Transcendentalist or not?

"Transcendentalism is a religious and philosophical movement that developed[...]as a protest against the general state of spirituality[...]among the transcendentalists' core beliefs was the inherent goodness of both people and nature. They believe that society and its institutions—particularly organized religion and political parties—ultimately corrupt the purity of the individual. They have faith that people are at their best when truly 'self-reliant' and independent. It is only from such real individuals that true community could be formed."-Wikipedia.

In my mind, transcendentalism is, in essence, a mix of humanism and idealism with a touch of disestablismentarianism. It not necessarily glorifies humans, but it does say we are good before corruption. It says that we can be better by being singular and, as a certain Mr. Emerson put it, "self-reliant". It believes that the societal institutions debase us from our near-divinity. All of this sounds nice, but the fact of the matter is that I don't believe it.

Some of it is simply my own religious beliefs, some of it is from my own personal cynicism. I have seen and felt too much hatred, too much distrust, too much inherent badness to believe that humans contain inherent goodness. Now would I like to believe this? Absolutely. I would love to see the best in everyone, I would love to be a better person than I am. But the unfortunate truth is that I can't see things that way. I see the world best described as how Calvin posed a question to Hobbes as they hurtled down a snowy hill to oblivion: "Do you think that humans are naturally good with a few bad tendencies, or naturally bad with a few good tendencies?" I would agree with the latter.

Don't get me wrong, there are decent human beings, and even a few indecent human beings who occasionally do decent things, but the fact remains, that people can't seem to shake the darkness that clouds our conscience, which, I believe, points us to good deeds, but our human nature negates said conscience. This, however begs the question, what's the point in doing good if we are just naturally bad and can't really do anything about it? The point is that doing good is the right thing. Not just because it helps you, but because it helps those around you. Good deeds or actions should never be done out of the slightest selfish desire, but a desire to help one's neighbor, to help one's country, to help one's planet. Good deeds are a rare thing these days, just about everybody has some personal agenda, other people's plans and actions be damned. But I won't say not to try and do good. On the contrary, open doors, invite people to join a conversation, be friends with those who don't seem to have many, be gracious, loving and kind, no matter your personal gain, if any.

Bowling for Columbine Response

In the documentary "Bowling for Columbine", the incendiary filmmaker Michael Moore tackles the issue of guns, and America's obsession with them. Through shocking images, amusing interactions, and a thorough amount of awkwardness, Moore reels the audience in.

The documentary is an ironic look at our culture, and how America seems to have an obsession with guns. He uses his voice at a monotone so that the shocking images of live television broadcasts showing shootings and suicides and the frankly jarring ideas and beliefs passing over his voiceover are that much more persuasive. He manages to still keep us interested, both horrified and transfixed on this problem.

Moore also makes use of interactions with people to prove his point. At one part of the documentary, he visits Canada to talk with people about the gun problem in America. Many of the people he interviewed were relaxed and calm. I was especially surprised when Moore simply opened people's doors in broad daylight and the people who owned the houses just took it in stride. Contrasting that to America, Moore paints a very different picture. Here, we lock our doors, we lock our cars, we buy guns for protection, etc. We're afraid, essentially. 
It also helps when Moore points out that the gun related deaths for the US in one year is 11,127, whereas in Canada, it's 165. And that's not even the lowest. Another talking head said that if more guns equal more safety, then America should be the safest country in the world. Obviously, it isn't.

One thing of this documentary that I didn't so much like, was the fact that the interviews were so awkward. If you know me, you know I can't stand those awkward cringe moments in movies or TV. If I can, I will make an excuse (a bad one) to get out of the room until the scene goes away. Obviously, I couldn't do that in a school setting. But I'm not saying that those scenes were bad for the message he brought across, they just were unsettling, particularly his interview with Charlton Heston. Regardless, it proved his point.

Flashing images, a few chuckle-worthy lines, and cringe-worthy talking heads may not sound like they'd add up to a great documentary. However, Michael Moore pulls it off, entertaining many while bringing up a surprising amount of questions on how we look at our culture of fear. Now the question remains: what do we do with these questions?

The Sound of Silence

Deafness. Like other disabilities, it affects a minority of the human population. It disables hearing to a degree that, usually, the deaf person cannot hear. Also like other disabilities, there is some controversy about it, especially concerning the cochlear implant. This implant uses small electric currents to imitate the sensation of hearing. The main debate between the deaf and hearing communities comes down to the morality of the cochlear implant: is the implant opening a door to deaf people that would be closed otherwise, or is the implant actually tearing the deaf person away from the deaf culture. Both viewpoints are shown in the 2000 documentary "Sound and Fury".

