Where Daisy Leads, Gatsby Will Follow

                The song I picked is “Where You Lead” by Carole King because I feel that it illustrates the love that Gatsby feels for Daisy in our novel. Gatsby is willing to do anything for Daisy, and he has literally spent the past five years of his life trying to see and be with her again.

“And I would go to the ends of the earth
Cause, darling, to me that's you're worth”

                This set of lyrics completely reminds me of how Gatsby has been throwing elaborate parties for people he barely knows in the hopes that Daisy will finally come to one. Whatever it takes to see her, Gatsby is willing to do. Another set of lyrics that I feel represents their relationship later on in the book is:

“I always wanted a real home with flowers on the window sill
But if you want to live in New York city, honey, you know I will”

                This part literally represents that fact that Gatsby moved to his mansion on West Egg in order to be closer to Daisy. Even though he says how much he loves the Middle West and San Francisco, the man who could live almost anywhere in the world chooses to move to a huge home near the girl he loves, even though she doesn’t know.

“I never thought I could get satisfaction from just one man
But if anyone can keep me happy, you're the one who can”

                Daisy is a complicated character, and we never truly learn who she loves: Tom, Gatsby, or both of them. From what she says though, these lyrics agree with the fact that it was hard for her to settle down and get married to Tom, while still believing that Gatsby might be the only one who can keep her happy.

Choice Blog: Relations Between the American and Iroquois Constitutions?

The U.S. Constitution definitely seems to be based off of many part of the Constitution of the Iroquois Nations. Some of the connections that are most obvious are the ideas of having three branches of government and also a set of written freedoms that all people are entitled to.
Only partway into the Iroquois Constitution, it specifically says that the "Council of the Mohawk shall be divided into three parties..." which appears to me to be an awful lot like our three branches of government. Furthermore, the first two of the Iroquois "parties" are supposed to create much of the sense of order, and the third "party" is there to listen and decide what is right based upon law and tradition. Sound familiar? This definitely seems to be very much like our Judicial Branch, whose goal is to decide what is right and just. Obviously this particular section must have had an influence on the Constitution, otherwise they could not be so eerily similar.
Anything aspect that both Constitutions make a point to discuss is the freedoms of the people living under these laws. The Iroquois Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and expression, just as the U.S. Constitution has the Bill of Rights which protects its people. Interestingly though, the Iroquois Constitution also includes polite things like "the Onondaga Lords shall open it by expressing their gratitude..." which seems to go further than the U.S. Constitution.
One final similarity I noticed was that both Constitutions only use masculine terms. This may not be because of one another, it was just something I found interesting. The Iroquois Nation's Constitution only used words like "he" and "man" when describing its people, even though many Indian nations were  known to have women with positions of power. This style was followed in many American documents, and it was just an aspect I found interesting.
After reading the Constitution of the Iroquois Nation, I would definitely conclude that the American Constitution must have been influenced at least slightly by the Iroquois Constitution and that the Native Americans and settlers piggy-backed ideas off of each other even in ways as prominent as their governing laws.

Am I a Transcendentalist?

 I would consider myself to be somewhat of a Transcendentalist because there are many ideas I agree with, and yet others that I do not believe.

                The first thing I definitely agree with Transcendentalists about is that man has an inherent goodness; he just may choose to ignore it. Emerson says that “good and bad are names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.” This statement agrees with my belief that everyone is naturally good, but whenever something bad is done, it is almost unnatural because it is wrong. I also believe that pleasing God and feeling closer to him is not only about going to church and reading the Bible; it is about finding the God within oneself and helping others. This second part seems more important to me: I feel that God would rather that I help others than simply read the Bible and not act on it.

                One idea that I undeniably disagree with is the Transcendentalist view that people should think for themselves without worrying about the consequences rather than conforming to make things easier and/or better. This concept seems very selfish to me, and I think that certain occasions call for a bit of conformity to keep the peace. Speaking one’s mind just to hurt others or as Emerson says “I do not wish to please him; I wish that he should wish to please me” appear to only cause unnecessary problems that could have been easily avoided.

