The movie featured two families -- one of the families had two hearing parents and a deaf baby. The other family was entirely deaf with a five year old girl who requested a cochlear implant. Both of these families made strong arguments for and against the implant. The hearing family wanted the implant to give their baby a chance in the "hearing world," starting young so that it could learn to speak well right from the start and so that later on the child wouldn't be an outcast in school and life in general.
The other family posed an equally convincing counterargument: the idea of their five-year-old daughter getting an implant was a slap in the face as far as they were concerned. They considered her outrageous request to be an abandonment of the "deaf culture" they'd all been a part of for their entire lives. The girl's dad, especially, was very upset about her request for an implant. His sign language got huge and his face grew red whenever he talked about it.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Monday, September 23, 2013
WikiLeaks
I'm not quite sure where I stand on this subject, but the fact that Julian Assange was attacked so severely for his actions seems a bit suspicious to me. Gabriel Schoenfeld's essay brings up our first amendment right to freedom of the press, something that should protect news sources from getting into legal trouble for publishing the truth, even if that truth involves secrets. I'd assume that WikiLeaks falls under this protection, but Julian Assange's harsh punishment says otherwise.
I do think WikiLeaks should've been a lot more careful with how much and what kind of information they published instead of just dumping it all into the spotlight for everyone to see. However, I don't believe they intended to harm the U.S. with this information; it seems more like they were just trying to reveal information that had been wrongfully kept from the public. Again, they should have been a lot more careful, but what they did wasn't necessarily bad. And as far as I can tell, they didn't break any laws.
I do think WikiLeaks should've been a lot more careful with how much and what kind of information they published instead of just dumping it all into the spotlight for everyone to see. However, I don't believe they intended to harm the U.S. with this information; it seems more like they were just trying to reveal information that had been wrongfully kept from the public. Again, they should have been a lot more careful, but what they did wasn't necessarily bad. And as far as I can tell, they didn't break any laws.
Fear of Getting Lost
I've never really been afraid of anything. I'm perfectly fine with worms and bugs and spiders (as long as the spiders don't touch me) and I don't mind heights or small spaces etc. I can't stand getting lost, though. If I get lost, I start to panic: my chest feels like it's caving in on itself and I have trouble breathing. It gets infinitely worse if I'm pressed for time; the panic doesn't set in until the clock starts ticking. I'm fine as long as I have plenty of time to find my way out of the situation. And if I'm lost with someone else, it's not nearly as bad.
My worst-case scenario is being helplessly lost somewhere without direction (a place without roads or trails, like the middle of a huge forest of identical trees or in the middle of the ocean without any land in sight), alone, and in the dark. Who knows what could happen if I'm lost and I can't see anything? You know that movie coming out called "Gravity," about two astronauts getting lost in space without any contact with Earth? That's probably my worst fear right there.
My worst-case scenario is being helplessly lost somewhere without direction (a place without roads or trails, like the middle of a huge forest of identical trees or in the middle of the ocean without any land in sight), alone, and in the dark. Who knows what could happen if I'm lost and I can't see anything? You know that movie coming out called "Gravity," about two astronauts getting lost in space without any contact with Earth? That's probably my worst fear right there.
Monday, September 9, 2013
In Defense of Food
Michael Pollan's "In Defense of Food" addresses the ever-growing problem of obesity in America. He walks the reader through what events in history may have led to this problem and how we can fix it. I've heard of this book before and it has raving reviews all over the Internet that make it seem like this is a very important, life changing book. I mainly just chose to read it because it was already in my parents' bookshelf, though.
I'd say about 85% of the 201 pages are taken up by Nutritionism.
"Nutritionism" is basically what happened when scientists thought it would be a good idea to focus on the single nutrients in food instead of the whole picture (like telling people to eat meat for the protein or drink milk for the calcium), which implies that "the only point of eating is to promote bodily health." It doesn't sound like something that would cause an obesity epidemic, but it turns out that the more we tamper with food to make it "healthier," the sicker we get. In fact, the way Pollan goes on about it makes it seem like Nutrtitionism is almost completely to blame for our obesity problem.
