T.K. and Mike

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUaElKQOTSc&feature=related

I have been an active outdoorsman pretty much since the day I learned how to walk. I was the kid that was wandering around looking for stuff to get into. As I grew older, I was introduced into some activities in the outdoors that were a little more involved. In my younger years I would stand on the dock at the pond for hours trying to catch fish with someone holding my shirt to keep me from jumping into the pond with the fish. As the years went on I started tagging along with the grown ups of the family on deer and turkey hunting trips. When I became of age, I began carrying a gun and I was the one getting to take the shots. Before I could do this however, I had to prove that I was ready to carry a gun and be safe with it. Two of the most important parts of gun safety is knowing 1.) Where the barrel is pointed at all times and 2.) Whether the gun is loaded.
T.K. and Mike are two redneck guys that make comedy out of hunting videos. They go into the woods and do all of the completely wrong things. They aren’t safe; they act like idiots, yet it is absolutely hilarious. In one of their turkey hunting videos, the guys talk about “hunting safety” and how it is important to always know whether your gun is loaded. Not to ruin the video, but T.K. proceeds to shoot a cameraman in the leg. How is this funny you might ask? Well is all honesty, hunting can be a frustrating sport. It is a grind to get up hours before daylight for weeks at a time only to get outsmarted my mother nature half the time. Though it is extremely satisfying when you win, you are defeated the majority of the time. When times get tough, everyone can appreciate some good humor and after a long day in the turkey woods this hits the spot.

Git Er' Done-Matthew Peeler

As we all know, the Blue Collar Comedy tour has provided the entire nation with entertainment for years now. Larry The Cable Guy, Bill Engval, Ron White and Jeff Foxworthy have been providing this entertainment with each of them using their own unique style to make the performance comical for the audience. Larry The Cable Guy however sticks out. He uses the front of a down home, blue collar, fully fledged redneck to entertain his fans. Some of his most famous lines include "Git er' done" and "I don't care who you are, that's funny right there." These lines are said in such a strong accent, one cannot help but laugh! The odd thing is, "Larry" does not have this heavy accent while he is talking in a normal tone. This accent is purely a stage voice used for entertainment and well, it works. Not only does Larry make people laugh by the way he talks, but also the jokes he tells. Being the blue collar comedy tour, each comedian typically takes situations that the average American can relate to and makes them into their jokes. To me however, Larry takes these situations and takes them to a different level that is just hysterical. For example, in one of his acts, Larry talk about the child in Ethiopia that he sponsors by the name of Boobla Boobla. Larry tells the audience about Boobla Boobla and reads the crowd a letter Larry received from him. Now there are many Americans that are interested in sponsering a child and there are also many people that do, making this a theme that most individuals can relate to. Larry adds a unique twist however and makes this theme his. He flaunts his redneck accent and turns this sponsored child into a hilarious joke. (Now it may seem wrong to do this but we must remember, they are only jokes). With Larry using the talents that he has been given, he can create a funny situation even out of the worst situations. He uses his unique speaking ability and his talent to create a comical story out of a common situation that is enjoyable to all of us.

Link to boobla boobla's story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPXyEU5a94c

Matthew Peeler's Blog

In both Oscar Wilde’s and Edmond Rostand’s plays, there is a particular character that tends to run the course a little differently than many people. In both of these plays there is a character that lies, in one way or another, in hopes of getting the interest of a particular lady. In both of these plays these lies turn into truths at the end and though they end in quite a different manner, there is a similar principle involved. In Wilde’s play, Jack has hopes of entering a relationship with Gwendolen and in order to increase his chances, he lies to her about his name and tells her it is Earnest simple because she is fascinated by this particular name. To make a long story short, in the end it turns out that these lies turn into truths and everything works out in Jack’s favor. In Rostand’s play, Cyrano plays a similar role. Cyrano wrote Roxanne letters years before from a man name “Christian”. At the end of the play, Roxanne realizes that it was Cyrano that wrote the letters as she recognizes that the voice reading the farewell letter was the one she heard years ago. Though Cyrano dies quickly after this takes place, his lying to a woman in order to get closer to her works out in the end, even if it is only for a short time. Though these two story lines have a very different ending, they begin and transpire in a very similar way. Both Jack and Cyrano are characters that are interested in a lady that they believe are going to be difficult to get. Both of these men go under a false name in order to grow closer to the woman that they have feelings for. Despite the ending of the two stories, Jack and Cyrano have taken a similar path to their ladies, making them very comparable characters.

