Sound And Fury (Not to be Confused With Balls of Fury)

I finished watching Sound of Fury on Netflix over the weekend, and I have to say that I found it incredibly interesting. I have only known a few deaf people in my entire life, and I didn't really get to know them, so going into this I was practically clueless.

I had no idea that some deaf people saw things like cochlear implants as defying nature. They think that because their children are born deaf, that is the way they were intended to be. Messing with that is seen as completely awful to many of them.

One scene in the movie showed the conversation between the mother of a deaf baby and the grandmother of that same deaf child. The mother wanted cochlear implants in order to help the child have a more normal life. To hearing people, it seems like that would be an easy decision. Yes, the child should be able to hear if there is something that can be done about it. The grandmother, on the other hand, said that she was happy when she found out her grandchild was born deaf. She was very proud of the deaf culture and wanted her grandchild to experience that.

Throughout the movie, it was very easy to see that, for the most part, the only people who were against cochlear implants were people who could not hear. Those who could were totally for it. That is, without a doubt, due to the what these individuals have experienced in the past. The father of a young, deaf girl was against cochlear implants. That probably has to do with the fact that at some point in his life, he had to completely accept that he was deaf. Once he accepted it, he used it as a part of who he is as a person. The fact that his daughter may not have to accept that she is deaf was foreign to him.

The many arguments that broke out over this issue clearly show that this issue has a lot of passion behind it on both sides. It's a personal choice for both the child and the parent, but both sides have very good reasons for believing what they do.

The main point of this documentary is to show that people believe the things they do because of the discourses they belong to. People who aren’t deaf couldn’t possibly understand what it must be like to have people wanting to use technology to allow deaf kids to possibly hear. They view it as changing nature, where people who have been able to hear their entire lives see nothing wrong with it.

Fear

Failure. That fear may seem like a mild inconvenience, but in reality, it has prevented me from doing some potentially amazing things. I try to imagine the what I would be able to do if I knew I couldn't fail, and the possibilities truly seem endless. Maybe I'd start a business or move to a new country and start a new life. If I knew I couldn't fail and things wouldn't be any worse than they are now (not saying things are bad, they're actually pretty good) I would be able to do almost anything and go anywhere.

I'm not a risk-taker and that is simply because of my fear of failure. If a so-called "risk" contains even a slight chance of failure, I would have a really hard time taking that risk because of it. Even if a failure would result in no ill consequences, I still fear it. For example, I cannot get myself to apply to colleges that I am not sure if I can be admitted. I fear a letter in the mail that would contain a denial or wait list. So, I've only applied to schools that I know I'll get into. It's odd, really. I know that I'm far from alone, though.

It may root back to critics of my past. Failures, when you're young, result in being laughed at or mocked. If you raise your hand in class and get the question wrong, everybody looks at you and makes you feel really small. Middle school is the prime time for fearing failure, as so many classmates are downright cruel. Middle school is where people are trying to find out who they really are. In the process, many go along with people that have power. Often, people with "power" are the mean ones. There is a lot of unkindness during that age, and although it may not have affected  a whole lot me as far as I'm aware a whole lot, I'm sure many people are afraid of failure because of how people made them feel in middle school.

In golf, which is something I play A LOT, I fear shots sometimes. Golf is all about confidence, and if you know that you're going to hit a really good shot, you will. If you fear a potentially risky shot over the water, you'll hit it in the water. The rounds where I'm loose and  I'm certain that all of my practice has paid off are the ones where I play out of my mind. As soon as it's pressured and, I forget about how much I have practiced, and I often have fear out on the course.

Fear of failure is something that I'd love to get over. I'm not sure how to go about that, but it needs to be done.

Wiki Leaks

This whole issue of Wiki Leaks in an interesting one, that's for sure. Some people have very strong feelings on the topic, and those go both ways.

Many people see Julian Assange as a heroic figure, as he has helped leak different things that have actually changed the world. The election in Kenya is the best example that comes to mind. Because of that single leak, the election was swung by 10%. That changed the course of the election. For this, Wiki Leaks and Assange are viewed in a glorious and heroic light.

On the flip side, others think of Assange as just some trouble maker who doesn't have the right to leak this information. At times, the info that has been leaked has hurt some people in the process. One example would be Chelsea Manning. In a way, Wiki Leaks basically made her look like a traitor to the United States. That fact has, most likely, ruined the rest of her life.

