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.

The Great Lawsuit Response

If one thinks about the events starting Women's Liberation, (voting rights, social equality, etc.) one might come to the conclusion that this started in the 1910's to the 1920's. I am such a person, and thus was surprised when reading this article from 1843.

This excerpt from Margaret Fuller's "The Great Lawsuit" was, I might say, difficult to read. It was not quite as poetically understandable as Shakespeare, but wasn't in the mindset of a modern or contemporary example. It was something that was absolutely necessary to reread to comprehend.

Once my "modernized" brain got itself around the excerpt, I think I understand what Fuller meant. While I felt like she rather beat around the bush, (as you can see me doing so here also) her main point was quite clear. She saw a world in which it is possible to break down every barrier of sexism possible, and in doing so, people will live in harmony.

Now I want you to understand. I am all for women getting equal rights, especially with voting, equal pay and treatment in the workplace and in society. But I must disagree that the scenario that Fuller sees as possible is possible. I believe that women and men should be equal, but I understand that today's, and indeed, any day's, society will not allow that. Today, and for much of the years past, has leaned more in the favor of men. Women are disrespected daily, and for all the disgust that is thrown at sexual abuse, rape, murder, etc., such atrocities keep occurring.

However, for all I know, we could be living in a world dominated by women in a few years, or maybe a few centuries. Men would be sexually abused, raped, and murdered, much for the same reasons women are today. Now I don't want people to mistake that I don't know that both happen today, and I don't think it will stop into the future. But the pendulum of equality is a constant change from one side to the other. There are several pendulums for each social, religious, economic, or governmental issues, and each pendulum has its own time to keep. But however fast the pendulums swing, they never stay at the middle for long, and they never will.

I do not believe in a utopian society. The closest that we, imperfect beings as we are, can obtain would be a dystopian society, a world akin to that of "The Hunger Games" or "The Giver". For every Martin Luther King Jr., there will be an Adolf Hitler. For every Malcolm X, there will be an Osama Bin Laden. People assume that if you do one little thing you can make everyone happy. But there is no way out of it. There will always be a person that is offended by what you say. Thus, what is the point of dreaming of a utopian society, what point is there of political correctness, if there will always be a person to undermine such efforts? And even if people claim that no one is being persecuted or discriminated because of their beliefs, their skin color, their sex, their creed, there will always be someone to beg to differ with them.

While I agree that women and men should live equally, I disagree that they can live equally, and neither can anyone else, for that matter. Human beings will continue to look for Utopia, a way to live in peace. But doing small little tasks, or large, monumental tasks, in the name of equality is insignificant when put up against the stubbornness and resolute pigheadedness that is human nature.

(I say all these words fully believing them. You are free to respond in kind. If you are uncomfortable responding to this post in the comment section below, you are free to do so in person. But please be civilized. I may give my opinions, but I have also taken considerable time and effort to think them through. I do my best to control my emotions, however futile they may be in the end. I am not a pessimist, nor am I a cynic, for the most part. I see myself as a realist. And maybe you see me as an egotist. You probably are right.)

Is Google Making us Stupid? response

Irony is a wonderful thing. For example, I'm writing about an article that was posted on a website(after being put in a newspaper/magazine), talking about how the Internet has changed the way we read, on a website, for other people to read. To give you an idea of where I am on the Internet good/bad debate, or at least electronic entertainment in general. I have been raised in the 21st century. I believe that entertainment, of almost any form is not a problem, it is more so the people that use it that create problems, based on their interpretations of the media. I spoke about how violent entertainment is not a true factor in public shootings, rather the individuals that were doing the shooting, in a persuasive speech for my English class last year. I used examples of the killers' psychological profiles, how slightly increased aggression was the only result of taking part of such entertainment, and even used examples of people in my class that enjoyed entertainment of a violent nature, and were so obviously not people to go on a violent rampage in their school.

But I've seen arguments from the other side of the debate that had a lesser form of logic that Mr. Carr used. Overall, he had a very impressive stance on the issue he was arguing. He stated that he experienced a change in the way he read, not being able to keep his focus on reading an article or book. I occasionally find myself in the same predicament, but he is a fully grown adult, and I am an adolescent. I.e., focus is not exactly my primary function.

But is this stupidity? Maybe this is just a different way of thinking. Granted, there is value in finding beauty as well as information in a written piece. But skimming an article, looking for information, is not a robotic attribute, nor is it a sign of laziness. Our brains are simply changing. For example, during the Renaissance, the great thinkers of that era were thought to be challenging previous beliefs and thoughts, and while maybe they were, today, they are revered as some of the greatest men and women of humankind. But back then, maybe they were called "stupid," or a variation of that. Perhaps, a few decades from now, skimming an article won't be a detriment, but a different kind of thinking. Probably not as a reverence, but an understanding.

