by backing them up multiple times. This adds heavily to his credibility and ethos.

4. Putman gives seemingly obvious sources to make sure the reader knows he’s not making anything up. Also, it gives the reader an oppurtunity to learn more about it.

5. He uses to, one, show that more people are staying home and, two, that those people are watching more TV.

6. Using extremes of one side or another makes a person seem more level headed and strengthens their claim.

7.Putman uses a lot of statistics, which makes them hard facts. Putman was very thourough with his research.

Gatsby’s death is treated like a scoop, not a tragedy. His status in the comunity is made clear when dozens of reporters flood the gates and only a few people show up for the actual funeral. The character development ends with me hating every major player in the book with the exception of Nick. Nick gives his final assesment of every one throughout this chapter, each person having their own fatal flaw. Daisy is “careless” and leaves “other people to clean up the mess” she may feel guilty, but we never hear of it, even though it’s partly her fault that he’s dead. She doesn’t even show up for the funeral. Tom is a jack-ass, but we knew that already. He is the DIRECT reult of Gatsby’s death and feels no shame or guilt, but instead feels “justified” for it. Jordan, other than being a compulsive liar, is to prideful. When talking to Nick she tells him shes engaged, but Nick does not believe her. He thinks it’s just a defense mechanism.

I finally get what green is meant to represent- the future. The green light at the end of the bay was hope for the future for Gatsby; that’s why even when he had Daisy right behind him, he still looked towards the green light. Pink represents not only Daisy, but the past. When Daisy said she wanted to put Gatsby in a pink cloud and puch him around in it, did she mean she wanted things to go back to the way they were? Before Tom and the riches? That’s why Gatsby wore the pink suit, because he believed that you could repeat the past. Gold, perhaps, represents the futility of Gatsby’s efforts. His parties were filled with golden colors- and the only reason for those parties was to atract Daisy; a plan that never worked. Gold is a symbol of wealth; wealth that Gatsby acquired to obtain Daisy- also a futile effort. Daisy puts Gatsby in a PINK cloud, not GOLD one. Gold is Gatsby’s failed plan.

Everyone keeps dying; and that’s not cool. Gatsby turns out to be a very tragic figure- he leaves for Oxford and the war and comes back to find his girls been taken by someone richer; THAT’S not cool. I find Daisy very unlikable, but at the same time, I get the feeling that it’s not all completely her fault.

Gatsby’s suit is pink. Pink represents Daisy. Meaningful, is it not? Also red represents… blood?

Well, I think it’s safe to say that Myrtles character is about as developed as it’s going to get. Daisy is becomming less and less likable; she is starting to come off as selfish and her voice is “full of money.” And it’s clear that Gatsby would do anything for her.

Again, The Valley of Ashes is a bad place. Whenever we go down there, someone gets killed or cheated on or something. Grey is a very bad color in this book, but it is also a very real color. Pink, again, is used to describe Daisy.

Gatsby’s character comes fully to light here. His past is all laid out, finally and we see how “Jay Gatsby” came to be. Gatsby is shown as having a dark and unhappy past, in contrast to his col colected and smooth present self.

Gold is present again; this time with pink beside it, in the clouds. The pink, perhaps, represents Daisy’s life and the gold represents the money she has with Tom.

“Look at that,” she whispered, and then after a moment: “I’d like to just get one of those pink clouds and put you in it and push you around.”

Perhaps this symbolizes how Daisy wants to put Gatzby into her life and keep him there. But that might be a stretch.

My feelings towards Gatsby are torn. Between the annoyance I feel towards him, the sympathy I have for him and the utter relatability I share with him. Gatsby’s cool is starting to wear off and is vulnerability is showing.

Green is obviously symbolic of something. Money? Greed? Want? Or maybe the color itself isn’t important but what it represents in context is.