Sound and Fury

The documentary Sound and Fury brought to light a controversial topic that I had never considered before. I personally do not know anybody who is deaf, nor did I know of the cochlear implant before watching this documentary. I do not belong to the proper Discourse.
There are two different sides to the implant. The people involved were either all for or against it. Both sides had valid and interesting arguments. If I were presented with such a difficult and important decision, I would most likely be able to come to a conclusion. As for right now, I do not have a definite opinion on the topic.
Peter and Nita, as well as Mari's parents believe that the deaf culture is a significant part of their lives. If the parents were to take that away from their child, that would be considered abuse. It would be offensive to take the deafness away from anybody--if a child is born deaf, it should stay deaf.
For Chris and Mari, their main concern was communication. They wanted the best and brightest future for Peter, and his future did not look so bright without the implant. It is true that deaf people in the "hearing world" is more difficult compared to people who can already here. That is definite. Although, there is a whole deaf community out there that is amazing.
Peter and Nita found one of those communities and it is completely possible for the deaf to be successful, even aside from their communication difficulties. The problem for Little Peter is that he is the only deaf person in his immediate family. It would be less rational for his family to move to a deaf community, unlike Heather's family. Since Heather's immediate family is all deaf, it would be more natural if she stayed deaf and progressed in the deaf community with her deaf family.
Getting a cochlear implant could either be a good thing or a bad thing, it really just depends on the situation. At the end of the documentary, I believe that both families had made the right decision for their children and their futures.

Irrational Fear

I don’t mind water when it is low enough that I can touch the bottom of whatever is holding the water. Unfortunately, being such a short person, there are many collections of water that I cannot reach the bottom of. I’ve never been a good swimmer, but I would like to believe that I would be able to swim like a pro if my life depended on it. It’s not really the swimming or not swimming that I am scared of -- even though I am also afraid of drowning, that isn’t exactly irrational for a poor swimmer. I’m just not a huge fan of the vastness of water. Even an innocent public swimming pool has it’s frights. I fear the deep, dark waters will pull me under and reveal the viciousness underneath (like the lack of air for my lungs). Though I’m not afraid of heights, I am afraid of deep waters, as though they were great heights but with water in between. I once had a dream that I was flying through the sky and I looked down to see a lake. The lake was crystal clear, revealing a couple of giant whale-like monsters at the bottom. I’m not saying that swimming pools deeper than five feet contain mysterious aquatic animals, but lakes and oceans could be homes to just as creepy creatures. I am mainly just afraid of things that are big and kind of empty, like outer space. It scares me to think that there is so much emptiness, and it also scares me to think that there could be, and are, living things that can survive in that emptiness. Even a typical sea-dweller like a whale is frightening in its own way. Those bad boys are huge. Whales are definitely fine by me when they are far away or in photographs. I just cannot imagine being confronted by a massive whale that may or may not mistake be for krill, without me having a heart attack first. Of course, I probably wouldn’t be close enough to an ocean for that to happen. I’ve only been to an ocean once in my life, and I did not go swimming in it. Maybe I am more afraid of water animals than the actual water itself. When I was younger, I was camping with my family. I was in the shallow parts of a lake with my brother and sister, and I stepped on something sharp. I reached down and picked it up. At first, I thought it was a toy lobster that somebody had accidentally dropped into the lake, then, a split second later, I realized it was a dead crawfish so I screamed and threw it simultaneously. Obviously I got out of the water at that point, and stayed out. I do not think I have gone swimming in a lake since that incident, but it’s more because lakes are kind of gross. Despite their beauty, I dislike large bodies of water quite a bit.

