http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOM1k4oLGJU

This Nike ad, talks about a apocalyptic soccer match for the world (I think, commercial is in Spanish). We start off at a replica of the coliseum, next there is a solar eclipse and well for lack of a better term all hell breaks lose. The coliseum now a soccer stadium is now filled with demonic fans, and it becomes a match between Europe’s all-star and demonic soccer players bent on taking over the world. As the match begins the all-star team is getting pushed around and punched, then heroic music starts playing and the team is pushing back and then the goal is scored by a flaming kick though the goalie. Ending the match and making the all-stars the heroes. As everything is returned to normal, as if it never happened and it ends on a final note with Nike’s slogan “just do it”.

Nike is relying that we can figure out that it’s the end of the world and these athletes are the only ones who can do anything. There is also the fact that these are major soccer players and are recognizable to many people. As I have mentioned before the soccer match is a battle of good and evil, as well as natural and supernatural. During the match the audio kicks in and we start to hear dramatic music that makes it sound like we are losing, then hero music stats and we win. It is all thanks to the everyday hero tales that have been told to hundreds of generations.

Nike is trying to sell more on shoes then the idea/myth, because no one really has experience anything like it and there’s not much outside info to go on. I will say that the commercial is cool (especially that kick) but it is not trying to sell anything but shoes.

cofidant gaze (i think...?)

in the artical the "Cofadent Gaze" by Shekhar Deshpande, he writes about how he thought that national geographic should write an artical scince india has been the most contrabutive to the maganizine that they should write a huge artical. this artical i will like to provide my personal point, and that is i gartly dislike the artical while reading i felt slightly sick to my stomach(this is just a porsonal opion... nothing more). what i was able to read from his artical (past my sickening feeling), he wrote about india's and national geographic's relathionship. "The poverty in India, long a favorite and often the only reference for Western audiences is transformed in the pages of the magazine into an observable commodity, polished with gleaming light and perfection of the position of the objects, their eternal "readiness" at being photographed. A busy street in Calcutta and, an upper class housing colony and the back stage images at a fashion show, all become images of equal aptitude: they have an urge to satisfy the curiosity of the viewer while defining it.
This gives the magazine its real power". this pharagraph states that the images of poor and the damaged are what makes the magazine work and sell."It provides innocuous details of life in India, without any reference to the real troubles of the people or the global conditions in which the country is implicated in. The wars and the subsequent arms race since Independence are less important than the plight of urban poverty. The regional conflicts are more important than the difficult conditions of the people in keeping pace with their material wealth. One feels great for having encountered one's faint and fuzzy prejudices in palatable language and one feels good because we know that the country has done a lot of catching up in 50 years, but it has a lot of catching up to do if "catching up" has to mean something." this one shows how we find the pain in other humans a mental magnet that draws on our own ideals. that when things need to sell not only National Geographic but others as well, use the images and ideas to have us find out what is wrong...(please note that this is proboly the most horrible parageraphes one can do, with spelling errors).

new world of the new generation

from what i understand of the "frontline: growing up on the internet" was how the newer genration has become apart of a need of acceptance, and that the older generation must get use to that fact. the global particapation on the web from a scientifc stand is unavoidabul, and will contiue untill every need is met. let me clarify, peoples need for the web will cause it to expand and as it expade more of it is needed by the people. this cycle will contiue until everything we could whant of the internet is given to us (i.e. movies and/ shows in a continus stream with a high resolution). as a result of everything i have just said, the new world is online and every one is looking for a sanctuary in this new world.

being apart of this generation i have found that i do not belong to it. why, because i have no real need of it. i will only use the internet for information and games, anything else i find as an excusie for people to be free in their own minds and not in reality. another reason why is simply i am just too old (mentaly). i don't text, blog, or even email, and my pearents do this all the time. so has the internet affected my life, yes but the people have affected it more.

us stupid? from google no less?

i know, i know no one likes being called stupid, but that not the point of writer Nicholas Carr. what he is simply stateing is how we tend to look for spacific information when we research things on the internet and in real life, so we don't tend to take in the infromation. he qoutes someone about others like him and one of them states [“I was a lit major in college, and used to be [a] voracious book reader,” (scott karp) ](par 5). while this refers to other english he has also found some information relating to avereg people like you and me. "They found that people using the sites exhibited [“a form of skimming activity,”] hopping from one source to another and rarely returning to any source they’d already visited. They typically read no more than one or two pages of an article or book before they would [“bounce”] out to another site."(par 7). He also adds an ionteresting qoute from a woman named, Maryanne Wolf, and the qoute is [we are not what we read... we are how we read](8/9 par)