                On the spectrum of Transcendentalism, I would say that I am somewhat of a Transcendentalist, but not so much of one as people like Emerson, Thoreau, and Fuller.

Personal Declaration of Independence

When in the Course of one’s eating habits, it becomes necessary for one person to dissolve the savory tastes of a food as delicious as fresh buttered popcorn, and to assume, among the other food groups, a new favorite snack, a decent respect to the opinions of food requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

          We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all snacks are not created equal, that they are endowed by the Food Industry with certain nutritious Elements, that among these are Calories, Carbohydrates, and Starches. That, to ensure that these elements do not negatively impact one’s health, one shall have to monitor their consumption and track the quantities they consume. Simply the act of not being extremely nutritious is not enough to drive apart the two, so to prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

It has gotten stuck in one’s teeth many a time until one must resort to using Floss.

It has Buttered our fingers so that they are unhelpfully sticky.

It has splattered its butter in our microwaves as we wait for its preparation.

It has continued to be delicious down to the Final Kernel so that one has no choice but to either polish it off or share the deliciousness with others.

It has left, in the bottom of its bag or other method of preparation, a Residue of kernels that refuse to be popped, much to the dismay of the consumer.

It is salted heavily and claims any water that one may drink, creating a bloated sensation in one’s stomach.

It has, by those who possess a certain allergic reaction, been consumed without the knowledge of the corn content and created an unpleasant result.

It has, when coated in caramel, attached to one’s teeth, not allowing one to chew with the same vigor.

          We, therefore, do solemnly PUBLISH and DECLARE that independence will be obtained from the most delicious of after-school snacks and we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor without the influence of a popped corn delicacy.

Ma-a-a-a-ps, wait!

America Septentrionalis (1640)

http://www.libs.uga.edu/darchive/hargrett/maps/1640h6.jpg

            When looking at this map, I first noticed how wildly inaccurate it was. The only part of the map that was accurate and generally to scale was the Eastern coast line. The Massachusetts and Virginia areas were extremely detailed and included many names of locations, all using the European name. Once the map moves south to areas such as Florida, Mexico, and the islands between them, the map becomes more accurate even though many places are still labeled and many areas depicted. The people who made this map spent for time and effort on the Central and South American regions rather than that of North America. Above 40 degrees parallel, the map includes little to no information or representations of the land. In the far west of America, the Baja California peninsula is shown, but extremely out of proportion and unconnected to any other land.

            “A small band of settlers—male and female, gentry and yeomen, religious and secular—stand gathered holding guns and javelins, foregrounded against a large landmass dotted with men in scouts’ garb, deer, foxes, dogs, bears, and women and men in bearskins.” This is how Valerie Babb describes a particular map in Crafting Whiteness in Early America and this is also how the map of America Septentrionalis shows many details. Throughout the mainly undetailed areas of America, the cartographer chooses to place pictures of many wild animals through the empty land. Animals such as wild horses, deer, rabbits and buffalo demonstrate that the European settlers probably had some idea of the type of animal that lived in America during their time; however, in the lower United States region, just above the now-border of Mexico, there is a lion shown which makes me feel that even though the surrounding areas were surveyed, these settlers didn’t always know what was actually living there.

            Another point that I found interesting was that the map only seemed to include European names and didn’t demonstrate any relations with the Native American tribes. Obviously the cartographers must have come across Native Americans or at least heard of the people inhabiting the regions they were surveying, yet it was an intriguing choice to only include the European view. The cartographer also represents the amount of settlers and explorers by having many ships through both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, which gives the idea that the voyages to the new land were plentiful, and on voyages to many diverse areas.

            This map does not relate as well to the texts that we have read so far because it is more focused on Central and South America and also does not show any relations with the Indian tribes. Authors such as John Smith and Mary Rowlandson fixated their stories on their interactions with the Natives on the Eastern coast of the United States yet this map showed more detail further south and more perspective from the Europeans on what they thought the land consisted of.