Blurred Lines Critical Review

When I first heard the song 'Blurred Lines,' I found it catchy -- and I still do find it catchy. But like most popular songs today, it isn't very modest. Songs like this should not be "okay" just because there are many like it. I personally do not think the song is "rapey," but it is most definitely not fair to women. I also cannot say that the song and video are "far from being 'rapey' (Lai)" because of the analysis from Romano. She had some nice points that Lai had tried to disprove, like the uncomfortable repetition of lyrics and the content of the video. Like mentioned in both articles, the women in the music video were featured without clothes while the men were fully clothed. That just shows inequality from the get-go. Yes, "a woman's body has been painted and sculpted and talked about since the beginning of man, (Thicke in Romano's Essay)" but that does not mean that the men can't also be painted, sculpted, and talked about. I believe that either the men and women should both be fully clothed, or not -- equality is key. If we as a society continue to overlook these cases of objectification, we will never reach that true equality we have been striving for. If men (and women) like Robin Thicke continue to make music and videos like 'Blurred Lines,' I hope they can at least try to make them a little more equal, and think about the different kinds of backlash that could possibly occur.

Just Kids by Patti Smith

When I had finally gotten around to visit the public library to pick up a nonfiction book, I had other books in mind. Just Kids wasn't even on my radar, though I'm not upset to say this was the book I found and ultimately got stuck with. Being a person who usually reads fictional books instead of nonfiction, it was slightly intimidating to start reading this book, even though it was fairly short. I'm glad that this is the book I ended up with.
I didn't know who Patti Smith was when I first picked up the book, but my father filled in for me that she was a well-known poet, singer, and visual artist. I found it easy to relate to Patti when she struggled with procrastination when creating some pieces of art. As a fellow artist, I know it's easy to get a finished piece of work in your mind and have it go all wrong by the time you've finally finished it. Patti obviously had more determination than I because she would try again, making several different drawings of the same thing at one point. I can say that I sometimes start a drawing and never finish it. With Patti, she had done that with her poetry. She would have many unfinished poems sprawled out on her floor as she worked on another never to be finished poem. Artists need inspiration and I am proud to say this book has in fact fueled me to finished one or two of my drawings.
Patti Smith had a friend named Robert who had gotten into photography closer to the end of the book. I enjoy photography myself, but I can't say I enjoy capturing the same images as Robert. Although he was into some pretty heavy and artistic photographs, he also liked to take modest portraits of people. He would photograph Patti for her book covers. One of the fun things about this book is it includes some of the images mentioned in the book; there are several photographs, drawings, and even a tie rack. It's cool to be able to actually see what Patti was seeing, it makes it more personal.
I'd say the worst aspect to the book is Patti Smith did a large amount of name dropping. At many points in the book, she would just list off a bunch of names that I did not recognize, and sometimes they weren't relevant and never came up again in the book. I did recognize a few famous people such as Jimi Hendrix, Bob Dylan, and Janis Joplin. I was just a little surprised that Susan Sontag was mentioned. I believe she was present at a poetry reading that Patti and her friend were preforming at. Susan Sontag was one of the authors of the articles we read, if you recall, she wrote a piece about 9/11. Unfortunately, Sontag's piece hadn't left a good impression in my mind. Though I did search her up on Wikipedia and she was known for writing about photography and culture, so her being present at a poetry reading isn't very shocking. The connections one makes from reading is pretty neat.
The main reason that this book was difficult to get through was the vocabulary. It wasn't difficult for me to find all 40 vocabulary words, but it was a pain to have to stop what I'm doing to write down an unknown word and then look it up. Having little patience with my on-the-fritz-phone, I used a real dictionary to look up the words. At the time I realized that I had more than enough words, I just ditched the notecards and dictionary to enjoy the last of the book without the distraction. Although it sort of got in the way of my concentration, it is still good to widen my vocabulary, mostly because mine is fairly small. I don't mean to mentally belittle myself because of this, but I could definitely get better. The other reason it was difficult to get through was that I was reading other books at the same time.
I mentioned a confusing character earlier: Robert Mapplethorpe. When Patti first met Robert, they had been lovers. At one point, Robert cheated on Patti and he turned out to be homosexual. Patti was totally okay with this, she didn't even seem to care. Robert and Patti had continued to be close friends, looking out for each other throughout the rest of the book. At the very beginning of the book, there was a part that was also in the end of the book -- Patti mourning after Robert's death.  From the very start readers had known that Robert would die, but wouldn't know his exact relationship with Patti. I honestly still don't understand what went down with those two. Patti ended up getting married and moved away from Robert. Near the end of the book, both of them had reached the point of fame that they had been striving for during the times they had been together, as lovers and as friends. Patti visited Robert often when he was bedridden. When Robert died, Patti knew, even though she wasn't there with him when it had happened. The saddest and sweetest part about Robert's passing was that Patti was at peace with it. She knew that she had been with Robert as a close friend for many important things that had happened in his life. She viewed his death as just another milestone that they had shared together.
This book Just Kids is an interesting tale of a young adventurous girl who grew up chasing her dreams and succeeded. If that's not an inspirational true story, I don't know what is. Overall, I would give it a solid 8.5 out of 10. Good job, Patti Smith.

