Transcendentalism; Are you a Transcendentalist?

Transcendentalism was a philosophy that surfaced in the 1900's by the Europeans. Transcendentalists believe in the inherent goodness of both people and nature. They contradict the idea at the time, communism, and believe more in individualism. The philosophy preaches that society and its institutions—particularly organized religion and political parties—ultimately corrupt the purity of the individual. People are at their best when truly "self-reliant" and independent and it is only from such real individuals that true community could be formed. While transcendentalists did view society as wasting away thanks to wayward political institutions and a lack of spiritual awareness, the writings of the transcendentalists are generally optimistic. Transcendentalists expressed their social criticism and moral disgust with society but believed that people are good and have a purpose to serve while on earth. Historical accounts of civil disobedience, such as the Abolitionist Movement and the Women's Right Movement, are considered to be societal Transendentalism. Since transendentalists beleived the system tobe corrupted, these movements are seen as rebellion.

For me, organized western religion seems to be an outdated cult. Like history is interpreted, so can the writings of God-- pretty obvious in the serman "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God".  Looking at the tangible facts, there is no proof that a God exists. Why put all faith and happiness in something that might not exist? Individuals exist, why not let happiness come from within? Like a transendentalist, I align more with the values of eastern religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism. One large aspect of Budhism I beleive in is Karma, with every action you take there are repercussions. When a person has lived up to good Karma, an individual can reach Enlightenment. Enlightenment is the ultimate goal of the Budhist religion and can be reached by searching yourself through meditation and treating others how you would want to be treated. Shouldn't we all want to live up to Enlightenment?

But rebellion isn't always a bad thing. It takes the independent thinking of transendentalism to realize government corruption, plus society as a whole benefits. I don't beleive that the people in government are corrupt, but are a reflection of the society we live in. When it comes down to it, government officials are a mere reflection of society. Looking at current events from a transendentalist view, police officers themselves aren't corrupt, but the system is. Some people are putting their furry for corruption directly towards the police individuals, saying they personally are racists and evil. Ralph Waldo Emerson is rolling in his grave for their narrowmindednesss. He would not condone civil disobedience if it was done right, but what we're doing now is not very transendentalist.

I wouldn't be offended if someone called me a transendentalist, in fact I would probably agree.

The Great Gatsby: Fitzgerald vs. Luhrmann

Overall, Luhrmann did his best to maintain the tone Fitzgerald had in the novel. The cast was accurate with the heavy descriptions of the characters in the book as well as the setting it was filmed in. Fitzgerald created such vivid and specific pictures along with rich dialog. In a sense, Luhrmann pretty much had the scenes and characters already laid out from the text. Luhrmann was consistent with the plot and dialog in the novel, but did make noticeable tweaks to the story and characters.

- To give frame to Nick Carraway's narration, Luhrmann opens with a broken-alcoholic Nick in therapy. This does work well for a narration in a movie, but it shows Nick as distraught and venerable, unlike in the novel where he is a careful and considerate person. Although not accurate, this alcoholic narration gives a purpose to the creation of book The Great Gatsby.

- Perhaps for the sake of Hollywood entertainment, Daisy is portrayed more as a damsel-in-distress  than a free-spirited woman. Fitzgerald goes into deep detail about the sound of Daisy's voice which really gives Daisy her whimsical charm that is felt in the novel. For Luhrmann, he certainly captured Daisy's beauty, but not so much her brains.

- Meyer Wolfsheim is also portrayed a little differently in the film than the novel. A striking feature of Wolfsheim in the novel is his cufflinks made of human teeth, making him much more barbarian. The film only shows him with one human tooth acting as a broach on his suit. Understandably, human teeth as cufflinks would undermine the class Wolfsheim was shown to have in the movie. Never the less, the tooth cufflinks are an unforgettable feature.

-  In then novel, it is revealed to Wilson days later who struck Myrtle with the yellow car. Fitzgerald builds suspense when Wilson continually repeats he "had a way of finding out" who killed Myrtle, but doesn't tell how or who. This gives a sense that Wilson is slowly slipping into insanity. In the film however, Tom goes right out and tells Wilson it was Gatsby the same night Myrtle was killed, most likely for the sake of time

- Gatsby's death was far more dramatic in the film than in the novel. In both instances, Gatsby is waiting for a phone call from Daisy. The phone rings while Gatsby is taking a swim, but how Gatsby is shot differs. In the novel, Gatsby is lounging on an inflatable mattress when a phone call arrives, but it is not directly revealed whether Gatsby believes it is Daisy (which we can suppose he did before he died). The film is much more dramatic. Gatsby is actually getting out of his pool when the phone call arrives, he stops on the ladder for a second and smiles. He continues to get out of the pool and stops once again to stare at Daisy's house across the bay, then, a gun shot through the heart and Gatsby looks up at Daisy's house across the bay one last time and whispers "Daisy". So much more dramatic than a gunshot on an air mattress.

