Fictional Facts

                   We are in a time of great concern, where people seem to lack the ability to communicate and at least listen to the other side. This can be seen in a variety of events, some of which, are extremely shocking. Everyday words such as the "Greenhouse Effect", "Global Warming", and "Irreversible Pollution" are thrown around, but how many people actually understand what they mean? It seems like people are simply incorporating scientific words to bolster their own credibility. This, however, leads to great misconceptions and great ignorance. Each day, we continue to lack the understanding of what exactly goes on in our environment and how we impact it so.

                    In recent times we've seen the biggest hit to the government-side of resources, in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). With the introduction of the newest head to the EPA, Scott Pruitt has lead the office for less than a month before declaring statements that challenge years of research. His claim that states that carbon dioxide "is not a primary contributor to the global warming" goes against what the scientific community of heads of research such as NASA and NOAA have upheld for decades. In fact, his statement contradicts what is on the EPA's on webpage: "Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas that is contributing to recent climate change." In essence, Pruitt's statement attempts to ignore the very basis that geologists and oceanographers have studied, researched, and shown everywhere. This statement goes against what climate experts and weather researchers have noted since the early twentieth century. Yet what will some people do? Believe him. Not because he is right. Not because he is smart. But because these people refuse to or or lack the ability to comprehend simple facts and signs that would hurt their current lifestyle. Any attempt at change is attack on themselves. Thus, we continue to ignore the facts that are around us; the very signs of life that tell us otherwise.
                  

"So you entered the age of irony, and the strange double life you've been leading with the world ever since."

(Dihydrogen Monoxide = H2O)

Unmarked Understanding

               I found the piece "There is No Unmarked Woman" by Deobrah Tannen intriguing for multiple reasons. I, personally don't ever care too much about my clothing or my hairstyle as long as it looked somewhat "acceptable" it was okay to me. To me I have a standard of what I wear to school and I don't wear anything special ever. Women, on the other hand, seem to have an endless variety of clothing to choose from and while I used to be jealous of such a thing, I now think about the consequences that it can play. How it can define and possibly "diminish her as a person" depending on the style and quality of the clothing. How it causes there to be no "unmarked" woman, no standard to follow. But, besides all of this, how she develops her argument throughout the essay, in fact, less than half the time is spent on clothing aspects. Most of it, however, is supported by factual/objective evidence that slowly leads into her final claim/thesis about how society continues to support these marked and unmarked roles. This comparison to other stuff besides clothing is extremely powerful because it brings up the theme of universality; how the marked and unmarked applies to everything, even in our everyday language whether we realize it or not. People, however, are unaccepting and according to Tannen, try to label her as a feminist or a male-basher. The end discussion about how she herself is labeled and the deconstruction of those words are used serve to highlight her own intelligence and the ignorance of society. By including the anecdote about the man who clearly wasn't rational in his argument about calling her a male-basher, Tannen makes huge gains both logically and emotionally by refuting the obviously flawed claim and reinstating her own. 

"To say anything about women and men without marking oneself as either feminist or anti-feminist, male-basher or apologist for men seems as impossible for a women as trying to get dressed in the morning without inviting interpretations of her character."

Thinking of Thoughts

              When looking out the window, I often imagine what it must have been like to have lived in the time of Ghandi. What I'm aching to see is the revolutionary nonviolence, peaceful protesting, and hope in people's eyes. But the people I see now are dull and broken; their voice stuck in their throats and their minds in outer space. Your Majesty, Ghandi, as it were, was a true leader amongst men; however, in our desperate times for change we've ironically forgotten the valuable lessons that he taught us. In other words, this grand, intelligent, leader has become is simply a man with vision, ideals, and an instinct for humanity. The physical punishment that goes with violence is greatly underplayed. Shootings are greatly understated in many countries due to the government trying to keep it all under wraps. The safe environment of our own hometown keeps us sheltered from all the suffering and pain that happens all around us all the time. People are rarely truly thinking, they show their ignorance by laughing at others. Others might argue that violence is the quickest method for change, but that is no matter. Change through such a means is always short lived and fake; a cowardly method for those with no greater plans. The world continues to hinge upon such methods, however, with wars still being fought around the world; a game of ping-pong for losers. There is no finish, just the sound of the rallying of bullets bouncing off of one another. In the end all will be lost, the earth a cavern filled with the corpses of billions who once had hope in their eyes.

Lobster Lunacy

"Wanna grab something to eat?"
"Sure!"

The anecdote regarding lobster used to being considered a prison food, "Consider the Lobster" by David Foster Wallace, was really intriguing. This is in direct contrast, as DFW mentions, to today. Nowadays, lobster (along with most seafood) is seen as a delicacy, a food fit for the rich. So my question was: How did lobster rise all the way from being dumped on a paper plate all the way up to being served on a silver platter?