 PS: Anyone catch the titular song reference? :)

Op-Ed Piece

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/opinion/saving-a-soldier-encouraging-terror.html?ref=opinion

The article I found was called "Saving a Soldier, Encouraging Terror" and it was about how Israel is trading prisoners that they are holding captive for Israelis that have been captured. In one case, Israel released 1027 Palestinian prisoners for its own Sergeant Shalit. The author, Walter Reich, feels that Israel is just welcoming more kidnappings and abuductions because other countries and groups of people know that they will be able to get much more in return for the person's release. The reason Israel is doing this is because they want to make their people feel more devoted to their country because their country is doing everything in its power to keep people "safe" and return people back to Israel.

I really enjoyed how this piece was written because the author interlaced his opinion through his story without it blatantly impacting the amount of facts in this article. He used a large amount of logic to ration his opinion which contrasted interestingly with the overwhelming pathos in this article. The examples that he used were very specific, which made him much more believable, and he obviously had done extensive research in addition to his viewing of Israeli conditions in person. Between the arguments of parents being happy to finally see their abducted kids returning and Israel trying to help its people, Reich weaved more logic about how these actions will only welcome more abductions. I feel that through his logic and interlacing of opinion, Reich was able to compose a truly eloquent piece of journalism that was an interesting viewpoint at Israel's attempt to better itself.

To Hear or Not To Hear?

                Throughout the documentary Sound and Fury, many different people gave their opinions and reasoning for why a child should or should not get a cochlear implants. After watching this film, I feel that cochlear implants are positive concepts that should at the very least be considered for all children born deaf.

                I know that I am not a part of the deaf Discourse, so people may think that my opinion shouldn't be considered as much, but I have an aunt who works at a school with many deaf children, so I have had some experiences with the deaf culture. I have also always found American Sign Language to be a very interesting and unique way of communication, so that would be sad to lose if all deaf people became hearing. I think that if a child was to get a cochlear implant, they would still be able to retain their culture and language without transferring completely to the hearing world.

                Many of the arguments for getting a child a cochlear implant were very logical. In addition to the emotion and ethics that this decision calls for, the logic is probably the most important. Since the implant is a surgical procedure, it should not be taken lightly. There has been plenty of proof that most deaf people, especially when implanted as children, regain a significant enough amount of hearing for the surgery to be worth it. Even when people aren’t deliberately discriminating against the deaf, there are going to be many opportunities the deaf will miss out on.

                Deaf people can generally only communicate with others who are deaf. According to the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, less than 500,000 people in the U.S. are completely deaf in both ears. Since this is such a small portion of the millions of people in our country, deaf people have a hard time finding people that they can relate to outside of deaf family members. School is harder because the child either has to find a deaf school (which generally does not produce a quality education) or a personal translator to interpret for them in a normal class. In addition, communication problems can make finding work and moving up in ranking much more difficult, if possible at all.

                Almost all the people in the film remembered or thought about how deaf people are teased. Growing up is hard enough with being constantly tormented for something a child can’t help. These are just a few of the reasons arguing for a cochlear implant.

                Why wouldn’t parents want their children to gain so many more of these opportunities? As it was portrayed in the movie, people might feel that the child will lose their deaf culture and look down upon other deaf people. The thing is, the cochlear implant does not make the person hearing, it only makes it possible to hear at certain times with the use of the implant. I think that a child should learn how to speak normally, then they can learn sign language when they’re older if they so choose. I think that people will be interested in their true heritage, and then they will know what to do (signing and deaf culture) if their hearing ever goes away again.

                I personally felt that some of the reasons relatives give in the film against the cochlear implant were more selfish than anything. They argued that the child wouldn’t like them anymore and that they were ashamed of the deaf culture. This seems like these relatives only want the kid to be deaf so that they had more people to talk to and relate to, even if it was harder for the kid in the long run.

                I feel that the cochlear implant is almost always the right choice for a child (unless some other medical reason says otherwise) because of the better future it offers them.  Al l the logic points towards cochlear implants being positive, while the arguments against the implant always seem to be personally emotions selfishly getting in the way.