The Ethics of Living Jim Crow response

Being a white kid living in a town that is predominantly white, in the 21st century, it has to go without being said that racism is something that is pretty much nonexistent. Not in a utopia-like sense, where everyone considers everyone else completely equal, more of that there is no real exposure to humanity's prejudices on that level, at least. The most exposure we get here is in the reading in classes, or history films, showing the plights of Martin Luther King Jr., or Gandhi. Sometimes it feels like it's almost shoved down our throats about things like this. Now I can be quite cynical, I mostly am unfazed by these means of information. So, I was very surprised by the recounting on life under Jim Crow laws that Mr. Wright painted in his memoir.

More than anything, I think it was because the autobiographical viewpoint best captured the life that blacks had to endure in the South during the 1930's. Most of the people we have heard from, describing the racism of the past, were people that had not experienced said racism themselves.

It's easier to not necessarily understand the dire straits of those effected by the Jim Crow laws, but to at least picture what the straits were. The fact that they always had to say "sir" to a white man, that they were still not considered human, that even their own families admonished them if they "stepped outside their boundaries."

(Men)struation

When I first read this article, I was rather indignant that Ms. Steinem would imply that men would follow a common stereotypical line if they had to deal with a monthly period. Upon further reviews, I realized how close to the mark she really was. I thought about what men value, in an incredibly general sense. Men tend to value achievements above many other things. We tend to want to constantly "one-up" our fellow man, whether how nice our cars are, how big our TV's are, how well our sports players are doing against others, how large our *ahem* muscles are.

So it would make sense that men would consider something so painful and embarrassing to be an achievement, even make fun of it. I certainly had a few chuckles while reading. It's one of those funny "what-if" situations, where everything is flipped on its head.

Her analogies and alternate thinking practically painted a picture in my head of the world she was describing. It was both hilarious, and interestingly enough, realistic.

Talk of the Town response

As I was very young on September 11, 2001, my memory is not able to recall much from that day.
It was, then, surprised to find at how vividly Mr. Updike's article creates the atmosphere. The horror to have witnessed a thousand lives snuffed out like a candle, what used to be a fast, safe, and easy mode of transportation used as a missile of our doom, the naivete of what seems to be an afterthought gone in a moment.

Mr. Updike also emphasized that people needed to move on from the events of the day. I am well-inclined to go along with said emphasis. I believe that a tragedy has, of course, to be mourned, such a death of a friend or family member that you were particularly close to. But there has to be an end to the mourning eventually. Moving on past grief is one of the first steps to accepting grief.

However, one must still have that mourning period. I feel like reality should have to set in once the shock has mostly wore off, but I also feel like Ms. Sontag was a teetering on the edge of insensitivity. She distanced herself from the emotion that would have followed 9/11 and instead just took the statements that were probably spoken from the tongues of scared, angry, and shocked men and women. We had been attacked on our own soil, our wall of seeming inexorable comfort had been obliterated. It's natural for us to feel like we need to reveal our emotions, not our logic.

Introduction

It's more of a tendency on my part to babble on about things that are not very gripping, so to say. So, if you'll forgive me for doing so, I shall proceed.

I'm Saul, a junior in high school currently. I am the youngest of 5 kids, and have experienced many of the advantages (i.e., my older brothers would often be told off whenever they teased me) and disadvantages (the age difference between my next older brother, 5 years, has led me to have to do the work that my parents don't want to do) of being where I am.

My interests are many, and one that is particularly close to my heart is the dramatic arts. While I've been "trying" to keep a hold on "The Worst Dancer in the History of Mankind," the other two pillars of the stage are my forte, the singing and the acting. I've been playing parts like Cogsworth from "Beauty and the Beast" and The Voice of the Plant in "Little Shop of Horrors." I'm currently in a production of "Fame" in another town, playing the part of Mr. Sheinkopf. It's a relatively small part, but I've been with this company for three years now, and have been "moving up" in my part size.

If you were to ask me about what I would like to do after school, I wouldn't really know what to say. I've been saying for the past few months that I would like to be a history professor or a museum curator. But it has seemed to be everyone's prerogative to discourage my going into either of those jobs. The main rationale is either "You probably won't be able to find a place that will need that job filled," or "The salary is incredibly low, why don't you do something else?" It's almost that "doing whatever you love to do" has been replaced by "doing whatever brings home a lot of money" as the ideal mindset for picking a job. I would much rather work at a place where I have little money after all my needs are taken care of, and love that job, than being able to have wads of cash in my pocket, but hate everything to do with my job.

One thing you must know about my blog posts: my cynical attitude will show itself often, if provoked. If it's any consolation, most of said attitude is how I am off the computer.