A "stereotype" is a generalization about a person or group of persons. We develop stereotypes when we are unable or unwilling to obtain all of the information we would need to make fair judgments about people or situations. In the absence of the "total picture," stereotypes in many cases allow us to "fill in the blanks." Our society often innocently creates and perpetuates stereotypes, but these stereotypes often lead to unfair discrimination and persecution when the stereotype is unfavorable.
For example, if we are walking through a park late at night and encounter three senior citizens wearing fur coats and walking with canes, we may not feel as threatened as if we were met by three high school-aged boys wearing leather jackets. Why is this so? We have made a generalization in each case. These generalizations have their roots in experiences we have had ourselves, read about in books and magazines, seen in movies or television, or have had related to us by friends and family. In many cases, these stereotypical generalizations are reasonably accurate. By stereotyping, we assume that a person or group has certain characteristics. Quite often, we have stereotypes about persons who are members of groups with which we have not had firsthand contact.
Television, books, comic strips, and movies are all abundant sources of stereotyped characters. For much of its history, the movie industry portrayed African-Americans as being unintelligent, lazy, or involved in violence and drugs. As a result of viewing these stereotyped pictures of African-Americans, for example, prejudice against African-Americans has been encouraged. In the same way, physically attractive women have been and continue to be portrayed as unintelligent or unintellectual and sexually active.
In conclusion, Stereotypes are developed by a series of isolated behaviors by a member of a group which was unfairly generalized to be viewed as a character of all members of that group.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
That's a wrap, Walter!
After reading Public Opinion and digesting all of the information, I've noticed that Walter Lippmann addresses many issues in this book. His main focus is on stereotypes, and also the fact that media creates the pictures that we have in our heads. The reason that the public has these stereotypes is because the media puts these ideas into our heads. The action that media takes is multifold. It acts as the gatekeeper and agenda setter of society. Media chooses what it wants individuals to know and feeds it to us through various sources of medium. In this way, Lippmann hints to the idea that our society is not a democracy at all, but in fact, the public is controlled by the gatekeepers of media.
Technological determinism ties into this idea. Technological determinism is the idea that technology determines history and drives society. In a more specific sense, technology (media) determines how individuals in society react and the choices that people make every day. We act on the pictures in our head implanted by the media. This creates society.
The solution that Lippmann proposes to stop the media from holding this power over the public, is a call for intellegencia- the individuals who are educated and thus will educate the public and cause individuals to participate and think critically. The intellegencia will help the public become media literate, and end the power that it has over society. In this way, media will not be able to set their agenda and act as the gatekeepers, but we as society will be guided by individuals who are educated and will lead us to become a better society.
This book was hard to read at times, but it was very interesting. It's hard to fathom that I knew so little before reading this book on how the media can have a chokehold on us as a society. It is only after we realize this, and become educated enough to stop it, that we can create a change in society and be our own gatekeepers.
Technological determinism ties into this idea. Technological determinism is the idea that technology determines history and drives society. In a more specific sense, technology (media) determines how individuals in society react and the choices that people make every day. We act on the pictures in our head implanted by the media. This creates society.
The solution that Lippmann proposes to stop the media from holding this power over the public, is a call for intellegencia- the individuals who are educated and thus will educate the public and cause individuals to participate and think critically. The intellegencia will help the public become media literate, and end the power that it has over society. In this way, media will not be able to set their agenda and act as the gatekeepers, but we as society will be guided by individuals who are educated and will lead us to become a better society.
This book was hard to read at times, but it was very interesting. It's hard to fathom that I knew so little before reading this book on how the media can have a chokehold on us as a society. It is only after we realize this, and become educated enough to stop it, that we can create a change in society and be our own gatekeepers.
Letter to myself: My role.
Dear Zac,
Become more knowledgeable when it comes to other cultures. Treating everyone the same is obviously a step towards equality, but shielding the fact that a black person has darker skin than yours hinders you. Take steps in learning that race does in fact matter. It would be great if it didn't matter, however, this class along with centuries of historical dates along with important figuers wouldn't exist if it didn't matter. Martin Luther King's dream unfortunately will always be a dream, but we in fact can take steps in making it more of a reality. As I leave Westminster College, I will take these values that I learned from this course and apply them to my daily living.