Bowling for Columbine: The Blame Game

In the 2002 Academy Award winning film, Bowling for Columbine, Micheal Moore strives to find a straight answer as to why Americans feel the need to posses/carry guns. Moore pointed out the ridiculousness of America's gun obsession through comedy and old gun adds. He explored the Columbine shooting as well as the Michigan school shooting, involving two young children. Moore didn't ask simple straight-forward questions, he questioned their morals. At times during the film, Moore didn't even need to question beliefs because the individuals couldn't bear to face the facts. There is one very important observation Moore makes with this film; America is driven by fear. This fear isn't just of terrorists or foreign threats, it's of our neighbors, our government, or even our children.

On April 20th, 1999, America got it's big wake up call. Columbine turned from a high school to one of the most tragic homicide/suicides in American history. At first, we blamed it on the families of the shooters, saying it was somehow their fault they failed to realize the "flaw" in their sons. Then we blamed it on Marilyn Manson. Then we blamed it on violent movies. Then we blamed it on the store the guns were from. Then we blamed it on the government. This is America, the land of the blame. What really shook up everyone about Columbine is that there is no one to blame. There is no enemy but ourselves. Charlton Heston, president of the National Riffle Association from 2003-2008, was interviewed by Moore addressing this fear of our own children. Moore asked him about his motive for having an NRA rally in Colorado days after Columbine and again, for having an NRA rally in Michigan after Buell Elementary School shooting. Heston claimed to not have known, but when asked if he would of had a pro-gun rally if he HAD known, he ended the interview by walking away. The president of the NRA couldn't decide which was more important; decency for the victims or his personal belief in guns. After this interview, it became quite clear the importance of guns to the American people. From birth, we condition our children to believe that guns are okay. Toy guns are given to children for innocent fun. When children grow out of toy guns, they move onto bigger better things like Bee Bee and Air soft guns. Tamir Rice was merely 12 years old when he was shot down by police after a scared citizen called him in for possessing a dangerous firearm. Police killed Rice within two seconds of arriving on the scene and soon came to realize it was an Air soft gun. Once children grow up to become gun-bearing adults, they exercise their 2nd Amendment. Girls are encouraged to carry guns for protection. Men purchase guns because the government can't be trusted for protection. At this point, we now live in fear of each other.

It's about time we start blaming ourselves.

Sound and Fury: Are Cochlear Implants Appropriate for Deaf Children?

Disability: a condition (such as an illness or an injury) that damages or limits a person's physical or mental abilities: the condition of being unable to do things in the normal way. Even though the Merriam Webster dictionary definition gives a clear idea of disability, the true connotation of the word disability differs from Discourse to Discourse. The hearing people of the world would consider deafness to be a disability, but the deaf community doesn't agree with the hearing. For the hearing community, the ability to give your child the option to hear is a medical miracle. The deaf community couldn't be more offended with the idea of Cochlear implants. The film Sound and Fury follows both a hearing family and a deaf family in their struggle to decide whether a Cochlear implant is what is best for their deaf child. Both families make compelling statements for both ends of the argument, which makes it hard for me to conclude whom is being rational. In the end, I couldn't choose a side because both situations were so different in nature.

Peter and Nita Artinian are the deaf parents of three deaf children. The father, Peter, is very proud of his deafness and the deaf culture he and his family are a part of. Peter grew up with two hearing parents and a hearing brother, making him the only deaf member of his family. The mother, Nita, has learned to adapt to deafness and is more open to new technological advances, like the Cochlear implant. Both Peter and Nita only want what is best for their little daughter Heather, whom has presented the idea of Cochlear implants. Peter and Nita became afraid that with an implant, their daughter would reject American Sign Language and the deaf culture. Heather is a precocious, vivacious, and avidly curious six year old that, the family learns, could still receive the Cochlear implant and fit in with the hearing community. Heather talked of her desire to hear a car crash, music and other basic sounds the hearing community takes for granted. Nita was open to the idea of Cochlear implants for herself, but was discouraged when the doctor informed her that she was too old to reap the benefits. The Artinians visited another all deaf family with a daughter whom had had the implant surgery. It was evident that the implanted girl in the deaf family struggled to talk clearly and actually preferred to sign. This is what would be expected to happen to Heather, since she wouldn't be exposed to speech in her own home and would need to resort to sign language for communication. The Artinians would rather Heather loose the opportunity to hear in order to not loose her deaf identity. At this point, the Artinians decision was clear; Cochlear implants would be unsuitable for a deaf child in an all deaf family. Peter's hearing parents couldn't disagree more. They believed that Peter was depriving his daughter of the opportunity of an easier life in the hearing community. They also made the argument that deaf schools were notorious for being poor in education and Heather would receive a better education in a hearing school. Tension began to grow between Peter and his parents and even more so in Peter's brother Chris's household.

