American poem

we are different
tall, short, fat, skinny, tired, deprived
yet we join as one

Puritan or Not?

After reading the article online I think it’s pretty obvious that America still upholds its puritan ideals, or at least the majority of us do. I think a lot of it is extremely personal though. We now are home to so many different cultures and beliefs so to say we all have puritan ideals would be quite a stretch. I think the majority of America follows these ideals now a days, but I think it is less obvious and more personal. I think many people are motivated more by predestination and salvation, but then again many aren’t. I’m sure most people would try and argue that overall America is now home to a more secular work ethic and belief. Although many people are motivated secularly I do think the majority still holds true to puritan roots and work ethics. Personally I think it’s one of those topics that you can never come to an ultimate conclusion because America contains so many different kinds of people and those people have so many different beliefs and motivations. I can say first hand that I do not follow puritan ideals in the slightest and am completely secular and am more open to anything instead of being stuck in my rigid ways.

Inaugurations Bring Us Together

I thought it was interesting that most of the presidents used words like nation and government. They seem like obvious words to use while addressing the nation during the inauguration, but most of the presidents used the words differently than you’d expect. Many used the word government by saying that it almost isn’t important, but we the people are more important and self-government is way more important. Regan used this a lot in his speeches for example : “we are a nation that has a government- not the other way around.” He is clearly trying to make us feel more together and that the citizens of this country mean more than the government. A lot of the presidents also talk about the nation as a whole and trying to make us feel like a giant team and that we are all on one side. A direct quote from Clinton : “…of our past remains the challenge of our future –will we be one nation, one people, with one common destiny or not?” By addressing the whole nation no one feels left out.

Personally I think all these words that are used so much in inaugural speeches are so popular because you can use these words in ways to make the country come together. After candidates are elected it is almost their job to try to make the losing party feel better and come on board with their ideas and to trust them. After many debates and elections the nation feels split into left and right and the inaugural speech needs to bring everyone together again to look toward common goals and work as a team. It doesn’t always work but with the help of these words it can make people feel more comfortable again and remember we are all citizens of this country and we need to work together.

Apocalypse Wow!!

In the opening of the film Apocalypse Now there are several intriguing things that add to the overall effect. As trees and land are burning with helicopters shooting overhead the shot fades to a man lying on a bed. As he’s lying on the bed you see faded shots of the destruction of war at the same time. This is extremely effective because you understand that the man is thinking about a memory from the war without being told that he is. You can tell he remembers this horrible memory and can’t get it out of his mind. There is also the song "The End" by The Doors playing while all this is going on which adds to the sense of danger and sadness to this memory. It is a nice addition because many people probably died in the destruction, and I’m sure witnessing it one could have thought that it was going to be the end of their life. As the scene progresses the destruction fades into a shot of a ceiling fan with the noise of helicopters in the background. This ties together everyday items and war together, and how veterans go back to awful memories so easily. Little everyday things that no average person would take notice of suddenly bring back horrible memories and thoughts to someone who experienced something of that caliber. The opening scene is super effective at making the viewer understand things and see what someone feels after something like war.

To Hear or not to Hear

After watching the film Sound Of Fury I was very enlightened. I had never considered deaf culture, or how much it means to people. Since I can hear it is hard for me to understand that being deaf is viewed as a gift in deaf culture. I don't agree; however, with not giving a young child a cochlear implant. I think that a child should grow up learning both deaf culture and hearing culture. In the movie Peter and Nita Artinian are very proud of deaf culture and don't want their children to grow up missing that part of their life. They want their children to have opportunities, but they think deaf culture is more important than hearing culture. On the other hand Chris and Mari Artinian can both hear and want to give their son who was born deaf a cochlear implant to make life better. 

Personally I think both sides are wrong. Why would they want to keep their children boxed in one Discourse when they could be in both. I think that a cochlear implant would be wise to give when a baby because it would be easier to learn and grow with one that young. I think that they should educate their children on both aspects of life by teaching them both sign language and speaking. I think that people that completely isolate their child from another world is a little dramatic. I would want to offer my children both worlds and let them pick, if any side, what they wanted to associate more with.

If you really think about it, giving a child both worlds and opportunities to grow up with is even smarter in the grand scheme of things. They can work in both the hearing world and the deaf world. They can give both worlds equally as much attention instead of being completely isolated with only one way of doing things. That to me seems like a more well rounded and cultured person. 

Fear of Chapped Lips

It's the time. You can smell his pungent cologne. His eyes are big and blue. He's breathing heavier and so are you. He proceeds to say: "I had a really nice time with you tonight." You reply politely thanking him for the dinner and movie, but as you reach to open the Lamborghini door he pulls you back. He looks deeply in your eyes and smiles as he goes in for a goodnight kiss. BUT WAIT. Once he smiles you see the unsightly cracks on the skin of his lips. Huge ridges cover his lips like a 12 mile deep crevasse in a glacier. Your mind goes to the worst hallucination possible: blood starts spurting out of his parched lips as dead skin pieces fly all over covering your face and hair. He is kissing you with his sandpaper lips and it's contagious. Your lips are slowly shriveling up like your sinister partner's. They feel like a raison shrinking and cracking in the sun. Finally you snap back from your dream. Your date is still going in for a goodnight kiss, and you let out a shriek. Quickly, you bolt out of the car, unlock your door, sprint to your bed, hide under the covers, and apply copious amounts of chapstick. Crisis averted.

Wikileaks. Friend or Foe?

Do we deserve to know the truth? Personally I am all for Wikileaks. The population should know what their governments are actually up to. Julian Assange created something that could ultimately help the world. We can't trust the media or our politicians; they would lie in a heartbeat to keep civilians as calm and uneducated as possible. With Wikileaks people can see the facts without the fluff. Assange explained that governments and corporations are spending money to keep things that are being leaked a secret. Why would something that is supposed to help the population keep secrets from the population?

Assange doesn't really consider how illegal Wikileaks can be. He seems to be hiding and traveling around to avoid getting into trouble. People in charge are not happy that their information is leaking out into the public, but then again it's the truth. How can someone punish others for giving the public the truth about what is going on in the world.
 

Maybe I'm just a skeptic and buy into the conspiracies of government too much, but I think that the governments of the world are highly corrupt and secretive. I think that free speech definitely applies to Wikileaks and it isn’t illegal in anyway. If governments are truly for the people then these documents should be able for the public to see anyway. Clearly some information should not be in public domain for the safety of the people but the truth on many issues should be. I have always been all for the truth and letting the public be involved in everything that our country is doing. Without truth we are just puppets they can use and program anyway they wish.