Are you a Transcendentalist?

From my understanding, Transcendentalism is a way of life, a way of thinking. A true transcendentalist will focus on themself and on their own mental well being and thoughts. While they will be aware of their surroundings and of God, they will not let outside activities or entities influence them more than they influence themself. When the time comes to voice their opinion they will do so but in a non-violent non-disruptive way.

In transcendentalism I agree that people should get to know themselves and that people should do what they believe is good and right. I like that it is so focussed on doing what the individual wants and not so much what the group wants. It is like nonconforming but still fitting in.

I don't like how strongly transcendentalists spoke of their beliefs. It was as if they preached to people to be more open minded and to stick with their gut but if they didn't, they were a bad person. Transcendentalism just seemed a little forced to me I guess.

I would say I am somewhat of a transcendentalist. I carry my own beliefs and if asked will share them, but I still put faith in God and the government. I would say I conform more to society than a true transcendentalist would, but not so much so that I just get looked past because I totally blend in.

The Great Gatsby

I really liked The Great Gatsby movie. There were many appealing elements that went into this movie like the music and special effects. I also enjoyed it because it helped clear up the confusion and frustration that The Great Gatsby book left me with.
I always notice the music in movies and I really liked the music in The Great Gatsby. It was very cool how the music was both from the 1920s but also from the current time period. Energetic swinging jazz was intertwined with the rap and pop we are familiar with today. The song, "Young and Beautiful" was also played periodically in the background, sometimes quickly and sometimes drawn out and longingly. I fell in love with this song before I had even seen The Great Gatsby but now that I have seen the movie I can appreciate the song more. The lyrics really fit with some of the major themes in The Great Gatsby.
I also loved the special effects and setting of the movie. The environment that the characters were living in was just so different than the one I am used to and it was so vividly portrayed that it was almost as if I was in the same room as Gatsby himself. My favorite scene was probably when we first meet Daisy and Jordan as they are sitting on the couch. The way the white curtains dance around the room and just the airiness of it all is magical. It was like a dream that made it so life could go on in perfect happiness forever.

Bowling for Columbine

In Bowling for Columbine Michael Moore attempted to discover why it is that Americans own more guns and kill more people with them than any other country despite the fact that other countries do indeed have firearms. While he was unable to answer his question, Moore was able to really make me think about gun control issues in a new way and ironic way.

At one point in Bowling for Columbine, Moore played "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" followed by "What a Wonderful World." Both songs exert a peaceful emotion, but when combined with videos showing people dying via bullet wound and graphics illustrating the victims of war, the emotions turn sour. These two very contrasting medias also create confusion. Did I really just watch someone get shot while Louis sang, "'I see friends shaking hands, sayin' ,'How do you do?' They're really sayin', 'I love you.'?" This makes people think.
At first it seems so normal to be watching people get shot because it happens all the time in video games and action movies but once the realization sets in that Bowling for Columbine is not a fiction, there is no longer anything normal about the matter. It is also to hear "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" and "What a Wonderful Rainbow" as background songs in movies and TV shows, but never when people are dying and blood is strewn everywhere. Maybe it's just me, but the combination of the two makes me think that either Moore was indeed just being terribly ironic, or that he was trying to send the viewer a deeper message about gun culture in America. Could it be that gun violence is so prevalent in America today that it is on the cusp of normalcy? Could it be that in order to create a wonderful world we need to shoot people we don't like? Or is Moore relaying the longing desire for there, somewhere over the rainbow, to be less gun violence?

Another approach Moore took in order to pull the trigger inside the viewer's mind was to take his documentary into everyday life. The viewer is introduced to multiple Michigan residents who all happened to be bomb enthusiast, gun loving, bullet crazy people that said they would never ever ever take someone's life with a weapon. They simply had weapons because the American Constitution said they could. Having guns simply because they can is something I think a lot of Americans can relate to. I used to think that people only had guns for hunting or for sport, but to have a gun just because you can seems childish. Moore also ventured north into Canada where he, as an American might call it, broke in and entered random homes. What was interesting about Moore's "crime" was that it was not seen as a crime in Canada as most people just leave their front door unlocked and often open anyway. They have no fear of someone breaking in much less breaking in with a gun. I think that fear-free mentality is something Americans should strive to adopt.

Sound and Fury Review

The documentary Sound and Fury was about an extended family and their decision on whether or not to allow their children to receive cochlear implants. The film followed Peter and his wife Nita, both of whom were born deaf, and their three deaf children. It also follows Peter's brother's family consisting of Peter's brother, Chris, Chris's wife Mari, and their twins, one of which was born deaf. The call on whether or not a cochlear implant would be the best for their children was not an easy one to make. In the end Peter and Nita decided to keep their children completely inside the deaf culture and to decline the implant. Chris and Mari on the other hand, decided to forgo the procedure and could not have been more pleased or grateful with their decision.

While I see Peter and Ninas' side of the issue, I agree with Chris and Maris' side. Peter and Nina, knowing nothing other than the deaf world, thought that if their children were to become hearing children, they would loose touch with their deaf self. They would stop signing and never look at deaf culture again. I see how this could be concerning as the deaf culture is a culture all in its own and should be respected but Chris and Mari were right in saying that by keeping their kids deaf, they would be withholding opportunities from them. By not allowing their daughter to receive the cochlear implant she wanted, I believe that they were restricting her in life. Like I said, I understand that Peter and Nina want their daughter to be a part of deaf culture but why not allow her to be apart of two cultures?