At the same time of the Artinians implant controversy, Chris had become the father of twins; one twin was born hearing, and the other was born deaf. Now, Chris and his wife had to make a similar inverted decision as Peter and Nita; are Cochlear implants appropriate for a deaf child in and all hearing family? Chris and Peter's hearing parents couldn't agree more with Cochlear implants for the twin, but Chris's wife Mari's deaf parents objected. Mari's parents believe, as Peter does, that they would be shaming the deaf community with a Cochlear implant. A Cochlear implant in the deaf community is almost a slap in the face; saying that the deaf community isn't good enough for their child. In the end, Chris decided on a Cochlear for his infant son.

Many different arguments of identity and culture were made, but all in different situations. Peter didn't know the pain his mother felt raising him as a child and wished that she had given him the opportunity of a Cochlear implant. But now, Peter is firmly planted in the deaf community along with Nita. Heather was just a curious, innocent six year old, which made it so hard for Peter's parents to watch her now have to grow up in a difficult lifestyle. Mari grew up as the only hearing member of her family and has seen the struggles of being deaf and didn't want the same for her son. This is why I stated earlier that I couldn't pick a side of the argument; both situations are so different in nature, but fighting towards a similar goal. They both wanted their child to fit in and feel like the belong in the culture they were given. For Chris and Mari, deafness was a condition of being unable to do things in the normal way. For Peter and his family, deafness if NOT a disability, but a way of life.

Worms: Satan's Minions

Petrichor is the Greek word given to the smell of the dry earth after the rain. Being the microbiologist geek that I am, the scientific explanation has to be included because this phenomenon is the by-product of microbes. Streptomyces (commonly soil dwelling microbes) produce spores during overly dry periods. The longer the soil goes without rain, the more spores that are usually present. The smell isn’t actually caused by the spores themselves, rather a chemical secreted during the production of the spores known as “geosmin.” Nothing can compare to that fresh, crisp smell of geosmin and the faint sound of residual precipitation falling from the leaves. The sensation is peaceful as many rational people would say. But really, petrichor might as well be the name of a Satanist ritual, calling upon all the parasites of Lucifer to squirm from their saturated abodes onto the mortal land.

Yes. I am talking about the largest members of the Oligochaeta class, the one animal (if even that) on planet earth that does not make any scientific sense, worms. As a young child, I was never a fan of worms. All of my naïve playmates would simply pick up these moving tubes of mush and examine them closely. I, on the other hand, was completely horrified. I remember back to one significant instance, about eight years ago, when my father and I were exorcising these demons to the hungry mouths of lake fish. It was up north in Minocqua Wisconsin on a clear summer day when my father presented me with a thin fishing pole and a white round container. He took me to the edge of a peer and sat me down on an unsecured, weathered wooden bench. I set the white container down next to me, having little idea the contents. The lid was removed and I watched the worms slip and slide all over each other until my father pinched his meaty fingers around a worm. My father laid the creepy-crawly out next to me on the wooden bench and reached for his pocket knife. The worm, so pink and plump, wiggled around under the grasp of my father’s fingers. In one swift motion, the blade severed the worm clean in half. The contents of the worm began absorbing into the wooden bench as the little sucker continued to struggle. My father grabbed one of the moving pieces of the worm and skewered it onto the hook. At this point, I could have cared less about the task at hand. I was completely focused on that remaining portion of the worm twisting back and forth in agony. It irked me that it continued to move even after being separated from it’s other half, like some sort of immortal parasite. Logically, an animal would die after being split. But these worms defied the laws of nature; it scared me that something so small could cheat death. Ever since then, I haven’t been able to go near worms.