Become more knowledgeable when it comes to other cultures. Treating everyone the same is obviously a step towards equality, but shielding the fact that a black person has darker skin than yours hinders you. Take steps in learning that race does in fact matter. It would be great if it didn't matter, however, this class along with centuries of historical dates along with important figuers wouldn't exist if it didn't matter. Martin Luther King's dream unfortunately will always be a dream, but we in fact can take steps in making it more of a reality. As I leave Westminster College, I will take these values that I learned from this course and apply them to my daily living.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
The Golden Years: Shine brighter than most think
Come to Mueller Theater on May 8, 2007 to watch "Body and Mind", created by myself, A. J. F., Heather Davis, and Bill Sadler. This documentary attempts to debunk any stereotypes that people, especially young people, have about the elderly. Listen as five older folks open up and tell what it is really like being old. This will truly open up your eyes, and shed a new light on the rapidly increasing elderly population.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Documentary update
We have the majority of our filming complete. Now it's a matter of editing what we have and trying to fit it within the appropriate time frame. We interviewed a total of 5 residents. I was really amazed as to what these people had to say. As A.J. said in his blog, one of the residents gave us some pictures from different parts of her life, from her senior high school picture to pictures of her as an older woman. It really was a neat experience going over there and listening to all of the different experiences these people have had.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
The name's Doubtfire, dear
Robin Williams can make you laugh, he can make you cry, and he can even make you think. "Mrs. Doubtfire" is his best performance to date and also the funniest film of the 90s. Daniel Hillard (Williams) is a father of three who is very much a kid himself. After throwing a birthday party for his 12 year-old son who is failing in school, his angered and upper-class wife Miranda (Sally Field) files for divorce. Their yelling scene in the kitchen is one of the great dramatic moments in the movie. The courts decide to award full custody to Miranda for three months until Daniel can prove he is a suitable parent. This won't do for Daniel has to see his children more then once a week. He decides to go to his gay brother, a makeup artist, and transform himself into a 65 year-old woman and pose as a nanny Miranda needs to look over the kids. Not only will he be able to hang with them, but he also will be getting $300 a week. The disguise works and the rest is movie magic. "Mrs. Doubtfire" is 125 mins. yet feels too short. I wanted more when it ended. Williams has such talent here. His voices are hilarious and Mrs. Doubtfire is a scream. Sally Field also does a very good job as Miranda Hillard, who seems upset that just because she's an organized woman people detest it. People, that is, except Pierce Bronsan, her new boyfriend Daniel is mad jelous of. Field's anger scene in the finale in a restaurant is True Sally Field. Great film, the best of the comedy genre in the 90s.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Crashing and mending
Chopped up and linked together like a chain, Crash tells the story of people from wildly disparate walks of life as they collide and intersect with one another. Each life is in some way personally affected, changed, damaged, or victimized by racism. They’re also all in some way guilty of racism themselves. A racist cop molests a black couple, only later to risk his life to save a black woman; an honest cop protects a black man from discrimination only to later discriminate against someone himself. There are no easy answers in Crash and though sometimes the characters rise above their baser fears and intolerance, no one leaves the film unscathed.
From the opening scene, where Don Cheadle offers his philosophies on life and violence in LA, I knew that I was in for a good ride. As a rule, my mind races ahead, successfully anticipating what is going to happen next, but with "Crash," I was often way off. Nevertheless, each storyline was believable in the context of the whole. At one point, I felt that my own belief system, especially with respect to racial and ethnic prejudices, was being challenged, and I was not always pleasantly surprised by what I found inside of myself. By the end, however, I wasn't feeling so bad, realizing that no one character was free from prejudice (except perhaps the child) and that no one incident could be fully understood in isolation; fortunately, we are left with the understanding that redemption is within everyone's reach, depending, I suppose, on what fate has in store on any given day or at any given moment. Even though it would be easier to see this as a movie about issues revolving around the color of our skin or the country we are born in, I found it to be more about being human and dealing with the countless misunderstandings, whether we realize it or not, that we take part in each day, and that, despite our weaknesses, we are capable of amazing acts of courage, and, despite our goodness, we are capable of much evil, any of which transcends color, country of origin, religious belief, or economic status.