Matthew Peeler's Blog

Money typically gives people a different attitude about things. Though it may not seem like it, money is a powerful object that can very easily have a negative effect on people even though they personally feel like they are doing well. This personal thought is usually where the bad begins. The individual begins to believe that they are somewhat “bullet proof” and that they can get away with anything. In my opinion, this situation is very apparent in Oscar Wilde’s play. Throughout the play, the characters take place in several particular actions that are completely immoral. One of these actions in particular stands out to me; this is the fact that Jack is living a life of lies. He says that he has a brother and that he is a man that has very little moral stature. He also says that his name is “Earnest” just to impress Gwendolen. Each of these things are very immoral actions. With some individuals believing that Wilde enjoys the fact that the rich members of the upper class can get away with anything, it raises the point that the play itself is immoral. This statement, in my opinion is very true. When someone of a higher social class gets into a difficult situation, they often believe that they can get out of it simply because of their stature, and sadly enough, this is oftentimes the case. This was the exact thing that happened the entire play for Jack. As I mentioned, Jack lives the life of a lie the entire book and just when things become difficult, the situation works out in his favor. At the end of the book, Jack finds out that his lies are actually true and he plays along like he knew the entire time. This is completely immoral and a true example of the hypocrisy that people in the upper class oftentimes show. Though this hypocrisy and immorality is what makes this poem funny, it does not make the situations in the poem right. So in conclusion, my thoughts are the same as many others as I believe that this poem is completely immoral.

Matthew Peeler's Blog

Extreme conservationists are truly a different breed of people. This however is not a bad thing as it takes a different kind of person to put in the effort required to be successful in their efforts. I personally consider myself a conservationist as every time I enter into the outdoors, I try to leave it better than I found it in some way; not just for a particular animal but for all animals. Whether it is simply picking up a small piece of trash or doing a major habitat improvement project, conservation efforts are conservation efforts. In the last chapter of his book, Last Chance to See, Douglas Adams talks about a pair of conservationists they meet on the Island of Mauritius by the names of Carl Jones and Richard Lewis. Adams proceeds to describe the “obsessive passion” that they have for the conservation of birds on the island. In my opinion, this passage has a strong effect on the reader from the standpoint of understanding what conservation is really all about. Like I mentioned earlier, conservationists are a different type of person and to an individual who is not familiar with conservation, a conservationist may seem a little crazy in the head. The passage on page 183 however sheds things into a different light. It explains how hard Carl and Richard had worked to try to help the birds in their area. The text sums their hard work ethic into one sentence by stating,

“They loved them with an extraordinary fervour, and had devoted their entire adult lives to working in the field, often in awful conditions and on horribly low budgets, to save rare birds, and the environments they live in, from extinction.”

This excerpt from the text puts what a true conservationist is into perspective. With this passage, the reader is able to understand the hard work that goes into conservation. It can be debated why Douglas put this passage into the book but I believe it is to prevent the reader from thinking conservationists are lunatics. On pages 179-182, when the reader is first introduced to Richard and Carl, it appears that these two individuals are simply crazy. One if the first conversations that takes place is about why Adams wants to stay for only two days and then fly to then island of Rodrigues to look for a rare fruit bat for ten days. Richard pesters him into staying by bugging and bugging him to stay there for ten days and opposed to going to Rodrigues for ten days. Adams finally gives in when Richard comes close to taking out another car while driving down the road due to the fact he was so adamant about Adams staying that he was not even paying attention to the road. Like I said, this simply appears crazy but with a further, more humanized explanation later in the text, the reader realizes that these conservationists are not really crazy but they are passionate about what they do, just like all conservationists.