The movie focuses on two families affected by deafness. The first is Peter and Nita Artinian and their three children, most specifically focusing on their daughter, Heather. The entire family is deaf. The second is Peter's brother's family, Chris and Mari Artinian, and their twin boys. One of the boys, Peter, is deaf. Chris and Mari both want to give the son a cochlear implant. Heather, Peter and Nita's daughter, wants a cochlear implant, but her parents, like a lot of the deaf community, are fearful that she won't be a part of the deaf culture if she gets the implant.

Peter and Nita are rather insistent that Heather stay deaf, Peter especially. Much of the argument here is that they feel like Heather will lose her deaf culture, like she won't want to be around deaf people. Now, I can somewhat sympathize with the parents here. They are worried, like many parents, about their children leaving them. That's about as far as I sympathize, though. Much of this is also lack of comfortableness with the cochlear implant. Some of this stems from the fact that they have been deaf their entire lives, and can't imagine having a hearing child. This give them an unfortunate prejudice against the hearing world.

On the other end, Chris and Mari want their son, Peter, to have the implant. But they are having problems with their family and others in the deaf community. For example, everyone goes to what looks like a deaf picnic. Mari is talking to her mother and father, both of whom are deaf. Mari's mom implies that she will be embarrassed of them because of what other deaf people will say. She even calls Mari a lousy daughter. Kind of harsh, really. Later, Chris and Mari are sitting around a table with several older deaf people, talking about the cochlear implant. One man says that the parents who give their kids an implant are selfish. When Mari says that she wants to give her son an implant, another man immediately accuses them that they think that deaf people are inferior to hearing people. A woman says they are forcing the implant on Peter. A lot say that the implant will kill deaf culture, and yet another person says that people are just going to look like robots eventually.

Overall, I can side with Chris and Mari more. Maybe it's because I'm biased, seeing as I can hear, but I feel like it is right to give your children as many chances as they can to be what they want and to do what they want. As a hearing person, you can do so much more. Peter says it himself: he won't be able to get that much higher on "the corporate ladder". But I feel like Peter and Nita are being close-minded. They're scared about the cochlear implant because it makes deaf people different and think that it will destroy deaf culture. On the first note, how many times have we heard the argument that something should be condemned simply because it's "different"? And, on the other, someone in the documentary mentions that deaf culture will live on for many more years. This is certainly true for many things. Deaf people are not an endangered species. In any case, if you look at this from a purely logical standpoint, genetic deafness won't be eliminated because of the implants because the genes that cause deafness are still in that person. Deafness will persist for years.

In retrospect, I have to say that it is up to the parents to make decisions for the children. I don't see Peter and Nita as doing a good job, but I wouldn't take it as far to say what they are doing is "abusive", like Peter and Chris's mom thinks. It's simply what they think is best. And if Peter can be happy being deaf and at the place he's at in life, maybe Hannah could be too.

Windows. Dark, black, windows. CRINGE

It’s nighttime and you’re lying in bed. You’re fine that the door is closed. You’re fine with the fact that you have no lights in your room on (except for the occasional night-light, of course). What you’re NOT fine with is the fact that your bedroom windows are black. Yeah, you can see some street lights, and if you’re in a big city, you see a few store lights on. But overall you can’t see a thing.

That’s my most common fear, after heights (ironic, considering I’m 6 feet tall at 17). Looking out a window during the day is absolutely fine, but the fact that you don’t know someone is outside your window at night is absolutely terrifying.

That’s why I always keep my windows closed and covered. I also (for good measure) turn away when I go to sleep. I can't say it stops the fear, but it certainly makes me feel a bit better.

It frustrates my mom when she comes in my room. She seems to think that it’s just me wanting to isolate myself from the outside world, but I don’t have the heart to tell her what actually is bothering me.

Hopefully I have implanted the seed of fear in all of your heads of dark windows. If so, mission accomplished.

Campaign Ad Analysis

The "Nixon's Experience?" ad is in support of John F. Kennedy, who won the 1960 presidential election over Richard Nixon. The ad details the lack of experience that Nixon displayed as Vice-President under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, by asking Eisenhower whether Nixon ever had a major idea that Eisenhower implemented. Eisenhower gives a rather witty line in the form of "If you give me a week, I might think of one, I can't remember." The makers of the ad obviously mean that despite Nixon and other Republicans trying to boost his standing by saying that he had experience enough to run the country. Ethos is put to work in this ad by actually showing the lack of ethos that Nixon had. Also, the decorum used in the ad is excellent, putting Kennedy on the side of the voters, saying "President Eisenhower could not remember, but the voters will remember." This uses some form of logos, the "if...then..." logic. If one candidate has little to no experience, then the other candidate will have experience worthy of the office.

