What's in a Word?

From Martin Van Buren to Richard Nixon, there are many similarities between what is being said in the Inaugural Addresses. By examining what words have been used and how frequently, we can see what was important during a specific time in American history.

Words such as 'freedom,' 'nation,' and 'people' have always been commonplace throughout the history of presidential speeches. John Quincy Adams uses the word ‘government’ 22 times in his address while President Obama uses ‘nation’ 15 times. Similarities such as these show us the American ideals that we find important. Having a strong and great nation and a government by and for the people are basic American standards that have not faded in our short history as a country.

By examining the differences in wordage throughout the history of presidential speeches, we can see what the key issues of each of the presidencies have been. For example, in President Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural speech he uses the word ‘slave’ 8 times, that is more than any other president. It makes sense since the civil war was in full effect and the entire nation was fighting each other over the importance of that very word.  

To Hear Or Not To Hear

After watching this film I felt like I learned a lot. I had always thought that my viewpoint coming into the subject of cochlear implants was obviously the right choice. Why wouldn’t anyone want this procedure done to him or her if it meant the difference between being deaf and hearing? But after the movie had concluded I was forced to reevaluate my stance. I don’t know a thing about being deaf or what its like to live around deaf people, I don’t even know anybody that is deaf. Because of this, I realized that it would be extremely narrow minded of me to think about it soley from my personal point of view and this movie opened my eyes to how the other side lives.

In the documentary, Sound and Fury, the little girl Heather wanted to get a cochlear device so that she could be like her hearing friends. Because Heather’s mother and father are both deaf this lead to some family between the deaf parents and the hearing grandparents. Personally I think it should be up to the parents of the child to decide whether or not to have a surgical procedure as serious as a cochlear implant. Parents like the ones that Heather had, obviously cared for her and believed that they were doing the right thing for their daughter. They didn’t want her to lose the knowledge and ability to connect with the deaf community. They didn’t believe that it was going to be possible to effectively live in both the hearing and deaf world at the same time. That does not mean however, that they were completely right in their decision of not getting the implant.

The grandparents of Heather had some really good points on why it would be the right thing to get the implant. They believed that by not giving her this option it would severely limit her abilities to succeed in the world. They also brought up the point that it wouldn’t be fair to make this choice for Heather, it should be her choice since it is effecting her future.

In conclusion I think that despite both sides having strong points for their arguments I agree with the parents of Heather. I think it’s impossible to know exactly what it is like to live in the deaf community. Since Heather is still at such a young age, her parents have her best interests in mind and that is what matters the most.

A Different Perspective

In just the first few minutes of the 1979 movie, Apocalypse Now, there were many filming techniques used to portray a variety of messages. In one such scene there is a wide-angle image of a tree line being incinerated by napalm. Soon this image is overlapped another scene, a close-up, with a shirtless man staring into the camera. The man’s eyes are blank, as if he is thinking, remembering whatever atrocities he has experienced in Vietnam. I found that this particular scene to be very interesting because I believe that what the director was trying to show that these soldiers could never be free of what they had seen. Whether it was a beautiful palm tree being burnt to ashes or finding a comrade dead, the experiences stuck. The second scene that I found to be intriguing occurred shortly after the on I have just described.

 As the scene has just completely transitioned to the man’s face, staring into the camera. There is an overlapping scene of close ups of the various items surrounding the man on his bed and nightstand: an empty liquor bottle, a handgun, some cigarettes and a lighter to name a few. These images accompanied with the man’s empty stare, evoke the idea that this man is struggling with depression or some sort of post-traumatic stress syndrome. The director also employs sound effects to drive home a point. When the camera view changes from the man’s face to the ceiling fan above. The sounds produced by the fan are easily distinguishable as the chopping blades of a Huey helicopter. Wherever this man looks the sights and sounds of the war remain imbedded in his memory.

Shark!!

Maybe my fear of being eaten by sharks can be attributed to the fact that I was obsessed with Animal Planet or  because I watch way to much shark week. Wherever this fear has originated from it is a deep and very real fear for me. Helplessness, vulnerability and the inabilaty to fight back something that is ultimately way more powerful than I am, is a daunting thought. Whenever I find myself swimming in a pool or lake I find the thought of having that giant behemoth lurking behind me, waiting to strike my helpless body.

It's not dying that is the real fear, its the struggle of getting to that point. Even if im in a ten foot deep pool that is crystal clear, full of people, my mind flushes all of thes blatantly obvious indicators out and puts me into the open ocean. The small bumps and nudges of those around me turn into inquiring taps from a man-eater, sampling his soon to be lunch. If ever my feet were to leave the tiled bottom of that pool floor, the ten feet soon turns to a bottomless pit of nothingness, a perfect hiding place for something like a shark. It sounds rediculous, even to me, but no matter how I try to reason with myself or tell myself how ludicrous I am it just makes it worse. The more i think about it, the more real it becomes.