I think part of my opinion stems from my slight experience with deaf people. Although not completely deaf, my mom is deaf in one ear. She was not born deaf, but a complication during surgery caused the surgeon to have to close her right ear. While this is nothing like actually being deaf, my brothers and I experience acute experiences that a deaf person might. People will be talking to my mom on her right side and she won't hear a thing. Sometimes this comes off as rude or as if my mom is just stupid. My mom can't see this, but my brothers and I see it all the time. We also have to sit a certain way at restaurants so that my mom can be on the side of the table she will be able to hear on. Based off this and based off when my mom shares her frustrations of being only half deaf, I would love if my mom was able to receive a cochlear implant. That's why I would be all for cochlear implants for those who are completely deaf.

Fear of Firetrucks

It’s super ironic and very stupid, but I am afraid of firetrucks. I say this is ironic because firetrucks are supposed to be my “friend.” They are supposed to help me and all other people when in need. They are a powerful, big, red superhero. I think their quality of being powerful and big is what gets to me. Now I don’t mean to jump to the worst possible scenario, but what what if a big powerful firetruck runs you over? You don’t stand a chance! When I was younger I would cry and hide behind my parents when firetrucks rolled past us during a parade. My favorite kind of candy is lying in the middle of the road. Do I want it? No! What if that oncoming firetruck forgets to brake and crushes my body? Again, this is a worst case scenario but in the world of intense fears, it is very real.

My fear of trains stems from the same place as my fear of firetrucks. Trains, in addition to being big and powerful cannot break quickly like a firetruck can. It takes a train upward of two miles to come to a complete stop and so if you get in front of a train it will squash you like a steam roller. Want another worst case scenario? You are in your car and suddenly it stops. On the train tracks. Then a train comes and hits you. You’re dead. Or another terrible event would be a train tipping off it’s tracks and into a lake. I’m talking about the narrow bridges that go across large bodies of water. Due to the weight of the train, anyone and anything in that train is going to drown and you are going to die.

What may be the weirdest part about my fear of firetrucks and trains is that I am not afraid of other large vehicles and machines like diggers and concrete mixers. One would think that if my reasons for being scared were because the vehicles were big and noisy, one would also think that I would be scared of all like vehicles. The other peculiar thing is that I have never had any sort of traumatizing event pertaining to firetrucks or trains. I think the problem is that Entertainment goes crazy with action movies and then my imagination runs wild.

Political Ad Response

I watched the John F. Kennedy jingle from 1960 and an add for Barack Obama from 2012. Both adds put the candidate in the positive spotlight and both candidates ended up winning their particular election.

As far as ethos goes, I do not think either add used much of it. Kennedy's ad was catchy and exciting, but it made many claims that were not backed up and that were not easily credible. Saying that Kennedy is, "willing to try new things," and, "Old enough to know but young enough to do," sounds nice but how does anyone really know that it is true? It is hard to tell who someone is when the only glimpse you get of a person is through media so we have to relay on media to inform us with the truth. That doesn't however make it credible. Obama's add started off by saying that a previous add created against Obama by his opponent, Mitt Romney, was false. While it is easy to believe that Romney really did create a false add against Obama, it is difficult to find ethos in Obama's add because I had no knowledge of Romney's add. Obama then went on to talk about how he has small business owners' backs. This is slightly more credible only because Obama was running for reelection in this particular campaign so the people had already seen what he could and did do.

What both adds had in common was their use of pathos and logos. Due to the, in my opinion, lack of ethos, it was necessary for the candidates to use pathos and logos because without it there would be no connect to the voters. People are warmed by knowing that their leader is kind, educated, and willing to do what is best for them and so that's what Obama and Kennedy said they would be and do.

"Blurred Lines"

I would like to start off by saying how happy I am that Mr. Kunkle did not show us the original "Blurred Lines" video. Clicking play on the video inserted into Tricia Romano's review of this controversial song was a mistake for me. I watched about twenty seconds and then called it quits. Putting the original video aside, I originally had thought that "Blurred Lines" was an outrageously nasty song that shed a false light on women. After reading Jennifer Lai's review, my opinion changed. Is this song "bad?" Yes. Is it as "bad" as some people so strongly claim it to be? No. I respected Lai when she said, "Is Thicke being kind of a dick by assuming he could 'liberate' her? Yes. But is he forcing her to do anything? No." This quote is a complete 180 from Romano's review where she claims that "Blurred Lines" is rapey. 

As far as whether or not "Blurred Lines" is sexism disguised in a song, I think it is. Even though I would not go so far as to call the song "rapey" I would agree with anyone who says that it is downgrading women. Robin Thicke is is basically taunting women with himself and making them act ridiculous for his own enjoyment. He portrays them as needy and immature. I imagine White Goodman at the end of Dodgeball. Robin Thicke would be White Goodman and the food would be the girls. Nasty. Nasty enough that no one has to watch the video.

While it may be hard to escape seeing the video, and definitely from not hearing the song altogether, it is possible to avoid it. The, for lack of a better term, problem, is  that those who claim to be so outraged by the video and lyrical content still listen to the song and songs far worse.This then given the artist the green light to create more songs and videos just like the last and receive more fame and fortune. That discussed person has just made the song no so bad after all. That is the very reason that pop culture today is so risque. Do I personally think it's right? No. Do I still listen to "Blurred Lines" and other questionable yet catchy songs? Yes.