It didn’t even have to be in person for worms to scare me, movies that featured worms were just as horrifying. One of my favorite childhood movies “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” (with the classic Gene Wilder, not some Johnny Depp faker) had a scene that made me cringe. Worms appeared in that movie for probably two seconds when Willy Wonka took Charlie and those other hooligans down the tunnel where “the danger must be growing”. Seriously, they’re in there next to the flashing images of cockroaches. As you can imagine, the movie “How To Eat Fried Worms” was an absolute nightmare. Seeing worms exist in nature was enough to make me puke, let alone watching someone eat them.

Okay Zoe, let’s be rational. Worms don’t even have the ability to harm you. They don’t bite or eject some poisonous fluid, they actually help fertilize the soil for plants to grow. This is all true, but they still don’t make any scientific sense. First off, these little guys can’t even be classified as guys because they’re hermaphrodites. Kids will pick up the seemingly silly ball of worms found on the soil and show their parents. Parents: THROW THAT BALL OF WORMS. Literally your child is holding a mangled mess of mating worms. Yeah, a worm orgy. All in your child's hands. Second, worms have the ability to respire through their skin because they don’t apparently need lungs. No matter how bad you want to, you can’t kill these demons because they can always regenerate lost segments of their body. Even more comforting, whenever you see a worm inching it’s way down a sidewalk, it’s actually digesting and secreting feces. Worms don’t even have eyes. The only productive things worms do are eat and defecate dirt, and become so lost after the rain that they crisp and fry on the hot pan of pavement.

Parasite, creepy-crawly, earthworm, oligochaeta, lob worm, night crawler, Satan's minions: these all describe the mutual heinous disposition of worms.

Let's Be Honest Robin Thicke...

Last year, Robin Thicke's " Blurred Lines" was played an insane amount of times on the radio. "Blurred Lines" was the song everyone would have stuck in their head, no matter how much they hated it. The tune alone is catchy as all get out, while also being extremely popular and recognizable. Why would such a well known modern song be taken off the market? The song is already played openly on the radio for young ears to absorb the content.

It can be said that Robin Thicke undermined women, like any other popular mainstream male pop artist does anyways. It wasn't even his obscene lyrics that had some people out raged. Thicke did what most male stud artists wish they could do; create an explicit music video of naked women dancing around him. While every youngster in America was ogling over his domineer, some women saw the misogyny between the lines-- well the blurred lines.

In the opposing-Thicke article, Tricia Romano states many issues that are presented with the music video. Romano even goes as far as to say the lyrics and video are kind of "rapey" in the sense that Robin Thicke is presuming that the naked women in the music video want him. Canadian model Amy Davison, out raged as well, stated that “the women are clearly being used as objects to reinforce the status of the men in the video. The men have all the control and status because they are not vulnerable—they are completely covered. Whereas the women have no status and are totally open to be exploited ogled and used.” Editor of NPR music, Frannie Kelley acknowledges the fact that Robin Thicke did step over the line with naked women; "When they’re clothed it feels like he’s walking up to a line and agreeing to obey it. And when they’re not clothed, he’s like acknowledging the line and he’s stepping right over it.” Sadly, pop music videos objectifying women isn't anything new in pop culture music. But does that make Robin Thicke's addition of naked women acceptable? Well it certainly pushed the boundaries of comfort, something Thicke was striving to do. "...Cause for me, nudity is the least offensive thing in the whole world. Guns, violence, war? That’s offensive. A woman’s body has been painted and sculpted and talked about since the beginning of man. What I enjoy about the video is that we’re not ogling and degrading them, we’re laughing and being silly with them."

While some women felt "raped" by the music video, other Thicke followers disagreed. Jennifer Lai wrote a counter article to Tricia Romano's stating that "'Blurred Lines' Is Cocky, Yes. But Rapey? No." Most of the anti-Thicke arguments were crafted around the repetitive lyric "I know you want it". Lai makes the point that "I know you want it" is not a "rapey" lyric, but a cocky one. "'I know you want it' is probably overly cocky and presumptuous as hell by assuming you/she wants “it,” but nothing about 'I know you want it' is saying 'I know you want it, and I'm going to force you to have it' or 'I had sex with you and you didn't consent, but I know you wanted it.' Yes, 'I know you want it' could be said by a rapist—but so could 'Do you want to go to a movie tonight?'" Lai argues that Thicke isn't insisting on non-consensual sex, but more of liberating a common woman fantasy, "... As others have pointed out—and as Thicke mentioned in an interview with Billboard—it could definitely refer to the tired, overused good-girl-with-a-freaky-streak fantasy." Of course Thicke looks like a total douche bag stating all this crap about women wanting him, but he never does mention any notion of forcing himself on a women.