In addition, some leaks are quite brutal make American soldiers look very heartless in the process. This is not something that most American enjoy seeing, and that makes many people dislike Wiki Leaks.

The main question remains: did Assange have the right to release these documents  Although there are U.S. laws that state that the government has the right to have privacy over documents that have to do with national defense  but according to the article, no news source has ever officially been punished for releasing secrets. I strongly believe that this fact has to do with the First Amendment. That protects our right to free speech, and I simply cannot see any court ruling against this because of the First Amendment.

A ton of people think of Assange as a hero. If he received a really harsh punishment, or if an "accident" happened to him, there would be a lot of anger out there. People would probably start riots and the government would have even more problems on its hands. I think that the government will stick to their current plan and just leave him be where he is. It's a passive strategy, but both the government and Assange are stuck right where they are, and there doesn't appear to be a way that either party would win if they came out of their stalemate.

How We Decide

Over the past few months, I have learned something about myself: I am chronically indecisive. I have trouble making even the most unimportant things. You all should see me try to order a sandwich at Subway. I treat a decision that small as if it'll impact the rest of my life.

My friend Tess Hopkins and I found ourselves at Half Priced Books one fine, summer afternoon. We both talk of being indecisive, and so we ventured over to the self help section to pick out our book for this AP Comp assignment. We both picked out a couple of books about getting over indecisiveness, and I kid you not, we had a hard time deciding on which book about indecisiveness we wanted. Tess and I had a darn good laugh about that one. 

Finally, I just randomly chose one. "How We Decide" by Jonah Leher proved to be not only an interesting read, but a very beneficial one for my chronic indecisiveness. Leher has studied neurology from Columbia University in addition to psychology. "How We Decide" was researched thoroughly, and every fact about decision making provided is paired with a study done at top universities and a story about an everyday person facing the issue present. For example, one section was about leaving your brain on autopilot because it normally knows what it's doing. The story that was paired with information was one about an opera singer named Renee Fleming. She has sung a famous and complicated piece of opera hundreds of times, and can normally perform it flawlessly without blinking an eye. Suddenly, Fleming began to think about the mechanics of singing instead of just letting her brain take care of it on autopilot. She began making mistakes while performing, and the thought process became even more involved. After years of singing, Fleming even considered retiring because she felt like she couldn't get her groove back.

The mind is a very complex thing, and as it turns out, decision making is one of the more complex things involved with the mind. As a chronic indecisive, I was happy to learn that I'm not the only one who has a hard time making decisions... even the easy ones. "How We Decide" started off with how to make decisions when you can't make the easy ones. The key is to go with your gut. Every single time, just go with your gut. Pretty soon, your brain will learn which decisions were good, and which were bad. The brain will begin to change its neurological connections in order to better improve one's decision making.

"How We Decide" is a book that I really enjoyed reading. I found, too, that psychology is a very interesting thing. We humans are complex creatures, and we will probably never know everything about our minds. I really enjoyed reading this, and because of this, I'm on the road to recovery from my serious condition of chronic indecisiveness. I'm totally kidding; it's not really that serious, but it is rather annoying. I'd recommend "How We Decide" to anybody. 

The Feminist View

The three articles "The Vindication of the Rights of Women", "The Great Lawsuit", and "If Men Could Menstruate" all had one very obvious thing in common: feminism.

Each article discussed the various ways in which women are either treated differently than men, or even just viewed differently.

The first article, "The Vindication of the Rights of Women", was pretty difficult for me to comprehend. The dialogue of the late 1700's is just a wee bit different than that of today. There was plenty of vocab for me to add to my note cards (yay?), but that made this one pretty tricky. The gist of what I got out of it was that girls should be able to go to school with boys because that would help them think for themselves. During the late 1700's, women were not considered very highly on the social spectrum. Because of this, they took care of the house, and they didn't have much of a reason to think for themselves. I did like this article, as I've never read anything like it. The fact that girls and boys would go to school together seemed so outlandish; I remember having to sit "boy-girl-boy-girl" in first grade as a sort of punishment. Going to school with boys is all we've known for years.

The next, "The Great Lawsuit", was also a blast from the past, as it was first published in 1843. This one was pretty difficult to read too, but again, I think that's because of the 19th century lingo. "The Great Lawsuit" talked of the hidden power of women. One part even talks about how women greatly influence men, but they aren't really willing to admit nor acknowledge it. Women were still looked at as slaves, but they had more power than most men cared to admit.

