Transcendentalism

Transcendentalism is an idea that encompasses various components. The main point of this idea is to have people be more self-reliant, just like the essay we read in class. Transcendentalism assumes the best in people and nature, but believes organized religious and political parties are to blame for the faults in the purity of life. This idea a goodness being in everyone is an idea with which I definitely agree. Everyone has skills to offer to this world; it just takes time to find these skills sometimes. The scorn for organized religious activity is an area in which I don't necessarily agree. Although many believe religious activity can restrict the actions of people, I believe it can inspire them just as much to achieve the greatest heights of their dreams. Although part of a group, people should learn to be self-sufficient, and not reliant on others. This idea of self-reliance is another key to Transcendentalism. The idea behind this is that the best societies stem from people who think independently and express their own ideas and beliefs. Democratic ideals develop from this platform, because it promotes the individual, just as democracy does. Our democracy today is very reliant on political parties, just as transcendentalists feared would continue. I definitely agree with the rationale behind not having opposing political parties, but it has become so pivotal to our modern day society that we couldn't just flip a switch and change it now. While the ideas of transcendentalists about political parties were ideal, it just would not work in today's society.
Transcendentalism represents a sort of philosophical revolution of the time. The ideas behind it represented progress, some of which we still find in the modern day. Although I don't fully support all of the ideas in this movement, I feel the new main ideas brought about definitely moved society forward. This idea of self-reliance and thinking on one's own can definitely be said to have influenced those in women's rights and the Civil Rights Movement. These people thought for themselves, and the result ultimately changed the course of history, just as Transcendentalism did.

The Great Gatsby Response

The soundtrack of The Great Gatsby plays a unique role in the film. Most movies have music that fit into the time period in which the movie takes place, but the Gatsby does not follow this idea. Instead of using music from the 1920's, when the film takes place, this movie uses all modern music. This is a bold move by the producers because the right song has to be picked to correctly suit the scene. This is where the producers succeed greatly in this movie. To get an idea of the music, the soundtrack song names go as follows: "100$ Bill", "Back to Black", "Young and Beautiful", "Love is Blindness", "Crazy in Love", "Bang Bang", "I Like Large Parties", "A Little Party Never Killed Nobody", "Love is the Drug", "Can't Repeat the Past", "Hearts a Mess", "Where the Wind Blows", "Green Light", "No Church in the Wild", "Over the Love", "Together", "Into the Past", "Kill and Run", and "Over the Love."
All one has to do is read The Great Gatsby to understand these songs connect well with the movie's ideas. Not only are these songs in the movie, but they are well-placed in the film. For example, when Nick attends Gatsby's party for the first time, the song "A Little Party Never Killed Nobody" plays as the party gets crazier and crazier. While a song as this would have never played at the time, it fits well into the movie, and it connects well with the modern audience more than anything. Another fine example arises later in the movie when the song "Into the Past" plays when Gatsby and Daisy are together. Obviously, this is symbolic of Gatsby's incentive to try and relive the past. Overall, the soundtrack plays a pivotal role in not only entertaining the audience, but also connecting to the story as well.

Bowling for Columbine

The Michael Moore film "Bowling for Columbine" showed various scenes from the past to bring awareness to a problem. Although this film was released in 2002, there is no doubt, that the issue he brought before us still applies. Over a decade after Moore attempted to bring awareness to the issue, the issue has only become worse.
The film focused on three major tragedies that had occurred before the movie. Columbine, Buelle, and the Oklahoma City tragedy were the three main events that Moore dealt with in the film. All of these events brought great attention from the media as these events proved to be the firsts in a line of many more to come. Moore attacked this issue early looking back at the string of events. After the three events he talked about, it would become more and more common. In the country today we have come to expect tragedies like these almost once a month, if not more often. In a sense I feel Moore was a little ahead of his time in terms of attacking this issue. I wonder how much more popular this movie would have been had it been released recently. I believe a majority of the people at the time of the movie release thought these were just fluke events that would not continue. This, unfortunately, is not the truth, as the tragedies have accumulated exponentially since the movie's release. I did admire what Moore did at the end of the movie by seeking out several kids from the Columbine incident and bringing them to the K-Mart headquarters. I think this might have been a symbol for the fact that if the people really felt like there needed to be change, that the people could do so.
I believe "Bowling for Columbine" was an informatory film with an obvious political pull. Although this pull might turn some people off, the issue Moore brings before people is an issue that truly needs to be resolved.

