Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Admin menu
I also forgot to blog about the admin menu that I had previously downloaded. I found an administration menu module that made my life a lot easier. I had previously been having problems remembering places I had to go with in my sight to change certain administration strategies. I would forget if I needed to go to content, structure, modules or configuration if I needed to change a certain thing. This ended up causing quite a bit of trial and error and wasted alot of class time clicking on the wrong menu. I actually began looking for a type of drop down menu bar just because I think they look nice and actually stumbled upon the very useful Admin menu module. This module is intended for new drupal users and drops down the options of each menu button when you scroll over them so you can get right to where you want to go limiting the amount of clicks needed. I found this very useful and took away a good amount of stress from my day :).
FINALLY!
I finally figured out how to get my date module working and it was actually completely by accident. I'll get to that in a second. First, I downloaded the colorbox module which was a little complicated to get set up at first. Keisha helped me get it set up. First I had to download the module then I had to download the lightbox plug-in to go along with it. After that, I had to create a library folder in my godaddy account so I could put the colorbox module and the colorbox photos in it. After that, I went to add content to make a basic page and name it Gallery so my colorbox photos could be viewed. When entering add content, I saw the option for dates, so I clicked on dates and there was everything I freakin needed all along! So I was able to create viewable date and people can access it and comment on it. I just made a quick example and put a date of when I will be back which can be commented on. I can't believe it was right there the whole time! Oh well, I guess that is part of web designing, trial and error. The greatest things in the world have been found by mistake (penicillin) :). That officially pushed me over the edge in enjoying Drupal. I guess i just needed to catch a break that way for me to be fully hooked!
Monday, May 2, 2011
Blog 7
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20110427_Marc_Lamont_Hill__Show_of_hands__What_constitutes_manhood_.html
This is an article written on philly.com which his a website for the Philadelphia newspapers, The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Daily News. It is about two NBA players on the Toronto Raptors being photographed while they are holding each others hands, written by Mark Lamont Hill. The two players, Leandro Barbosa and Reggie Evans were viewed walking through the tunnel back to the locker rooms when they were caught on video grabbing eachothers hand and walking through the tunnel. This caused somewhat of a small media uproar in the sports world on whether this was appropriate male physical contact. It raised questions as to whether these athletes were gay or just simply being affectionate with one another. I think the one question that is probably most overlooked out of this whole situation is "What's the big deal?"
Hill writes not so much about the two players but mostly about the reaction by the public after the video was released on the internet. Hill states that many people responded either negatively about them being homosexual or positively stating it is "ok" if they are or are not homosexual. He mostly writes about his wonderment as to why our society is so opinionated as to what "appropriate" male-to-male behavior is and how our culture thinks they should act. He begins speaking about the contradictions of this argument compared to the "ok" male touch of hugs, butt smacks and chest bumps. He then moves on to stating how his experiences in other continents such as Europe and Africa lead him to believe male touching can be a sign of non-sexual affection. Hill does not really use any three-dimensional characters in this article, although he does seem to be insinuating that a man should allow himself to be a 3 dimensional character and our culture should view men as 3 dimensional characters, not 1-dimensional. What I mean by this is that Hill is saying that our society creates a script as to how males are supposed to act and what they're supposed to like from a young age. He states that we tend to paint our boys rooms the color blue. Hill also says we tend not to allow our boys to play with dolls unless they have guns, then they must be referred to as "action figures" (G.I. Joes). He says there is unfortunately no room for homosexuals in the profitable world of pro sports, meaning our culture is pinning athletes as 1-dimensional athletic heroes that have no personal background whatsoever or at least that no one cares about. Hill is basically stating that there are gays in all different professions so "why wouldn't there be any in pro sports?" He's stating that in our culture, whatever our boys grow up to do, we've created this persona for men to be strong, emotionless figures that don't have any soft side to them.