From the opening scene, where Don Cheadle offers his philosophies on life and violence in LA, I knew that I was in for a good ride. As a rule, my mind races ahead, successfully anticipating what is going to happen next, but with "Crash," I was often way off. Nevertheless, each storyline was believable in the context of the whole. At one point, I felt that my own belief system, especially with respect to racial and ethnic prejudices, was being challenged, and I was not always pleasantly surprised by what I found inside of myself. By the end, however, I wasn't feeling so bad, realizing that no one character was free from prejudice (except perhaps the child) and that no one incident could be fully understood in isolation; fortunately, we are left with the understanding that redemption is within everyone's reach, depending, I suppose, on what fate has in store on any given day or at any given moment. Even though it would be easier to see this as a movie about issues revolving around the color of our skin or the country we are born in, I found it to be more about being human and dealing with the countless misunderstandings, whether we realize it or not, that we take part in each day, and that, despite our weaknesses, we are capable of amazing acts of courage, and, despite our goodness, we are capable of much evil, any of which transcends color, country of origin, religious belief, or economic status.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
The damned thing works!
Little did anyone know at the time how large of an impact those four words would have. In 1921, a 14-year-old boy working in a potato field in Idaho had a vision of sending pictures in waves over the air, like sound waves for radio. His epiphany inspired him to invent the first electronic television,a feat that most engineers of the time thought was impossible.
"Philo Farnsworth was a terribly optimistic, creative man who believed he could accomplish anything," says producer David Dugan. "Farnsworth's genius burned so bright that by age thirty, he had nearly spent himself. When the trajectory of his ambition collided with the plans of a corporation with deep pockets, the result for the lone inventor was tragic."
In 1924, Farnsworth's father died. In order to support the family, Philo took a job delivering radios for a furniture store in Salt Lake City. Impatient to realize his plans for electronic television, within a year he had convinced two California businessmen, George Everson and Les Gorrell, to invest their life savings, a total of $6,000, so he could build a prototype. Soon after, Phil set up a lab in Los Angeles and started work on a camera tube that could turn an image into a stream of electrons, and a television tube that could turn the same stream of electrons into a picture.
Finally, after another 18 months, Philo's creation produced an image the size of a postage stamp. When news of his achievement broke, Hollywood flocked to meet the 22-year-old inventor who might challenge cinema. But his investors were still nervous: to take the fragile prototype to the next stage would require a lot of money. Perhaps Farnsworth's idea could be sold, and inventor and investors alike could get a modest profit out of the deal.
At that time, RCA president David Sarnoff was determined to control emerging television technology as tightly as he did existing radio technology. In the spring of 1930, Sarnoff sent Vladimir Zworkin to the West coast to investigate the maverick inventor who held more than a dozen television patents--and the potential to ruin RCA's plans. Zworkin, a Russian emigré, was also working to develop electronic television.
After his visit to Farnsworth's lab, Zworkin sent a 700-word telegram back East, describing Farnsworth's disssector tube in detail. When he returned, a copy of Farnsworth's camera awaited him.
Over the next few years Sarnoff and Farnsworth would battle in the laboratory and in the courts. In 1939, Farnsworth's hopes were raised when the courts in the patent dispute sided with him. For the first time in its history, RCA would have to pay royalties to an outside inventor. With only seven years until the patents expired, Farnsworth worked to capitalize on his invention. But, just as sales were set to take off, the government declared a blackout for commercial television as part of the World War II defense effort.
Farnsworth had pursued his dream of electronic television for most of his life. When he realized that his patents would not outlast the war, he was despondent. "I think my father was very much of a racehorse," says Farnworth's son, Skee. "He saw obstacles and he cleared them."
"Philo Farnsworth was a terribly optimistic, creative man who believed he could accomplish anything," says producer David Dugan. "Farnsworth's genius burned so bright that by age thirty, he had nearly spent himself. When the trajectory of his ambition collided with the plans of a corporation with deep pockets, the result for the lone inventor was tragic."
In 1924, Farnsworth's father died. In order to support the family, Philo took a job delivering radios for a furniture store in Salt Lake City. Impatient to realize his plans for electronic television, within a year he had convinced two California businessmen, George Everson and Les Gorrell, to invest their life savings, a total of $6,000, so he could build a prototype. Soon after, Phil set up a lab in Los Angeles and started work on a camera tube that could turn an image into a stream of electrons, and a television tube that could turn the same stream of electrons into a picture.
