Am I a Transcendentalist?

From what I understand, transcendentalism is a religious movement that took place during the early to mid 1800s in the United States. At the core of this movement is the belief that there is an inherent goodness in people, and that in order to find this purity we must look deep inside ourselves. Transcendentalists also believe that society and its institutions corrupt people, and that individuals who are self-reliant and independent must work to create a community in which everyone can be their own self without the evils of society.

I feel that there is a natural goodness in everyone, but I also believe that, for lack of better phrasing, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Essentially, there is also natural meanness in everyone as well. We are luckily evolved enough to realize that this nastiness is not well received by others, and therefore attempt to hide it deep inside ourselves.

This corresponds with the one big problem that I have with transcendentalism: the idea that society corrupts the individual. Individuals created society. If there is nothing but goodness and purity in individuals, society should be pure by default. In order to create an environment that is supposed to be so awful, wouldn't the people creating it have to have a bit of awfulness in themselves? Transcendentalism is a great idea, it makes us feel good to know that it's not our fault when we do something bad; that it's the environment we're in that influences our bad choices. But this is not the reality.

Gatsby the Great

There is an overzealous use of motifs and symbolism in both the novel and the movie. It is my opinion that Fitzgerald was focusing on quantity over quality while writing The Great Gatsby. There are several "symbols" that never seem to be given any significant meaning and distract from legitimate symbols and motifs that contribute to the overall purpose of the book. While in the novel I would consider this a stylistic flaw, I believe that Luhrmann stacked the film with symbols to mock Fitzgerald's carelessness.

While there are many similarities between the novel and the movie, there are glaring differences; the most obvious being the way in which Nick tells the story. In the novel, Fitzgerald does not give the time at which Nick his account of Gatsby and grand setting. The reader simply slips into the book, only aware of the fact that Nick is the narrator. In the film however, Luhrmann creates an equally elaborate time in the present as he does in the history of Nick's story.

Gun Control and Fear Control

It seems that the American mindset is that if there is a threat or a fear, protect yourself with a gun. But why? Wouldn't stashing a handgun in the linen closet create opportunity for more threats and cause more fear? Michael Moore attempts to make the audience aware of Americans' overzealous use of guns in his 2002 documentary, Bowling for Columbine.

At the forefront of Moore's persuasive tactics are the number of school shootings throughout the United States. He presented the audience with stories of Columbine, Flint, and an overall American climate of fear. To explore this fear, Moore went to Canada to see if it was strictly home to America -- it was. While Canada is home to more guns than the United States, there are shockingly fewer murders. In one interview, a Canada resident hypothesized that this was because the Americans are afraid of their neighbors while Canadians are more trusting.

But is it a matter of trust? Some say it their social responsibility to carry a gun. And keep it loaded and stashed under their pillow. Moore made a great use of people with similar views in order to create an image of an aggressive America. A short clip of Chris Rock stating that we don't need more gun control, but rather more bullet control also supports this image. Whether it be gun control, bullet control, or fear control; Moore's message is clear; something needs to change.

Sound and Fury

The documentary "Sound and Fury" explores the definition of a disability, in this case deafness, and focuses on how this definition changes depending on the Discourse. At the center of the documentary are two families; and closely follows what they do to provide their children with what they perceive to be the best opportunities. Peter and Nita Artinian are both deaf, and parents to three young deaf children. Peter's brother, Chris, is hearing able and is married to Mari, also hearing able. They are the parents of a two children, one deaf and one hearing able. Mari's parents are both deaf. Each family made very compelling arguments, yet by the end of the documentary my feelings did not change much on the subject.

Peter and Nita entertain the idea of getting their oldest daughter, Heather, a cochlear implant. After gathering information from a variety of sources, they come to the conclusion that they do not want to go forward with the surgery. Peter and Nita think that Heather will no longer be part of the deaf culture if she gets the implant, and are afraid of what that will mean for their family. Peter is especially passionate about this; he does not see being deaf as a disability, but rather something to be celebrated. In his opinion, being deaf does not inhibit a person from becoming successful, nor does it prevent them from living a "normal" life.

Chris and Mari on the other hand believe that a cochlear implant is the best choice for their deaf son, Peter, is the best choice. In their opinion, Peter will not be able to experience all that life has to offer if he cannot hear, and they want to ensure that he receives the same opportunities as people who are able to hear. Mari's parents are very much against this, they feel Peter will not be appreciative of the deaf people in his life but Mari assures them that will not be the case.