Sound and Fury

                        This documentary really proved to be a topic of discussion. While I understood both sides of the argument as to whether the implants help, I ultimately agreed with the parents that gave their child the implant. The grandpa of Peter and Chris persuaded me the most of anyone. When talking to his son (Peter), he made the point that deafness, by its nature, is a fault in a bodily function. Humans are meant to hear. If the opportunity to fix this presents itself, why not take the opportunity? Peter argues that this will destroy the chance to know deaf culture. Peter does have a point here, because if the kid is fully immersed in the verbal world, chances are that his developing mind will become used to the outer world.
                      The theory does survive though that the child could get the best of both worlds. Nita brought this idea up when she talked to the other families. She said she wanted her child to be able to experience the deaf world and the verbal world. Nita became scared when one of the families told her that after an implant, children are discouraged from using sign language. Nita did not want her daughter to stop using sign language and "forget" the culture. A respectable point, but it neglects to ponder the full range of possibilities Heather may encounter. With hearing, the world has no limits because the majority of the world can hear. Her own father even mentions that, although he has a great job, he is limited to the heights that he can reach. The trade off remains here. Does he want to make the possibilities endless for his child? Or does he want to "preserve" the deaf culture?
                     With the implant available to everyone, the number of deaf people in the future appears less than ever. The culture may dwindle, but is this a negative, or a blessing? The fact we can reverse a handicap seems in and of itself, a miracle. Almost everyone would agree. Peter and his wife round out the opposition. Peter feels his the culture he has had his entire life may be in danger from the cochlear implant. When a situation is all a person has known his/her whole life, it can be extremely difficult to let go of the situation. There is great reward in a change of situation for his daughter though. She will experience all the opportunities the world has to offer. The trade-off appears to be similar to this. Would her father rather attempt to save a dwindling culture, or allow his daughter all the opportunities the world has to offer?

Irrational Fear

Fear of Spiders

Chad Herbst

Nowhere else in the world would I want to be. I have the covers just the way I want them on my bed, and the rain dancing on the house creates an even more comfortable situation. Then, suddenly, I feel something crawling on my leg. Without even considering destructing my comfortability, I hurdle out of my bed like an olympic athlete. I fire my blankets across the room onto my brother’s bed, hoping selfishly that the spider finds his bed a more suitable home. Arachnophobia at its finest folks. The spider surely meant no harm, and even if it did, a creature the size of a dime would presumably struggle to adequately harm me. Nevertheless, the fact that I could not locate the eight-legged menace meant a migration to another room for my slumber. No chances can be taken when a spider is on the loose. Now if the the arachnid had claimed the ceiling, that would be ok, because one can always keep tabs on a spider up above. But the second the creature ventures in heat’s opposite direction, that is where the line must be drawn. Then there’s always the unfortunate situation where one individual may be summoned by another to eliminate the spider on the ceiling. Such a precise task this is. Stab too fast with the paper towel, and the spider is knocked from the ceiling to the camouflaged floor below. Attack the creature too slow, and it crawls from the paper towel to freedom for another minute. A sport in its own right: Arach-Attack. Whether the sport catches on or not, people in shoes my size only hope that the ones who do play can maybe put a dent in the spider population.