If Men Could Menstruate

Unlike the Margaret Fuller article, this one was easier to get through. Just the title itself was intriguing. Good job, Gloria Steinem.
Like mentioned in this article, female menstruation is typically viewed as embarrassing or just a bad thing. I'm sure you have all heard the phrase, "Oh, it must be her time of the month," followed by a smirk whenever any girl is in a raging mood. Even though everybody has a right to get upset sometimes, even when they are or aren't on their periods, people still make jokes -- usually really bad jokes, too. It's an interesting thought to wonder what life would be like if it were the men instead of women who menstruated.
I would like to hope that the men would have to deal with the same things women have dealt with, good and bad, when it comes to menstruation. Of course, in a man-dominated world, this would not happen. We can never know what would happen, but Gloria seemed pretty spot on with her predictions. This ordeal would become a very manly thing, Gloria even said that, "men would brag about how long and how much" in regards to their periods. (Does that sound familiar?)
This article went into a lot of detail and I personally got a little upset reading it. Just thinking about how things could change so drastically with a simple switch of roles makes me angry about the unfairness that hasn't even happened. On page 2, there are a lot of different phrases placed in parentheses. They are both ridiculous and funny, but I honestly don't doubt that they could happen.
My favorite part of the article wasn't any of the silly predictions, it was near the end.
"If women are supposed to be less rational and more emotional at the beginning of our menstrual cycle when the female hormone is at its lowest level, then why isn't it logical to say that, in those few days, women behave the most like the way men behave all month long?"
For this article, I applaud Gloria Steinem. I would also like to mention that this idea would make quite an interesting film.

The Great Lawsuit

Before I start discussing the content of this article by Margaret Fuller, I would like to mention the structure. This article was fairly short compared to the other articles we have read but I personally found it difficult to get through. I don't think it was because of the topic, although it has been talked about many times before. I noticed that there were some really long sentences thrown into the article and that was slightly obnoxious.
Before Margaret Fuller's piece started, there was a little note from Paige Towers. She said that the piece was not well appreciated at the time, but was acknowledged for challenging the social norms. This isn't unlike many forward-thinkers in history, so I am not surprised. I'm sure it is better appreciated nowadays.
At one point, Fuller said, "All men are privately influenced by women," and I believe this is one of the main reasons why we have finally reached that near-equal phase in history. This influence, from mothers, sisters, or friends, has ultimately made men realize how important women are. There are obviously men and women for a reason, not just men on this planet. Women aren't just for procreating. As the article stated, no human being can live without expansion. If one does, they would either have to get expansion in one way or perish. That may sound dramatic, but it is not far from the truth.
I found it interesting how Margaret mentioned that different occupations of a man could influence his thoughts on letting women become equal. For example, an artist or poet would think of women nobly while a legislator for expediency wouldn't give a woman a chance. Jobs are a huge part of anybody's life, there is no way it couldn't influence one's decision; sometimes the influence is good, others it is not.
Fuller said she would like to accomplish "ravishing harmony" when women become equal to men. I personally don't believe that we have quite reached that state of harmony. Unfortunately, there are still many things that make women unequal, like echoes from the past. Just like all inequalities that are said to be no more, there is still a shadow of the terrible things that have happened in our history.
Many sane people would like to see that harmony.  I'm just guessing that harmony isn't a very natural thing for us humans, because there are some people out there who think women aren't as good as men, or who think women are better than men. No matter what, people are not going to be able to agree -- at least not in the near future.
At the end, Fuller mentions some stuff about souls. She says that if one person, no matter the gender or the race, has a soul, then they are the only one who is accountable for themselves. No man or woman can own another human being because that is unfair to the soul.