The last, and my personal favorite, "If Men Could Menstruate" made me LLOL (literally laugh out loud) multiple times. It's funny how men would easily put a spin on something of this nature. I especially liked the part about how men would say "he's a three-pad man" as if that's a really impressive thing to be. Girls are not that way at all. I'll admit that the subject does come up when chatting with good girl friends, but it's never a braggadocios affair. Men would easily make it that way. They would make menstruation holy, too, saying that Jesus bled for our sins. Women are considered impure, because unlike Jesus, they don't bleed. This article seemed so accurate, and it was hilariously written. I can picture guys complaining profusely about cramps and telling women that they just don't understand.

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

While reading this article, I found it frightening just how many times I could relate to the things it discussed.

For me, the most scary and relevant thing that I related to is the fact that I used to be an avid "deep" reader. I would read every night before bed and not just read, I'd ponder the book some after I was done with it, too. It was a good habit, and I thoroughly enjoyed doing it. Lately, however, I have noticed that I read for fun much less than I used to. I have "successfully" read a half of two different books, so I guess that means I have read a full book this summer. I get so bored with reading after just a few pages, which is one of the key concepts from the article. I have become an avid skimmer instead of an avid reader, and it's sad that I don't enjoy reading as much as I used to. This article hit it right on the head.

This article also discussed how the human mind is being shaped by the easy of internet. I found the part about Nietzche particularly interesting. His writing style changed drastically after introducing a type writer verses just writing his thoughts. The funny thing, to me anyway, is that there isn't as much of a difference from writing to a type writer as there is from writing to a computer. A computer does plenty of services for us, like making research much easier. A typewriter can't do that, all it does is help you type the thoughts you could have just written out. It may make it go a little more quickly, but it's hard to believe that small change could result in a huge difference in writing styles. If that change was that big from writing to type writer, it makes one wonder how big of a change will come from writing/using a type writer to using a computer.

The last scary point from this article is the attitude of the founders of Google. Page, one of the founders, said the following:

"Certainly if you had all the world's information directly attached to your brain, or an artificial brain that was smarter than your brain, you'd be better off"

I personally disagree. Having access to every bit of information does not make anyone smarter.

Google, I love you, man, but you're really harshing my mellow.

The Ethics of Living Jim Crow

This article, as it turns out, was actually pretty powerful. I certainly believe that it's because this story was from a person who lived through it: somebody who was present has a lot more power with writing on the subject as opposed to somebody who just writes about facts and wasn't actually there. I like how this piece was set up, and I think it's structure made it that much more enjoyable and thought-provoking.

Now on to the story itself. One of the most powerful things about this essay, I think, came in the beginning. After being hit with a broken bottle and getting hurt both physically and emotionally, his mother's reaction was shocking. She was one of those people who simply accepted how the black people were being treated. She thought they deserved it, even. After the white people constantly stated that blacks weren't worth a darn, that concept was drilled into their heads. When his mother told him that he should be thankful that the whites didn't kill him, it became clear that she felt as though obeying the whites was a much better alternative to standing up for oneself. It was a much safer route, that's for sure.

The next Jim Crow Lesson was just as bad. When starting a new job at a factory, Richard was put under the impression that he would learn something valuable. After awhile of not doing such a thing, he asked his superiors to teach him something. Well, they didn't like the fact that a black man wanted to learn something. That is sickening to me. How could it not even be socially acceptable for black people to learn something? The worst part about that concept, to me, is that white people always called black people stupid, but as soon as they wanted to learn something, it was heavily frowned upon. Richard received a beating even though he was promised some new knowledge.

I knew that life had to be hard for black people during this time period, but I didn't know that a women getting beat up was considered mild. That's absolutely crazy, and thank goodness that kind of thing doesn't happen often, if not, anymore. This article really captured how things were back in those days for a young, black man, and it sort of made me realize how easy my life was while growing up.

Talk of the Town

There are plenty of articles out there that show the good in the world. Stories of massive fundraisers and  successful organ transplants and other lovely things fill up the pages in the newspaper and on the internet.

"Talk of the Town" is not one of those heart-warming articles that instils good feelings nor joy. Both paint pictures of a harsh reality that we know as 9/11. The first piece by John Updike focuses more the actual event and the initial shock that came with it.