It is, in my opinion, best for a deaf child to receive cochlear implant if the opportunity presents itself. I feel that Peter and Nita were selfish in their decision against the implant and their reasoning sits on a quaking foundation. The idea that Heather will lose her place in the deaf culture is ridiculous. Yes, she will be able to hear but her family will still be deaf -- she will therefore always be connected to the deaf community. I admire Chris and Mari's decision to go ahead with the surgery for Peter after the discouraging words they received from their family. I feel that his life will truly be changed for the better.

Hurry. Turn off the lights, take the stairs two at a time, propel yourself up with the railing -- don't even think about looking back. Hurry. Hands are clammy, heart is racing, mind is spinning. Hurry. Can't simply run, must dash side to side and hop and skip -- got to avoid the hungry hands of creatures that grope for the stairs behind you. At the landing, half run half walk through the kitchen to the dining room, where you finally breath a sigh of relief.

Ten years later. Hurry still. Turn off the lights, thunder up the stairs, let your feet be a stampede that drives the hungry hands of creatures back into the shadows. Hurry still. Heart is racing, mind is spinning -- don't even think about looking back. Hurry still. Bound side to side, like a skier, avoid the hungry hands of the most daring creatures. From the safety of the kitchen, turn and smile defiantly at the darkness you once again escaped.

Nothing is particularly frightening about the basement itself: white plaster walls, rough navy blue carpet, worn out leather furniture, dusty workout equipment. Plenty of ones childhood could be spent down there, whether it be tumbling off of Little Tikes play sets, dressing up dolls, or watching a movie. But when ascending the stairs, beware.

Robin Thicke's "Blurred Lines"

Robin Thicke's song, "Blurred Lines", has become the focus of much controversy. Many see red flags within the lyrics and the music video, but is the song itself all that bad? No. The lyrics may not be something we're used to listening to on the radio; "[Thicke is] putting the ball in [the girl's] court by telling her to make the move and not the other way around," but that doesn't make them inappropriate or demeaning towards women. The music video on the other hand, reeks of trash and there is no sign of class.

Bad attention is another way of saying lots of attention. Johnston states that "even in this era of the porn aesthetic being so prominent, that [stuff] still works. The old ways of generating controversy and attention still work." Thicke said himself he wanted to break all the rules, and he did. "When [the women] are clothed it feels like he's walking up to a line and agreeing to obey it. And when they're not clothed, he's like acknowledging the line and he's stepping right over it." The music video immediately gives the lyrics a negative connotation. As Johnston said in her article, it's about context. The most innocent song can have an underlying message if paired with such a video.

Yes, the song makes Thicke seem a bit too self-assured, but there's no real harm in that. The video is where the problem lies, it "undoubtedly objectifies women" according to Jennifer Lai. But something is being done about the issue. If we can separate the two there is no reason why a catchy song such as "Blurred Lines" can't be stuck in our heads.

Technology and What You Eat

"[Anyone] who has gotten a toddler to eat broccoli by calling them 'dinosaur trees' knows, names are better," but are fun and crazy names teaming up with technology to make certain foods more appealing? Mary Beth Albright explains the correlation between iPads and expanding our horizons in "How iPads Change Your Palate," published by National Geographic. Before reading this essay, I never would have given a thought as to how technology influences what I eat. But after absorbing the first paragraph, it really is amazing to see how eating habits have been influenced with the development of technology.

Albright's primary example in the essay is a change made by a convenience store called Sheetz. Sheetz began selling espresso drinks that were not common in the area, and they weren't selling. So Sheetz turned to electronic marketing, and they presented the drinks "with descriptors to make the drinks seem more familiar and desirable" on an electronic ordering screen. They were able to see what descriptions and names were making their products popular and could easily change the ones that were not as successful.

In addition to better sales, Sheetz were able to find out which descriptors encouraged healthy eating. Brian Wansink, author of "Mindless Eating," conducted research in 2012 using tablets to market carrots to students. "When labeled as 'X-Ray Vision Carrots,' 66 percent of carrots were eaten, as compared with 32 percent when labeled as 'Food of the Day' and 35 percent when unnamed." I was amazed to read that in one school, consumption increased by 99 percent when vegetables were named. Never would I have thought that technology could so heavily influence what I eat.