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

In this article, Nicholas Carr attempts to show the reader what the Internet is doing to our brains. Although I agree that the Internet is in fact changing our though process, I would not say it is making us  stupid. The word "stupid" seems a bit harsh and unnecessary. I am assuming that this Nicholas Carr is an adult and he should be using a more sophisticated word. Just after reading the title, Mr. Carr has gotten onto my bad side. Reading deeper into the article, my initial thoughts did not change very much.
The interesting thing about this article is that the attention getter is a quote from a movie with a computer-gone-bad. Obviously this movie is a fictional movie, but this does not stop Carr from using it as a valid source of information. Yes, Nicholas, the idea of computers eventually taking over may be a valid one. No, Nicholas, you cannot base your claim for the amazing Google making us stupid based on a science fiction film.
Aside from my bitter attitude towards the writer, the article did successfully explain the evolution of our brains and how they react with the different technologies of the time. I know that I have troubles concentrating on long pieces of writing. The blame may or may not be on the Internet. As a teenager, I have essentially grown up with the internet, so I have not had much experience in a world without it. I assume the people pointed out in the first section of this article are older people, and have known a world without such advanced technologies. I can see how the Internet may seem to be an evil creature, sucking out all intentions of being smart and the yearning to read long books. But, my inability to concentrate is based more on my utter pickiness towards the things I read. Once I find something good, I can read it like there's no tomorrow. As a fellow Internet-dweller, I have stumbled upon a few folks who are also slightly addicted to their computers and other technological devices. I know for a fact that those folks are not incapable of reading books. Yes, they are reading books that appeal to them. Students may find it difficult to concentrate on reading articles for school, but that is not a sign of stupidity.
Ultimately, technology may change the way we think, but that does not have to be a bad thing. Everybody has adjusted to clocks and the printing press, and we will evolve and adapt to new technologies the world throws at us. Over all the years since the clock was invented, humans have definitely changed, but we are still just as well-functioning as we were before. Thinking differently does not mean the same thing as thinking stupidly. (Yes, I will not stop pointing out the fact that Nicholas used the word "stupid" in a stupid way. I can say stupid because I am a child and am not claiming that the entire group of Google users are ignorant.)
As a Google entusiast, I cannot say that Google is a bad thing. Google is one of my favorite things on the Internet. There are just so many different things that Google has accomplished -- they are not just a search engine. I will refrain from going on about how lovely Google is, due to the length of this blog post already. Unfortunately, I do have to say that the idea of computers being greater than the human brain is a bit silly. Maybe I am feeling skeptical because of the book Feed by M.T. Anderson (I'd recommend it), but actually putting the computer into the brain seems a bit too far. Maybe in the future, the idea would be a grand idea, but right now, in the present, it sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. I have nothing against Google, and as long as they are thinking progressively, they should be fine. I honestly don't see any of that super computer with artificial intelligence happening anywhere except in movies any time soon.
Overall, this article was interesting and fairly thought-provoking. I don't entirely agree with the main message, but we need to have these skeptical thinkers to balance out the free minds who have unrealistic theories and such. Humans may be thinking differently, but we are not stupid.