Ad Analysis

The ad from 1976 that I read was in support of Jimmy Carter. He ended up winning this election accumulating over 50% of the popular vote and 297 electoral votes. The message the ad portrayed was that Carter is an honest man who will bring "change" and be more "open" with the people. This is essentially the story that Carter gets across. The past shenanigans of Richard Nixon have lost the people's trust, so the "story" that the ad is that Carter is not like Nixon. The ethos based argument used in this ad has a lot to do with decorum. The people felt after Nixon resigned, that they needed someone in office who they could truly trust. In other words, they needed someone to fit into this role, or to fill this decorum. This ad emphasizes just this. By portraying Carter the they do, the ad makers allow Carter to have the right decorum to fit the job of president. Aside from decorum, the ad also slightly deals with logos. The ad talks up Carter several times on character traits that Nixon proved he did not have. By emphasizing these traits in Carter, it would not make sense why an individual would not want to elect him. Although a stretch, logos does play its cards here. The simplicity of the ad struck me as interesting. Generally, a simple ad needs not ten seconds to wrap up. This ad proved extremely simple the entire time, but it lasted over thirty seconds. That was the only other component that stuck out to me.
The ad about Obama was in support of his doings in the past. It was a response to a Republican ad that must have bashed him. The response must have been sufficient because Obama came out on top that year in the election. The message Obama wishes to get across in the ad is that what the Republicans said is not true. He says in the video that the Republicans took his comments on small businesses "out of context." Obama claims he completely backs these people because of their "sacrifice." Ethos is a big part of Mr. Obama's argument as well. Part of the book's definition of ethos is the "ability to look trustworthy." Obama surely wants to abide by this idea. By setting things straight in this ad, he informs people of the truth while gaining trust. There is a quote in the TYFA book that complements this idea well when it reads, "While logos sweats over its GPA, ethos gets elected class president." In Obama's case, he gets elected the actual president. Other than ethos, I believe the ad exercises logos also. Logos states, "the best resources come from your opponent's mouth." Obama is obviously attacked earlier with his words on small business, but he turns around his opponents words to make it seem as if he had the right idea the whole time. This ad differs greatly from the past one, because the times have changed and campaigning is a whole new animal.

"Blurred Lines" Response

This was an entertaining subject to read about. Everyone knows the song "Blurred Lines", so it allows for a seemingly universal medium to debate through. Both articles brought forth worthy arguments that made it tough on the reader to choose a side. I was slightly swayed prior to the articles, and I have stayed put in terms of how I feel about the song. While "Blurred Lines" may be rather inappropriate in terms of its content, I do believe the song is relatively harmless, and not as evil as some subjects make it out to be.
The article by Jennifer Lai discussed whether the summer tune was a "rape anthem." Lai disagreed with this statement for several reasons, but possibly the best reason can be found in the words that escape Pharrell's mouth. Lai references how Pharrell sings in the background constantly, "I know you want it." No surprise, critics hear this and immediately get the wrong idea. Lai does make a valid point about this statement. She states,"Yes, "I know you want it" could be said by a rapist—but so could “Do you want to go to a movie tonight?”" This was an idea I had not really considered until after Lai mentioned it. Lai also compared this song to other R&B works in today's music industry. While the lyrics of the song are seriously questionable, they seem harmless in comparison to some of today's lyrics. Lai feels similar, and she explains this when she states, "I've listened to the song a few hundred times (yeah, I like it, and I don't find it any more offensive than other R&B songs), and I really can't imagine it depicting anything more than a flirtatious scenario in which a cocky guy (we all know the type) teases a girl who's flirting back (she's hugging him and grabbing at him)." A song like this makes me realize the inconsistency of critics these days. Maybe because "Blurred Lines" was so popular, but many other offensive and inappropriate songs stand in the top fifty also. From time to time, you may hear a critic rip on some new popular song about its content, but it appears "Blurred Lines" has been the ultimate magnet in attracting critics. Tricia Romano does a fine job revealing some obvious reasons why many show opposition to the number one song of this past summer. Romano states early on about the obvious problems, "Not surprisingly the combination of the lyrics and the video’s nudity has irked some female music fans." I entirely agree with this statement. The nature of the song is bound not to work in accordance with everyone's morals. Romano brings this basis of opposition to light various times in her article. She implements a direct quote from Robin Thicke that works in her favor immensely. The quote reads, "“We pretty much wanted to take all the taboos of what you’re not supposed to do—bestiality, you know, injecting a girl in her bum with a five-foot syringe—I just wanted to break every rule of things you’re not supposed to do and make people realize how silly some of these rules are.”" After a quote like this, the author has to do little to persuade at all. The logic just does not appear to be there in Thicke's quote. No rhyme or reason really resounds for the events in which he mentions. While these events might "break every rule", they are surely not as bad as other works and lyrics as Lai mentioned earlier. Both authors bring up great points about the subject, but the turning point for me was the quote by XOJane's Grace Rasumus. The statement by this subject reads, "these lyrics seem more like temptation after a lame relationship as opposed to impending sexual assault." This quote sums up how I feel about this topic of debate. While some see the song as a sexual misdemeanor, it seems more of a parody, or "lame relationship" than anything.