It's kind of hard for the food industry to make money off of us when people can easily grow and cook food themselves, so when Nutritionism came around, it gave the food industry a new way to make loads of money. People got really into it; however, under the laws of Nutritionism, the average person can't make their own decisions regarding food without scientists telling them what they can and cannot eat depending to the specific nutrients in the food. Now everyone had to buy food from the store, specially fortified and enriched with nutrients. Thus, the Western Diet was born; the only diet that the (extremely adaptable) human body has never managed to adapt to.
Pollan cites a lot of studies and research on the differences between the Western Diet and basically every other diet in existance. Across the globe, no matter where the research took place, everyone being studied seemed to be faring a lot better than Americans health-wise. Many of their diets were really simple, and most of the food came from whatever resources the people had nearby (which actually makes a lot of sense, unlike the way America does it). Which brings me to Pollan's main reason for writing this book: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly Plants." This is the diet that humans thrive on. No matter what food we eat, as long as it's real, whole food (not processed and whatnot) and we don't gorge ourselves on it, we seem to do okay.
Reading this book was a lot less painful than I expected it to be. I actually thought it was really interesting at some points, especially when Pollan talked about the different food cultures around the world. I would recommend this book to anyone that cares at all about that they eat.
I'd say about 85% of the 201 pages are taken up by Nutritionism.
"Nutritionism" is basically what happened when scientists thought it would be a good idea to focus on the single nutrients in food instead of the whole picture (like telling people to eat meat for the protein or drink milk for the calcium), which implies that "the only point of eating is to promote bodily health." It doesn't sound like something that would cause an obesity epidemic, but it turns out that the more we tamper with food to make it "healthier," the sicker we get. In fact, the way Pollan goes on about it makes it seem like Nutrtitionism is almost completely to blame for our obesity problem.
It's kind of hard for the food industry to make money off of us when people can easily grow and cook food themselves, so when Nutritionism came around, it gave the food industry a new way to make loads of money. People got really into it; however, under the laws of Nutritionism, the average person can't make their own decisions regarding food without scientists telling them what they can and cannot eat depending to the specific nutrients in the food. Now everyone had to buy food from the store, specially fortified and enriched with nutrients. Thus, the Western Diet was born; the only diet that the (extremely adaptable) human body has never managed to adapt to.
Pollan cites a lot of studies and research on the differences between the Western Diet and basically every other diet in existance. Across the globe, no matter where the research took place, everyone being studied seemed to be faring a lot better than Americans health-wise. Many of their diets were really simple, and most of the food came from whatever resources the people had nearby (which actually makes a lot of sense, unlike the way America does it). Which brings me to Pollan's main reason for writing this book: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly Plants." This is the diet that humans thrive on. No matter what food we eat, as long as it's real, whole food (not processed and whatnot) and we don't gorge ourselves on it, we seem to do okay.
Reading this book was a lot less painful than I expected it to be. I actually thought it was really interesting at some points, especially when Pollan talked about the different food cultures around the world. I would recommend this book to anyone that cares at all about that they eat.
Monday, August 26, 2013
The Ethics of Living Jim Crow
It's still hard for me to fathom that humans could ever treat other humans as if they were property and feel that this was okay simply because society allowed it. School has taught us about racism and discrimination ever since we were little, but I think this essay was the first to show me just how horrible it was. This could partially be because it was written from the author's point of view, whereas most other papers I've read on this subject were written from the outside looking in.
Richard Wright organized his life story by the different places he worked for. With each job, he reached a new depth in his "Jim Crow Education," finally mastering the technique of correctly submitting to white men (and women) during one of his last jobs at a hotel as a hall-boy. Because they could, white men had allowed the most insignificant acts (done by black people) to send them into an explosion of violent rage against any black person that crossed them. Can you imagine what would happen if someone acted like that today? They'd be thrown into jail or an insane asylum. We should be proud to have come so incredibly far since the Jim Crow Laws.