Ethics of Living Jim Crow

Reading about human stupidity in history is not a favorite past time of mine. It always makes me wonder how on Earth people could have been so shallow at that point. Aside from that, it does give me hope that humans will continue evolving into less-ignorant organisms. I would like to live to see the day when all racism and other forms of discrimination cease to exist. The idealistic future where not a single being takes note of race, sexuality, or gender may or may not be far from now. I assume it is pretty far from now, judging by the current state of living, but my hopes prevail. This article titled The Ethics of Living Jim Crow by Richard Wright is yet another reminder of human flaws. Honestly, "flaw" might be a bit of an understatement.
With my judgmental introduction complete, this specific article is in the point of view of a person living under these Jim Crow laws. He explains the hardships of living like that, and explains how difficult it was for him to keep a steady job with all the discrimination continuously getting in the way. Most of the sidebar comments I wrote on the article were sarcastic and dissatisfied with his stories. For example, somewhere on the first page, Wright confronted his mother about an incident that happened. After her response of slapping the child, I wrote, "what a lovely mother, very understanding." It is unfortunate and upsetting to think about these times. Not only were the "white folks" against this boy, but his own mother was, too. Obviously, his mother was just trying to keep him out of trouble by teaching him an assortment of wonderful lessons complete with yelling, improper English, and slapping!
Wright continuously received mixed messages from people on the job. One moment they'd be talking, completely okay, then the next they are upset and yelling because he had forgotten to say, "sir." I believe this taught him that there was a big difference between the white and black people, and he should never forget that. He learned that he needed to "stay in his place" or he would not be able to work anymore. With his minor mess ups, he managed to go from job to job several times.
By the end of the article, he finally accepted his unfair and horrible fate. He learned how to compose himself around the "white folk" and he essentially became numb to the violence and discrimination towards others. Wright learned of the things he was allowed to talk about and the things he was not allowed to talk about. Not surprisingly, the list of things he was not allowed to talk about was much longer. He had to keep keen and clever in order to avoid unwanted situations with the easily-angered men he worked for.
This article was ended with a quote from one of Wright's friends. "Ef it wuzn't fed them polices 'n' them of lynch mobs, there wouldn't be nothin' but uproar down here!" Aside from the obnoxious English speaking skills this man had, this is a very important quote. Nobody was very fond of the current conditions, and if it were not for the violent consequences, there would be a revolution. Fortunately, people finally came to the realization that the benefits outweighed the consequences. Unfortunately, racism is still a big problem today, just not as big as it once was. I still believe that humans will eventually learn from their obvious mistakes and overcome this period of utter stupidity and discrimination.

Talk of Town on September 24, 2001

Both of the articles from the New Yorker's "Talk of the Town" section in September of 2001, written by John Updike and Susan Sontag, are fairly eye-opening. The articles express different viewpoints on the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center twin towers.
The first article by John Updike explained his personal experience when witnessing the attacks from a window. He had compared the episode of horror to a television show on a day of "perfect reception." This in itself is an eery thought to be thinking. Watching terrible things go down right before his eyes, not knowing what to do made quite an impact on the writer. How is one meant to act when they witness such awful things happening not a mile away from where he or she stands?
Even before the attack, Updike had viewed the towers as something beautiful. The towers had been considerably large and hard to miss. With it's hugeness, they were beautiful pieces of architecture. As the attack was happening, Updike said that this was also a beautiful event to see. The skies were pure blue, and looked even more gorgeous in contrast to the blooming smoke clouds. The occurrence could even be called majestic or magical.
Since he had compared the attack to a television show, Updike had said that it mustn't be real, it could be fixed. I suppose if it truly were just another episode of some sick TV show, the damage could easily be reversed. Plot twist: it was all just a dream. Unfortunately, it wasn't a television show. It was reality.
Updike explained how he felt as a survivor. He knew that it was his duty, as well as all other survivor's duties, to eventually carry on living his life. Although it is painful to think of it that way, it is a somewhat clever way to exist. One must keep living, even if one does not forget the traumas.
My favorite definition of freedom I have ever heard is contained in this article, written by Updike. He said freedom is "mankind's elixir, even if a few turn it to poison." This line literally made me drop my pen as well as my jaw. I don't know what it is, but the way it is worded is beautifully brilliant. With this attack, America's freedom of motion was damaged. But, he clearly stated that the United States of America is definitely a country worth fighting for.
Updike ended the article in one of the most depressing ways one could end an article like this -- he said New York looked glorious, with the smoke still spouting from the ruins.
The second article written by Susan Sontag was quite different from the first. In my opinion, Susan seemed to be a bit rude about the attacks. She didn't discuss the actual event itself, she discussed the meaning and the details about it.
Sontag thought that the media was essentially filtering their information in order to make it seem as though the country was still strong, we can carry on smoothly. The media failed to mention that the attacks weren't cowardly, in fact, it was brave -- especially compared to the dastardly bombing the U.S. had been doing on Iraq.
In her article, Sontag basically said that the robotic Mr. President Bush was wrong for being optimistic about the traumatic event. The government may have been twisting the facts a little bit, but they must have been doing it for a reason. Obviously, Americans are very proud people. We need it to be said that we are going to be alright, that we are still standing strong. Sontag thinks differently.
Despite America's democracy, Sontag believes that it had turned into "psychotherapy" instead. She said that all the public office was doing was confidence-building and grief management. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but is that exactly a bad thing? Susan thinks so. She said, and I quote, "let's not be stupid together." I would like to applaud Susan on her wonderful vocabulary word, "stupid." Sontag's aggressive views on 9/11 are somewhat upsetting to me.
Sontag also claims that strong is not the only thing America has to be. My question to Susan is as follows: What else should America be then? Smart like Susan Sontag?! Sontag may have the right idea in her article, the American government did have a lot to talk about with it's policies towards other countries, but her delivery is just straight-up obnoxious.
Overall, these two articles were written with clear voices. Although I enjoyed John Updike's article better, they were both written skillfully with interesting word choices and phrases. My view on the World Trade Center twin tower bombings is in fact changed, at least just a little bit.