In the end, women should be required cover their private parts in music videos, especially ones that can be easily accessed by children. As for the lyrical content of "Blurred Lines", that is debatable. It can sound a bit forceful at times, but with further analysis, the lyrics really aren't suggesting more than a cocky guy trying to get freaky with a girl. I find it odd that Robin Thicke wasn't always this raunchy. It is only recently that Thicke decided to make the crucial switch from innocent songs, to more sex appeal songs. Okay, every famous pop artist has made this switch (i.e. Miley Cyrus, Justin Bieber, Justin Timberlake). It made sense for single young pop stars to make this switch, but for a 37 year old dad/husband like Robin Thicke, there really isn't a need for sex appeal. Like at all.

As Macklemore puts it in his song Otherside, an entire rap song only about how fake artists are and the ridiculous standards they hold people to, "Follow the formula, violence, drugs and sex sells. So we try to sound like someone else." So let's be honest Robin Thicke, you're a 37 year old pop star dad/husband trying to sound like a 21 year old bachelor with no responsibilities. Nice try.

In Cold Blood-- How two broken criminals shatter the tranquility of a small Kansas town

In Cold Blood is a non-fiction book written by Truman Capote describing the 1959 gruesome murders of the Clutter family in Holcomb, Kansas. Capote writes in the form of two stories following both the killers and the family. The reader is treated almost as a detective, forming theories and opinions of the murders without actually knowing the complete truth. What makes this story particularly unique are the killers, Dick and Perry, whom are described as recently released  motiveless criminals. The phrase "In cold blood" means to kill intentionally without emotion, exactly how Dick and Perry conducted the crime. There are many plausible theories of the motive that have risen as a result of this novel. Without giving away the story completely, I'll give a brief over-view of the story, including some suspected motives.

In the rural town of Holcomb Kansas, seclusion from the outside world is a normality. The citizens of the town sort of live in their own little world. The Clutter family are a highly recognized name for their positive work in the community. Mr. Herbert Clutter is a strict Methodist that is the leader of the majority of the organizations in Holcomb. His wife, Bonnie Clutter, struggles to keep up with his image and as a result shuts herself out. Bonnie is implied to have some form of depression or mental illness that has put her in and out of mental hospitals. Nancy Clutter, on the other hand, takes after her father and is extremely involved in the Holcomb community. She is known as the town sweet heart, always found helping people and being a leader for the younger generation. Nancy's younger brother, Kenyan Clutter, takes more after his mother and isn't described as more than an awkward child with an interest in inventing machinery. The Clutters main source of income is their River Valley Farm, which has brought them a good amount of wealth. Still with a good reputation in the town, the Clutter family is found murdered in their home. Distrust and panic set in amongst citizens, everyone thinking the murder is a member of the town. As the reader, we know this to be wrong.

Dick and Perry were careful about their work, picking up gun shells as they went off in the Clutter home. Dick is perceived to be more the mastermind behind the murders, while Perry plays the role of the accomplice. Dick first heard of Perry when they were in prison together. Perry was bragging to a cellmate of his violent murder of an innocent black man, which we learn later this crime is made up. When Perry and Dick are finally captured, the theory of insanity arises with Perry when a psychiatrist cannot give a clear answer of his mental state. Although not admitted to the court, the psychiatrist speculates that Perry was a paranoid schizophrenic. I am aware of the signs of a paranoid schizophrenic and it seemed to me that Capote was supporting this theory. Symptoms include delusions, hallucinations, difficulty with speech, inappropriate emotional responses or a lack of emotional response. If you remember back to the definition of "in cold blood", an emotionless killing, this aligns perfectly with the signs of paranoid schizophrenia. Also, there is mention that Perry sees a "yellow parrot" and has had trouble with education and speech. Dick seems to be emotionally sound compared to his comrade, but that cannot be proved. Perhaps Dick knew of Perry's condition and realized how easy it would be for Perry to kill, leaving Perry to the dirty work. Some skeptics believe that Dick and Perry were homosexual lovers in prison and that internal frustration caused the killings, but Capote left that out of the novel to emphasize other possible motives.

The story of the Clutter murders leaves many unanswered questions. Capote does a wonderful job explaining the surface of the murders, but leaves the depth of it up to the reader. I would advise the reader to do a little background on Capote before reading the book because there are similarities between Capote and some of the characters that . I have to admit this book was slow at first, but once the murders happened, I couldn't put the book down. This book earns it's place as a classic and I highly advise to indulge in this controversial mystery.