Matthew Peeler's Blog

As Montana Wildhack asks Billy Pilgrim to tell her a story, Billy immediately begins telling a war story. To me, this is a natural reaction for anyone who has been in the war. Though this book tends to deviate from typical explanations, I feel like this one is almost as typical as it gets. Throughout the book, it appears that Billy suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). This disorder is something that many individuals that come back from war have to deal with. The individual tends to have flashbacks about some of the more difficult times they had during war, just as Billy has. Though the flashbacks do not happen constantly, they often keep the individuals mind stuck on war most of the time. I think this is exactly what happened to Billy as he began to tell his story. Though there is really no evidence to support this story is an actual flashback in itself, I do believe that the flashbacks had an influence on Billy telling this particular story. With it being fresh on his mind, it is easy for him to remember and it is one of the first things that come up. He proceeds to tell Montana about Dresden being destroyed. Though the story did not last for a long period of time, the details of what happened were very precise. He told about what people looked like and what all was lost in the destruction. After Billy tells his story, the book goes of onto another course without a reaction from Montana. This is a rather surprising thing to me, as I would think she would have a rather interesting reaction as her and Billy talk several times throughout the book however, you can understand why there wasn’t a reaction in the book. Oftentimes, people don’t have a certain reaction to a story like this, as they know that the individual telling the story is going through a difficult time. In my opinion, Montana was at a sheer loss of words after Billy told the story about the destruction of Dresden.

Matthew Peeler's Blog

When we typically think about toughness, we tend to picture someone big and bad that can take anybody. A prime example of someone who is tough in my opinion is Arnold Schwarzenegger. He is big, he is bad, and he can take anybody.
Kurt Vonnegut however takes a different approach to toughness in my opinion. He states that, ”World War Two had certainly made everybody very tough.” Vonnegut proceeds to tell about his boss at General Electric where he works as a public relations man. He says that his boss was one of the toughest men he had ever met and he often gave Vonnegut sneering remarks asking him why he hadn’t become an officer, “as though I’d done something wrong,” Vonnegut states. This line is what makes me think that Vonnegut views toughness as something that is not necessarily a good thing. It seems that his attitude towards his “tough” boss is an attitude that despises toughness. Vonnegut did nothing wrong in his eyes and doesn’t seem to understand why his boss should view himself as tough. Vonnegut states that he and his wife were “scrawny” people and that many of their friends were people of the same stature. It was these people that Vonnegut seemed to have the most respect for and enjoyed being around the most. He said that they were the kindest and funniest people. According to him they were the people who really hated the war, the ones that had really fought. When I tie this line into the line about Vonnegut’s boss poking at him for not being an officer, it comes across to me that Vonnegut views being tough as being nothing. He believes that his boss, as an officer, did not go through the trials and tribulations that he and his fellow fighters did. According to Vonnegut, being highly ranked is not what makes you tough. It is the grueling grind of fighting in war that makes you tough and that if you have not been in a war situation then it is much more difficult to call yourself tough.