I thought it was interesting that after making all of these emotional, valid points in defense of Leandro Barbosa and Reggie Evans, Hill basically contradicts his own thoughts by stating that most likely this was taken out of context and the players were maybe even playing a joke. This notion to me completely invalidates any of Hill's arguments and seems as though he is essentially "selling out" from his own convictions. He began by stating that it's not a big deal for men to hold hands in other countries and they do it all the time so it should be a big deal here. He ends up stating that most likely it was a joke, insinuating that American men just don't hold hands. What if these men were being affectionate with eachother? It's very possible especially with one of the players being from Brazil (Barbosa). What if these players are gay? Hill was heading in a consistent direction with his argument until he ended his article contradicting himself.
I think its a shame that even this writer who seems to have his heart in the right place and stated his convictions thoroughly, ended up giving in to his own unconscious thoughts that even he said were instilled in him since he was young. I guess when you think about it, maybe he didn't contradict himself so much after succumbing to what he stated earlier as a script that he has been taught from the beginning.
This is an article written on philly.com which his a website for the Philadelphia newspapers, The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Daily News. It is about two NBA players on the Toronto Raptors being photographed while they are holding each others hands, written by Mark Lamont Hill. The two players, Leandro Barbosa and Reggie Evans were viewed walking through the tunnel back to the locker rooms when they were caught on video grabbing eachothers hand and walking through the tunnel. This caused somewhat of a small media uproar in the sports world on whether this was appropriate male physical contact. It raised questions as to whether these athletes were gay or just simply being affectionate with one another. I think the one question that is probably most overlooked out of this whole situation is "What's the big deal?"
Hill writes not so much about the two players but mostly about the reaction by the public after the video was released on the internet. Hill states that many people responded either negatively about them being homosexual or positively stating it is "ok" if they are or are not homosexual. He mostly writes about his wonderment as to why our society is so opinionated as to what "appropriate" male-to-male behavior is and how our culture thinks they should act. He begins speaking about the contradictions of this argument compared to the "ok" male touch of hugs, butt smacks and chest bumps. He then moves on to stating how his experiences in other continents such as Europe and Africa lead him to believe male touching can be a sign of non-sexual affection. Hill does not really use any three-dimensional characters in this article, although he does seem to be insinuating that a man should allow himself to be a 3 dimensional character and our culture should view men as 3 dimensional characters, not 1-dimensional. What I mean by this is that Hill is saying that our society creates a script as to how males are supposed to act and what they're supposed to like from a young age. He states that we tend to paint our boys rooms the color blue. Hill also says we tend not to allow our boys to play with dolls unless they have guns, then they must be referred to as "action figures" (G.I. Joes). He says there is unfortunately no room for homosexuals in the profitable world of pro sports, meaning our culture is pinning athletes as 1-dimensional athletic heroes that have no personal background whatsoever or at least that no one cares about. Hill is basically stating that there are gays in all different professions so "why wouldn't there be any in pro sports?" He's stating that in our culture, whatever our boys grow up to do, we've created this persona for men to be strong, emotionless figures that don't have any soft side to them.
I thought it was interesting that after making all of these emotional, valid points in defense of Leandro Barbosa and Reggie Evans, Hill basically contradicts his own thoughts by stating that most likely this was taken out of context and the players were maybe even playing a joke. This notion to me completely invalidates any of Hill's arguments and seems as though he is essentially "selling out" from his own convictions. He began by stating that it's not a big deal for men to hold hands in other countries and they do it all the time so it should be a big deal here. He ends up stating that most likely it was a joke, insinuating that American men just don't hold hands. What if these men were being affectionate with eachother? It's very possible especially with one of the players being from Brazil (Barbosa). What if these players are gay? Hill was heading in a consistent direction with his argument until he ended his article contradicting himself.
I think its a shame that even this writer who seems to have his heart in the right place and stated his convictions thoroughly, ended up giving in to his own unconscious thoughts that even he said were instilled in him since he was young. I guess when you think about it, maybe he didn't contradict himself so much after succumbing to what he stated earlier as a script that he has been taught from the beginning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