Finally, after another 18 months, Philo's creation produced an image the size of a postage stamp. When news of his achievement broke, Hollywood flocked to meet the 22-year-old inventor who might challenge cinema. But his investors were still nervous: to take the fragile prototype to the next stage would require a lot of money. Perhaps Farnsworth's idea could be sold, and inventor and investors alike could get a modest profit out of the deal.
At that time, RCA president David Sarnoff was determined to control emerging television technology as tightly as he did existing radio technology. In the spring of 1930, Sarnoff sent Vladimir Zworkin to the West coast to investigate the maverick inventor who held more than a dozen television patents--and the potential to ruin RCA's plans. Zworkin, a Russian emigré, was also working to develop electronic television.
After his visit to Farnsworth's lab, Zworkin sent a 700-word telegram back East, describing Farnsworth's disssector tube in detail. When he returned, a copy of Farnsworth's camera awaited him.
Over the next few years Sarnoff and Farnsworth would battle in the laboratory and in the courts. In 1939, Farnsworth's hopes were raised when the courts in the patent dispute sided with him. For the first time in its history, RCA would have to pay royalties to an outside inventor. With only seven years until the patents expired, Farnsworth worked to capitalize on his invention. But, just as sales were set to take off, the government declared a blackout for commercial television as part of the World War II defense effort.
Farnsworth had pursued his dream of electronic television for most of his life. When he realized that his patents would not outlast the war, he was despondent. "I think my father was very much of a racehorse," says Farnworth's son, Skee. "He saw obstacles and he cleared them."
Monday, February 26, 2007
The Bluest Eye
Being a first or second grader in the 1950s or 1960s, one might probably remember the reading primer Fun with Dick and Jane an idealized family in an idealized neighborhood: two parents, two children, the dog Spot, and a house with a white picket fence. The Bluest Eye illustrates just how dangerous this idealized image could be in one Lorain, Ohio neighborhood, and what can happen to a black child who cannot stop measuring herself against standards of whiteness. The Bluest Eye is the story of three African American girls, Pecola Breedlove and two sisters, Claudia and Frieda McTeer, whose lives are thrust together by circumstances that would be peculiar if not so common in the late 1940s. The real-life experience that led Morrison to write the novel was a conversation with a peer from her childhood who said that she had lost faith in God because, after two years of praying for blue eyes, her wish had not been granted. In writing the book, Morrison hoped to fill a void in Western literature: to reflect the strong, proud world from which she and other African Americans emerged. In so doing, she gave voice to black girls whose self-images are negatively influenced by the larger society.
This story depicts innocence and madness, stereotypes and unconventional families. All are heavy themes of the story, but these are many themes adolescents can relate to. The book is difficult to follow, yet easily ignites the readers'emotions. Morrison has laid before the readers honest descriptions of every object or event, which are truly poetic and thought provoking.
This story depicts innocence and madness, stereotypes and unconventional families. All are heavy themes of the story, but these are many themes adolescents can relate to. The book is difficult to follow, yet easily ignites the readers'emotions. Morrison has laid before the readers honest descriptions of every object or event, which are truly poetic and thought provoking.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Documentaries
A documentary film is a non-fiction film that describes a situation, condition, or event that occurred, or is occurring. It often includes opinion, and can be made with the explicit intention of convincing or persuading the audience of a particular viewpoint or position on the situation being documented. A documentary usually (but not always) includes interviews with experts, or with ordinary people affected by the event or situation, or both. It generally does not include actors, though it may also include re-enactments, especially if the event or situation being documented is historic. For example, a documentary about the assassination of Caesar might include segments of actors dressed as Brutus, Cassius, Cinna and the other conspirators, and may even include a re-enactment of Caesar's death.
The simple definition of documentary is “nonfiction film.” In fact, many filmmakers and film festivals prefer to use that phrase to better describe the wide range of films commonly grouped under the documentary umbrella.
Documentaries may also be made in a balanced manner; presenting arguments on both sides of an issue, almost in a debate format, which allows the audience to review issues on both sides of a controversy and make up their own minds.
The simple definition of documentary is “nonfiction film.” In fact, many filmmakers and film festivals prefer to use that phrase to better describe the wide range of films commonly grouped under the documentary umbrella.
Documentaries may also be made in a balanced manner; presenting arguments on both sides of an issue, almost in a debate format, which allows the audience to review issues on both sides of a controversy and make up their own minds.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
America: land of the free, home of the brave?