Oh, What a Splendid Introduction!

What is a blog exactly? That is a very open-ended question that could be answered with a whole series of different answers. For example: a blog could be something fun that a fan could write to express their undying love for a certain subject, a blog could be a helpful little place for confused human beings to discover different facts about anything, a blog could be a journal of a very interesting person who sometimes writes about food, or a blog could be an assignment to a high school AP Composition class. Blogs are just super, am I right or am I right? Fortunately, dear reader, this blog is in fact a blog that was solely created for an English class. This means it is the best kind of blog ever to exist. You're in luck!
This first post is meant to describe the person who clicks away at the keyboard, the person who sits behind the soft glow of a computer monitor, the person who brings you this lovely blog. (Hint: that person is me.)
As you could probably infer thus far, I am a fairly sarcastic person. Although I do tend to take it back a notch when I am in public, I am a very rude and sassy person. At least, that is what I have been told by my caring friends. But don't worry, I like to think that I am pretty okay at pretending to be a nice person!
In all seriousness, I enjoy writing about different subjects. I enjoy letting my voice leak through the pages of my papers and make a mess out of things. When I am motivated, I can write quite long papers or entries with my excessive feelings and words I may or may not mean. Sometimes I pretend to know words that I don't usually use because thesaurus.com is my best friend.
I am a nervous person that tends to tap my foot or my fingernails on tables. This normally annoys others, but I get uncomfortably anxious whenever somebody tells me to stop.
I am a person of many faces -- I will make a face at nearly anything. If somebody says something even remotely annoying, my stank face is automatically initiated. (My friend calls it a "stank face").
Although I really do love to laugh, I don't view school as an appropriate place for all those aspiring comedians to try out their knew stand-up comedy routine. If you're going to be insensitive with your jokes, please do not let your words reach my ears unless you would like me to permanently put you on my mental "dislike list."
Another obvious thing about me is that I am not a huge fan of public speaking. I am slightly antisocial so I am not good at conversing or that thing people call small talk.
I'd like to say that I am a creative being, though I cannot be the judge of that. I enjoy to partake in activities involving art, photography, or filmography. I am also the proud president of the Art Club. You can call me President King, if you would please.
To conclude this excitement filled post, I shall leave you with a classic cliff hanger. My next post will be about an article by John Updike and Susan Sontag called-- TUNE IN NEXT TIME FOR MORE TALENTED WRITING SKILLS FROM JULIET KING.