Matthew Peeler's Blog

A.R. Ammons’ “Shit List” is what I would like to call an interesting piece of work. The word “shit” is used in just about every line and is used in more than just a casual way. Like many forms of literature, Ammons turns what could be considered a very vulgar poem into a work of art. Many may ask how this is the case? Ammons describes different kinds of shit throughout this poem but keeps it interesting for the reader. Just as the reader begins to have the thought of ‘this is just another vulgar poem not worth reading’, he throws in a very comical line that keeps the readers attention for a while longer and repeats this cycle throughout the poem. For example, “rainbow trout shit (for the nice)”. This line comes in the fourth line of the poem after the reader begins to wonder why he/she is really reading this and they laugh, at least this was my reaction It is this cycle that helps do the job that the poem intended to do, and that is entertain the reader. The question still arises however of how this is artful? Though it may not seem like it, Ammons’ poem is a work of art simply because he holds the attention of the reader throughout the poem. This takes quite a work of art to have a successful poem about shit.
Ammons uses parentheticals throughout his poem as well. These short worded “explanations” as I like to call them are also a key in making this a work of art. I mentioned the way Ammons adds a comical line in when the reading begins to become cumbersome. These parentheticals are typically involved in this comical line. Some examples of these lines include “bull shit (the classic)”, “magpie shit (total protein)”, “mockingbird shit (dive-bombed with the aim of song)”, and robin shit that oozes white down lawn chairs or down roots under roosts. This poem is a perfect example of potentially offensive language turning into something powerful. Laughter is a very powerful emotion that we all experience at some point. This poem draws out this emotion and tends to bring out the best of us. With the proper connotation, ever a poem about random shit can become a powerful piece of work that we can all enjoy.

Matthrew Peeler

When I first read the excerpt from Jane Austin’s book Emma I can honestly say that I was curious as to why we were reading this piece considering that the class was humor-based. This text would typically fall into the category of boring in my eyes, as I was not able to vision the situation. However, when we watched the clip from the movie, I was able to relate to the situation much more and laugh at it. After seeing what went on in the situation, I was able to laugh at the comments made by Emma towards Ms. Bates. Regardless of the fact that the comments made by Emma were rude and disrespectful, they were made in a sarcastic manner that made it comical to the viewer. I personally thought the situation stayed funny until the point where Emma received a lashing of words for what she said.
Immanuel Kant said, “Laughter is the eruption that arises from a strained expectation suddenly reduced to nothing.” This quote explains my reaction to Emma just about as well as one can. As I explained earlier, I was not particularly fond of the reading. As the explanation took place during class and we watched the film I was able to appreciate the comedy inside of it. My “expectations” of our class discussion were “strained” due to the fact that didn’t feel like I understood the reading very well. After we discussed the reading and watched the video, I “erupted” with laughter since I was finally able to understand. As I read this quote, it struck me as if I had dealt with that particular experience before, which I had. When I began to dissect the quote to explain how I related to it, I realized that these three words were a very clear description of my experience with Emma. I had “expectations” about the discussion that were “strained” simply because I didn’t understand but in the end I “erupted” with laughter and enjoyed both the movie and the book Emma.

Matthew Peeler's Blog

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, one of the definitions of laughter is “a cause of merriment.” Robert Provine says, "Another attraction of laughter is its remarkable contagiousness." To me, laughter is exactly what Provine states, it is contagious. Laughter is something that brings us all together and does exactly what the definition says by bringing us merriment. This trait of laughter is very apparent in most cases, as time itself has shown us plenty of situations in which laughter is contagious. There are many relationships that have started with a good genuine laugh. Every type of relationship, from a professional business relationship to relationships leading to marriage, can be started with laughter.
I think that most people can go back and remember being in a situation that was awkward. When I get in this situation, the first thing I try to do is make everyone laugh. This typically takes the edge off of a situation and does exactly what one tends to do and that is bringing the people around them together. It is human nature for individuals to follow what is going on around them. Regardless of how much of a "leader" a person is, they are going to fall into the trap of society at some point and follow what is going on around them. With laughter being so contagious, just as Provine states, one can use this pitfall in human nature to their advantage and create a situation that brings individuals closer together.
This is the contagiousness that oftentimes sparks relationships that last a lifetime. It all starts in the same place, with a good genuine laugh that sparks a conversation to break the ice. Without laughter, it would be much more difficult for people the break the barrier that holds back the ability to have a good ice breaking conversation. Without laughter, we would not have to chance meet some of the people we meet and have met in the past. Laughter is a characteristic that is carried by most everyone and is highly contagious. It is these two things that bring us as individuals, along with society as a whole, together.