Kudos should go to the casting of this episode. They managed to find the stereotypical illegal alien family that proponents of illegal aliens wish to conjure when they discuss the issue. There’s the dad, a hard working day laborer. You’ve got the stay at home loving mom, who collects cans on the side to just make a living. You’ve got two kids who were born in America and are therefore American citizens. You also have the eldest 3 kids who originally crossed the border with their parents illegally. One daughter has a 3.8 grade point average and applies to Princeton. One who seems to be ignored, probably because she has bad grades or has something they didn't want to focus on. Finally, there is an older son that they didn't say much about. The status of these people fits the definition of Lipmann’s to a tee, and creator Morgan Spurlock did a good job in displaying this.
Prior to Frank moving in they show a discussion between the mother and eldest daughter. The mother not wanting a “blue eyed gringo” to be the one coming, but her eldest daughter pointing out that if he is Hispanic it would be even worse because he would be against his own race of people. The mother agrees that having a Hispanic would be even worse after she thinks about it for a second. In my opinion it would be so much easier to point out how hateful he is if he was a blue eyed, blond Nazi racist. Regardless of all that, Frank brings his stuff and moves in. The show makes sure to include the statement that he'd like to call "INS" within the first 30 seconds.
Everything is cordial initially until there's a discussion between Frank and the eldest daughter. They argue over illegal status with the eldest daughter falling back on the “America is a nation of immigrants” and “we're just here for a better life” stance. Frank's argument is “illegal is illegal”. They don't get much further into Frank's other points. There's nothing about the costs of illegal immigration. There's nothing about its impact on the education system, congestion, taxes and crime. There's also no pointing the finger at Mexico.
They do show a patriotic outburst from Frank when the family takes him to a Mexican restaurant to celebrate the eldest girl graduating from high school. Frank gets frustrated and rants about how this is an invasion, not just an orderly entry of immigration as in the past. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that this girl worked hard to get good grades and to graduate, but the one sided view of the issue was just too much. Nothing was included on how much educating her has cost taxpayers of this country. Nothing on how much her parents have not paid in taxes. Nothing about the bad sides of illegal immigration at all was mentioned here.
They send Frank to Mexico to visit the father's brother who still lives there and the squalor the family lived in 12 years ago. Yes, it is truly sad. There is no doubt that Mexico is poverty-stricken. There is no mention at all as to why this is or what can be done about it. Most of the fingers are all pointed at how evil Americans are that want to deport these hard working people.
The show ends up with Frank getting soft on immigration and having feelings for these people. He says, “I’ve walked away with another perspective involving human beings”. There is no doubt that they are nice people, anyone would be able to see that, but that is an emotional take on the issue. Emotions are infamously not the best guidance on solutions to a problem. I think people should spend time watching this no matter where they stand on the issue. If I would have to rank this documentary on a scale from 1 to 10, I would give it an 8. Definitely see it.
Prior to Frank moving in they show a discussion between the mother and eldest daughter. The mother not wanting a “blue eyed gringo” to be the one coming, but her eldest daughter pointing out that if he is Hispanic it would be even worse because he would be against his own race of people. The mother agrees that having a Hispanic would be even worse after she thinks about it for a second. In my opinion it would be so much easier to point out how hateful he is if he was a blue eyed, blond Nazi racist. Regardless of all that, Frank brings his stuff and moves in. The show makes sure to include the statement that he'd like to call "INS" within the first 30 seconds.
Everything is cordial initially until there's a discussion between Frank and the eldest daughter. They argue over illegal status with the eldest daughter falling back on the “America is a nation of immigrants” and “we're just here for a better life” stance. Frank's argument is “illegal is illegal”. They don't get much further into Frank's other points. There's nothing about the costs of illegal immigration. There's nothing about its impact on the education system, congestion, taxes and crime. There's also no pointing the finger at Mexico.
They do show a patriotic outburst from Frank when the family takes him to a Mexican restaurant to celebrate the eldest girl graduating from high school. Frank gets frustrated and rants about how this is an invasion, not just an orderly entry of immigration as in the past. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that this girl worked hard to get good grades and to graduate, but the one sided view of the issue was just too much. Nothing was included on how much educating her has cost taxpayers of this country. Nothing on how much her parents have not paid in taxes. Nothing about the bad sides of illegal immigration at all was mentioned here.