Richard Wright organized his life story by the different places he worked for. With each job, he reached a new depth in his "Jim Crow Education," finally mastering the technique of correctly submitting to white men (and women) during one of his last jobs at a hotel as a hall-boy. Because they could, white men had allowed the most insignificant acts (done by black people) to send them into an explosion of violent rage against any black person that crossed them. Can you imagine what would happen if someone acted like that today? They'd be thrown into jail or an insane asylum. We should be proud to have come so incredibly far since the Jim Crow Laws.
Friday, August 16, 2013
Fuller, Steinem and Wollstonecraft on Women's Rights
Mary Wollstonecraft, Margaret Fuller, and Gloria Steinem all shared the same basic views on women's rights, despite having written the essays in three different centuries. Nearly every major difference I could find between these essays was directly related to differences in society rather than differences in the authors' opinions. Each essay weighed heavily on the oppression of women and society's superior view of men, and I found it sadly unsurprising that this theme has continued among humans (who consider our race's intelligence to be far superior to that of every other race on the planet, despite this) since the beginning of our existence.
I enjoyed Gloria Steinem's essay on "If Men Could Menstruate." I thought that her description of our society (if men could menstruate) was very clever and accurate. Margaret Fuller wrote about the absurdity of the oppression of women, comparing it to slavery in the quote "As the friend of the negro assumes that one man cannot, by right, hold another in bondage, should the friend of woman assume that man cannot, by right, lay even well-meant restrictions on woman." Mary Wollstonecraft wrote about the absurdity of the laughably weak education women received in her time, claiming that women could live happy, successful lives if only they were given a chance at independence. She also compares women to slaves, "in a political and civil sense," predicting that if women were allowed to "share the advantages of education and government with man," that they would "become better, as they grow wiser and become free."
Each of the three essays was thoughtful and intelligent, leading the reader to question our society's view of the inferiority of women and the frighteningly small difference between that view now and over a century ago.
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Is Google Making Us Stupid?
This essay was disturbing from the first sentence. Nicholas Carr began his article with dialogue from the end of the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. He described the scene (humans coldly disconnecting a pathetic, pleading robot's brain circuits) in a way that made the robot seem more human than the humans, if that makes any sense. The point I think Carr was trying to make with this intro was that technology is changing us, and not for the better. Carr goes on to explain the various ways modern technology is negatively affecting our minds, claiming that the way we process information is changing.
There are undeniable advantages to living with technology, of course. Carr talks about how his life as a writer completely changed once it was possible to Google a necessary fact or a quote in a few seconds when it had once taken him days. However, in Carr's words, "Once I was a scuba diver in a sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski." Apparently, everyone is doing this now (including me). When we read articles, we seek "efficiency" and "immediacy" more than anything else. Our brains can easily reprogram themselves to adapt to change, and as our minds have become accustomed to the "crazy quilt" of the Internet, "Television programs add text crawls and pop-up ads, and magazines and newspapers shorten their articles, introduce capsule summaries, and crowd their pages with easy-to-browse info-snippets." Our minds are under an almost constant ambush for attention from the media, and as a result, our concentration is easily broken. It's become more difficult for us to focus on one thing for too long before something else grabs us away.
Despite technology's many good points, reading this article kind of made me wonder if it was worth it. I quickly tossed that thought aside because, yeah, technology is so worth it, but it was still disconcerting to read about it's side effects.
There are undeniable advantages to living with technology, of course. Carr talks about how his life as a writer completely changed once it was possible to Google a necessary fact or a quote in a few seconds when it had once taken him days. However, in Carr's words, "Once I was a scuba diver in a sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski." Apparently, everyone is doing this now (including me). When we read articles, we seek "efficiency" and "immediacy" more than anything else. Our brains can easily reprogram themselves to adapt to change, and as our minds have become accustomed to the "crazy quilt" of the Internet, "Television programs add text crawls and pop-up ads, and magazines and newspapers shorten their articles, introduce capsule summaries, and crowd their pages with easy-to-browse info-snippets." Our minds are under an almost constant ambush for attention from the media, and as a result, our concentration is easily broken. It's become more difficult for us to focus on one thing for too long before something else grabs us away.
Despite technology's many good points, reading this article kind of made me wonder if it was worth it. I quickly tossed that thought aside because, yeah, technology is so worth it, but it was still disconcerting to read about it's side effects.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)