Wikileaks Response

Up until recently I had never heard obout this site called Wikileaks. After discussing it in class, I discovered that it is an international online website on which, sources can anonymously post top secret information. This information can range from classified government military files to secret business strategies. To many this site is cause for controversy, should secret information be made public? Who should decide? Founder of Wikileaks, Jullian Assange, defends his website on a range of different points. In an interview with TED, Assange stated something to the effect that he believes the sites purpose is to reveal things that are considered immorral or wrong and should be brought to the publics knowledge. The info that is leaked on his site is not to cause trouble but to do good.

Some of the strengths to Wikileaks are many. The information revealed within the site, according to Assange, is to always produce a positive result and not a negative one. By having all this open documentation, the site is revealing the true nature of the government and business. Through such openess the public is able to hold institutions such as businesses and government more accountable.

I think there are a few flaws to Assange's defenses. For one he doesn't consider the source and therefore all the information cannot always be completely accurate. Second, what is published on Wikileaks can very easily sway the public's opinion, start a revolt or even a war. Although I haven't heard of any wars happening as a result of Wikileaks, the idea is not that far fetched. Lastly is it morally right to reveal something that was meant to be kept secret? The end doesn't always justify the mean in the case of Wikileaks. 

I have a very hard time deciding whether or not I agree with Assange's beliefs. What if he decides to publish something that does more harm than good? I struggle deciding which is worse, having someone withhold information that may or may not protect me or having someone decide whether or not this information should be made available, whether it causes harm to individuals or not? I tend to stray towards the belief that if information is made secret, theres probably a good reason for it. In the instance of information such as a scandalous e-mail exchanged between a public official and some mistress, then this doesn't nessecarilly bring any damage to me but it may ruin the life of that official. Whether he deserves it or not i don't think it is our business to mess with other peoples lives or thier own business. In Assanges case however, this is precisly his business.  

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

This article was written by Nicholas Carr of The Atlantic Online website in the summer of 2008. Within the article Carr discusses the effects the internet has had on our ability to process and retain information. Instead of having the stamina needed to read lengthy, in-depth pieces of literature, we are instead crippled by the quick flood of information provided to us by the internet, causing us to skim instead of read. He talks about the internet as both a blessing and a curse, it gives us unparalleled access to copious amounts of information with just the click of a button. On the other hand, such quantities of information presented to us on a single page may do more harm than good.

The pros of the internet are many. It allows us to have unparalleled acces to virtually an infinite amount of information. With a simple click of a mouse we can enter a site with terabytes of data, all leading to other sites with the same amount of knowledge. All this can be controlled and processed through mediums such as your phone, computer or other electronic devices. Essentially what the internet has done, is shrunk the world to such a small size that within a few seconds we can know what is happening across the globe.

This may seem all fine and dandy to the procrastinator, journalist, researcher or basically anyone, but if we step back we realize that this is not the case. Through the internet and its tools, it is slowly taking over our minds like a robot from the matrix. Frederich Nietzsche said once about a typewriter, "our writing equipment takes the place of our thoughts. It changes arguments to aphorisms, thoughts to puns and rhetoric to telegram style." This is still the case today with all our fancy, high powered computers and their capabilities. When we sit down to write a letter or paper, we just type the keys and the words appear for us.

In my opinion, the internet is by far the greatest invention of the modern era, if not of all time. It connects people world wide, transacts business, gives information to anyone about anything. With that said, the article seems to be telling us that all of this is good, in moderation. On the other hand this beast known as the internet is ever expanding and there is no stopping it. Although the internet has hampered the development of our overall intelligence it has most definitely advanced the effectiveness of technology. Hopefully that technology never becomes more powerful than us!

The New Yorker's 'Talk of the Town' - John Updike & Susan Sontag

In The Talk of the Town, the theme of the essays has to do with the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center that occurred on the fateful day of September 11th, 2001. Within The Talk of the Town, there are two separate essays, one written by John Updike and the other by Susan Sontag. Both essays are very well written and give excellent details about what was transpiring around the writers at the time. John and Susan do not share the same opinion on the matter of the attacks however, as is apparent in their writing.

In John Updike's essay, he discusses the sights and emotions that he was going through during this "horrendous event." He talks about how the whole thing seemed so unreal and how even those on the television portrayed the same feeling and that somehow this could all be reversed. This unfortunately was not the case however, and because of that we are forced to pick up the pieces of the awful event.  All in all, I really enjoyed this particular essay. Updike uses a lot of really well written analogies that bring out the sites and feelings that he was going through at the time of the crash. One such example of this would be when he describes the second tower "burst into ballooning flame." At first it seems as though the author is deeply moved and saddened by this catastrophe, but towards the end he says something that changes this view, "We have only the mundane duties of survivors - to pick up the pieces, to bury the dead, to make precautions, to go on living." This angered me greatly when I read this.  It seemed as though the author played this off as some insignificant event, part of our every day lives.

In Susan Sontag's essay, she expresses her feelings of anger and frustration towards the American government and its leaders. My first impression after reading her article was that she was extremely venomous and critical of the government. She made it sound as though, the people running our country were a bunch of inept psycho's who have no idea how to run a country. She blames leaders such as the President for what she implies as 'lying to the public' when he says that everything will be ok, when "It is not ok." I disagree with this statement, for the reason that as a President, it is his job to exude both confidence and optimism even when things are not. Thats not lying, thats good leadership in my opinion.