The author saw this tragedy from afar, but in person, while it was happening. Updike's article describes the scene in great detail, often using words that one would normally use to project beauty. For me, that was one of the confusing parts. He wrote, "... the sulfurous cloud streaming south toward the ocean, was pure blue, rendered uncannily pristine by the absence of jet trails" when describing the scene, and that would normally give off a connotation that it was somehow beautiful. Perhaps the picture was hauntingly beautiful, as up until the first plane crash, the day was perfect. The sky was blue and the sun was shining on a nice fall day. Things were beautiful and then suddenly they weren't. The very last line in the piece contributes to this idea of haunting beauty. It says, "... the ruins were still sending out smoke, but New York looked glorious." This tragic beauty seems to be a theme, even. 

The line, "We knew we had just witnessed thousands of deaths" is very simply put, but also very haunting and real. I would barely be able to handle witnessing even one persons death, and I can't even imagine what it must have been like to witness thousands all at once. One can look at pictures or Youtube videos of the event and still feel many different emotions, but I highly doubt it can compare to seeing it live. 

This article also speaks of the aftermath. One nightmare would be cleaning up the whole scene, with of the bodies and all. People trying to find their loved ones and hoping and praying that they somehow made it out alive. The most real one, to me anyway, is how the sound of an airplane put people on edge for a while after the incident. With the aftermath, it also brings the question of "What could we have done to prevent this?"

The second article, by Susan Sontag, focuses more on how we as a nation handled the situation. It starts out by discussing the faults of the media and how they tend to spin things. That much is true; it can be very difficult to decipher what is fact and what is fiction when watching the news sometimes. 

It also talks of how our leaders are saying that this country was still strong even after this attack. Sontag basically said that was rubbish, and our leaders are cowardly for saying such a thing. Even if America was at a low point during this attack, there is no way our leaders could have outright said we were weak. If Sontag is getting mad at Bush for saying that our country is strong, imagine how many people would have hated him if he would have said something along the lines of "We were attacked, and America, quite frankly, is very weak right now". Americans pride themselves on being strong and able to overcome anything. Telling the "truth" about it wouldn't have gone over well, so I don't really understand why Sontag is criticizing because of that. 

The first article's tone was more mild and mellancholy. It simply described the event in detail, but didn't offer opinions on anything. The second, on the other hand, had an angry and sarcastic tone. It had a strong opinion about how 9/11 was handled. 

Erin Culver: An Attempted Explanation

Hello dear people!


I would first like to bring out the welcome wagon and invite you to make yourself feel right at home here at my blog "The Plan Is Simple: We Blog About AP Comp". Feel free to take a seat if you're not already. A steaming brew of green tea might prove to be a nice touch, as well. Shall we get started? I think we shall.

I am Erin Culver, and this fall I will be a senior. I guess you could say that I'm getting pretty old. Time flies when you're having fun, am I right? Well I'd like to take this time to assemble a list of facts about myself. Here it goes.

1. Sometimes I wish I could just skip the whole work force and go right to retirement. I'd be good at being retired, I think. I can picture myself living in a small cottage doing Sudoku and watching The Price Is Right on a daily basis. A girl can dream.

2. I really enjoy being healthy. Nutrition and exercise are absolutely fascinating to me, and I hope to make a career out of that someday. I find that I am much less stressed when I eat well and exercise almost everyday, and I'm pretty sure I'd go crazy if I didn't do both of those.

3. I think that life would be impossible without music. I can't imagine trying to do mundane tasks without listening to my Ipod. I'm pretty sure I would despise laundry and other household tasks if I couldn't jam while doing so. A few of my favorite artists include Mumford & Sons, Cage The Elephant, The Black Keys, and many more.

4. My favorite activity, hands down and no questions about it, is to laugh. I can be very serious if I need to be, but I just plain prefer to joke around and laugh. They say laughter is the best medicine, and I can't help but agree. It's another one of those things where I would go crazy if I didn't have it.

5. I love reading and pondering inspirational quotes. Despite the fact that I usually prefer not to be serious, there have been plenty of times where I have enjoyed reading the inspirational quote section on Pinterest and thinking deep thoughts about life.

6. I have been told by many that I'm a "people person".  I those people are correct, for my happiest times are spent outside the house and with people. I'm somebody that would rather spend money on going to dinner with friends instead of buying a new Gameboy or something. Don't get me wrong, I grew up with a Gameboy, I just prefer to spend time out and about with people and to be social.

And that concludes this episode of Random Facts About Erin Culver. Sorry to disappoint, but I think this  pilot episode may be the only episode of Random Facts About Erin Culver. I hope you have enjoyed your stay, and check back for more posts. They'll be on here very, very soon. It will be... excellent.