They send Frank to Mexico to visit the father's brother who still lives there and the squalor the family lived in 12 years ago. Yes, it is truly sad. There is no doubt that Mexico is poverty-stricken. There is no mention at all as to why this is or what can be done about it. Most of the fingers are all pointed at how evil Americans are that want to deport these hard working people.
The show ends up with Frank getting soft on immigration and having feelings for these people. He says, “I’ve walked away with another perspective involving human beings”. There is no doubt that they are nice people, anyone would be able to see that, but that is an emotional take on the issue. Emotions are infamously not the best guidance on solutions to a problem. I think people should spend time watching this no matter where they stand on the issue. If I would have to rank this documentary on a scale from 1 to 10, I would give it an 8. Definitely see it.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
favorite media
My favorite form of media is television. The purpose of television is multifold: to educate, to entertain, to inform. I use the tv to do all three of these things. If the television was taken away, I would miss many things. I wouldn't like it I just couldn't sit down and take a load off. Sometimes after a long day I just want to watch tv, and if I couldn't do it I'd be upset, but find alternate things to do. I would miss the fact that tv is a social tool. Gathering together and watching sporting events and other television shows doesn't happen often, but frequent enough that it is important. I watch the tv for the news, and without it, I'd have to scan the AM dial on the radio to get the news. All in all, the television is something that I could live without, but life would be a lot more inconvenient.
Media Checklist
1. It varies, but I would say about once per day. I would say that I call my parents the most often.
2. I went to a medical conference with my dad in Pittsburgh. He is a physician, and the speaker talked about the dangers of cigarettes.
3. I use IM very frequently, perhaps probably too much. I chat frequently with Katie Reesey and Jeremy Alberth, both Westminster College students.
4. I check my email every day, and I'd say I send an average of about one message per day.
5. I paid for a CD that I purchased in the Shenango Valley mall.
6. The AFC Championship game. I wanted to see if Peyton Manning could finally take his team to the Super Bowl.
7. I recorded the game show "Deal or No Deal", because I enjoy watching the excitement and anticipation of average people risking large amounts of money.
8. In the theater I most recently saw Rocky. On DVD it was the Wizard of Oz.
9. The last radio station that I listened to was Titan Radio, because it has good music and is one of few FM stations that get quality reception in this area.
10. The last book I read was called Strange Son. It is about a mother with an autistic son, and I wanted to learn more about the mysterious disorder.
11. I read the Sharon Herald yesterday morning. I just wanted to get a beat on what is going on in this community, as well as the community in which I live.
12. A few years ago I paid for a subscription for Sports Illustrated.
13. As funny as this may sound, I don't think I've ever handwritten a letter and sent it in the mail!
14. The International Trombone Association. I play the trombone, and on this website there is useful information on it.
15. I have Facebook and Myspace, but don't blog on either of those. My only other blog is this one here. I use Myspace and Facebook to keep in touch with people, and to contact others that I haven't spoken to in a long time.
2. I went to a medical conference with my dad in Pittsburgh. He is a physician, and the speaker talked about the dangers of cigarettes.
3. I use IM very frequently, perhaps probably too much. I chat frequently with Katie Reesey and Jeremy Alberth, both Westminster College students.
4. I check my email every day, and I'd say I send an average of about one message per day.
5. I paid for a CD that I purchased in the Shenango Valley mall.
6. The AFC Championship game. I wanted to see if Peyton Manning could finally take his team to the Super Bowl.
7. I recorded the game show "Deal or No Deal", because I enjoy watching the excitement and anticipation of average people risking large amounts of money.
8. In the theater I most recently saw Rocky. On DVD it was the Wizard of Oz.
9. The last radio station that I listened to was Titan Radio, because it has good music and is one of few FM stations that get quality reception in this area.
10. The last book I read was called Strange Son. It is about a mother with an autistic son, and I wanted to learn more about the mysterious disorder.
11. I read the Sharon Herald yesterday morning. I just wanted to get a beat on what is going on in this community, as well as the community in which I live.
12. A few years ago I paid for a subscription for Sports Illustrated.
13. As funny as this may sound, I don't think I've ever handwritten a letter and sent it in the mail!
14. The International Trombone Association. I play the trombone, and on this website there is useful information on it.
15. I have Facebook and Myspace, but don't blog on either of those. My only other blog is this one here. I use Myspace and Facebook to keep in touch with people, and to contact others that I haven't spoken to in a long time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)