A 1984 ad for Ronald Reagan, the incumbent and winner of that election over Walter Mondale, showcases how America improved in the four years he spent in office. It's spoken by Reagan himself during an address. He talks about how the "world" despised the U.S. and "thought America had had its day". He counters this by saying that people stopped arguing and started working together, adding that America is strong. This is another good example of ethos, using his history to his advantage. The ad also appeals to people's pathos, the emotion of patriotism, strength, and happiness.

"Blurred Lines"? Someone Needs Glasses (or Contacts)

Everyone's heard it, everyone has a certain opinion on it, and it's time I gave mine. I feel like I have an opinion that would mainly fall with Ms. Lai's, rather than Ms. Romano, mainly because beyond the title and a slight change in the connotation of her word choice, she's just repeating a few sources about the topic. I feel like there is an element of misogyny in there, but it's also not strictly a rapish kind. The point that Lai makes illustrates this well: "Yes, 'I know you want it' could be said by a rapist—but so could 'Do you want to go to a movie tonight?'"

It's a tick in the male mind that is mainly triggered when they feel like their "masculinity" is impeded upon, and they feel the need to increase the size of their ego in order to "compensate" for the lack of their "manliness". Symptoms of this are putting down other men, mainly by comparing size of muscles, abs, and penises, much of which are done with use of clothes over said body parts, so lying is easier, comparing "hotness" or number of girlfriends, or more likely, girls they've had sex with, and being overall arrogant toerags towards girls in general (winking, touching, or looking suggestively).

There is a cure, however. Talk to your doctor about taking "Com Unsense" (logica). Side-effects include understanding that you aren't God's gift to women, understanding that size doesn't matter, and awareness that sex is best left with a more permanent relationship. Mr. Thicke, Mr. T.I., and Mr. Williams are in clear need of this cure. The lyrics prove that: "Just let me liberate you", "You the hottest bitch in this place", "I'll give you something big enough to tear your ass in two", "He don't smack that ass and pull your hair like that", etc. For that matter, many of my peers can be cured with this not-so-new drug. It's a common theme with high school students, due to the whole "angst" stage. But for a man who clearly is out of high school (just by his stature, not by his maturity or attitude), this is shocking.

But Thicke isn't the only guilty one here. Miley Cyrus, for instance, turned from a well-liked country girl, to a person who thought that cutting her hair into incredibly short pigtails, sticking her tongue out more than Gene Simmons, and wearing underwear that was practical, not sexual, was a good idea. And need I remind you of Nicki Minaj, and her "song", Anaconda, saying that a girl isn't good enough unless her butt's big enough. All of these are clearly trying to make a controversy and gain attention. And you don't have to use sex as a means of that. Shia LaBeouf took the "woe is me" trail when he put that paper bag over his head, whining silently that he wasn't important anymore. Or Lindsey Lohan and her multiple problems, all in an attempt to garner attention.

I think that we won't be able to fully stop incidents like this from happening. There will always be people sadly interested in the lives of celebrities, from them having yet another sex scandal to them going to the loo. And there will be people equally sad enough to cater to this insatiable appetite. TMZ, I'm looking at you. The best we can do is to educate each other that this is unacceptable behavior, whether it is rapey or just looking for attention. Hopefully the lines shouldn't be so blurry there.

"The Liars' Club": The Truth Revealed

When choosing my book for the AP Comp summer work, I didn't expect to like it or want to read it more than I normally would. So, with that mindset, I just picked a book, more or less based on the title, and chose "The Liars' Club", a memoir by Mary Karr. The result was a book that I have immensely enjoyed, with its quirks, its turns, and its overall good storytelling.

One of the first things I noticed about the book was how much it felt like another book that I've read. It sounded vaguely like an adult version of "To Kill a Mockingbird". Karr is Scout, her sister Jem, her Grandma is Mrs. Dubose, and the parents show characteristics of Atticus. It's not just the people that are similar, it feels like it, with the descriptions of each small character, the way each little quirk is put in ink, it just feels very simple, but very effective.

It's also to the author's credit that she doesn't shy away from subjects like rape, death, cancer, etc., in a way that almost just shrugs and grunts indifference. What's interesting about this is that it isn't facing such situations with a brave face, but it is accepting that such things are just a part of life, and maybe even not really caring.

Karr's most distinguishing characteristic is her love for her father. She is constantly devoted to him, especially when she has to stay with her mother, her sister, and her stepfather. By writing constantly to him, by imagining him with her, and by the happiness she expressed by going back to him, there's no questioning that the daughter and father relationship in the book is a strong one, and is definitely the main focus of the memoir.