To answer the aforementioned question. I did a bit of research. During the early to mid 1800s, lobster was plentiful. The Atlantic was teeming with lobster, and were even given the nickname "cockroaches of the sea". When the railroad industry took off in the mid to late 1800s, however, so did lobster. Lobster was served on the trains to those who had rarely or never even seen it before. Inland passengers loved it. From there on, lobster became popular in the inner states, and its price skyrocketed.

"In the U.S. pop-food imagination, lobster is now the seafood analog to steak, with which it’s so often twinned as Surf ’n’ Turf on the really expensive part of the chain steak house menu."

Whenever I go to a restaurant, my parents are always telling me to order a specific item. In fact, most of the time it's a type of seafood, either fish or shrimp. They tell me to because they believe it's the most value. But what exactly is "value"? I certainly don't prefer eating shrimp or lobster to pizza, and pizza is only a fraction of the cost. If the value is not dictated by my own level of satisfaction or taste, then surely it must be the nutritional one? 

One argument one might make then, is the nutritional value behind the food. While there might be something there, it is definitely not the main reason for the exponential rise in cost. If it were, then why aren't fruits and vegetables more expensive? Surely something like spinach has at least as much, if not more nutrition then lobster. Why, then, aren't you eating spinach three times a day? If we truly based food price on nutritional value alone, then why isn't spinach listed under the main course and not some dish served on the side?

So if lobster isn't valued for nutrition or health benefits why is it so expensive? That's essentially the same question as asking why do we watch reality TV? Or, why do we follow celebrities? It's all about cultural perception.We want to eat like the rich, talk like the rich, be the rich. Lobster, itself, has not changed over the years. It has not suddenly changed its self to become more palatable or more nutritional. It has stayed the same from the time the Founding Fathers landed to now.  But it is the value that we place on it that has. We have transformed it into a delicacy. A food once consumed in vast quantities by the poor, has now consumed middle class America.

"How about we go to Red Lobster?"
"Yeah....... no."

"All Hail Our New King"

Concentrating on Chess

            The short story, "Arm Wrestling with My Father", was intriguing because it managed to connect with me on a more personal level. Through its anecdotes and analogies it managed to amaze me through emotional appeal. The different expressions/forms of love and how it tied in to their ever changing lives, left me speechless. 
             I can remember it like it was yesterday. There it was, 64 squares and 32 pieces. The ritual of the mind had begun from a young age. I remember in those games how my father would always let me choose which side to play, knowing that he would always win in the end. My greatest efforts did not change a thing. It did not matter whether I played he English opening or the French defense, both were futile against his continual advances. I saw myself staring into the timer, a bead of sweat formed across my forehead. In the end, all I could here from him was a series of "checks" before the final "checkmate". Each loss was a detriment to myself; another strategy book that I had to read. I became obsessed and consumed with the task.

"I am no longer a challenger, quick to correct his verbal mistakes, determined to beat him whenever possible in competition."

           It was not soon after that I had already moved on. The games were shoved aside in favor of other interests. The mat of 64 squares was left rolled up on the table. The 32 pieces were stored neatly in their respective pouches. The timer sat there, waiting for time to pass. School was becoming ever more intense, and the time that I shared with him dwindled evermore. Maybe this summer, we will play each other again. Maybe this summer, I will be the one to say "checkmate". Or maybe rather than any of this, I'll just have fun.

(A little chess puzzle as a throwback to those times. As the title implies, white moves first and it takes three moves to checkmate. Can you figure it out?)

Normal Nancy

           The question that intrigued me the most from the reading of "Disability" by Nancy Mairs was the effect of how one sees or values themselves. How one views themselves... perhaps that is apart of their own identity as well? Someone like Nancy Mairs, who has a disability, is also extremely self-confident. She is able to overcome her disability and see herself as a normal individual. It is her disability that gives her such strong determination. So is the key all about mentality? How one chooses to view them self? It is apparent that one's own thoughts and feelings are, to some extent, influenced by one's own surroundings. It is also apparent from the looks and stares seen in public that disabilities are not normal. But what about mental disabilities? Qualities such as one's own self-esteem or personality. Surely those may not be as extremely obvious to the everyday commoner, but they are also disabilities. Those, I believe, may be some of the toughest to overcome. Someone who lacks the fiery passion of Mairs will have a much more difficult time accepting who they are. The Media, as Nancy Mairs explains, is responsible for much of this. It is difficult for one to accept them self, if they are not accepted by somebody else first. As humans we are always insecure. About our looks, our personality, our relationship with others... our everything. The Media, either directly or indirectly, continues to perpetuate images of beauty standards and "normalcy". It is from this that we continue to widen the gap between an actual human and their idealized images. As time moves forward, society will continue to chase after the intangible, perfectionist views that are portrayed on magazine covers and TV ads. It is from this that we continue to follow this upward trend of the idealized image, and aim to prove to ourselves that we are "normal". We are not. To be someone who you are not is the exact opposite of what it is to be normal.

"In the extreme, you might feel as thought you don't exist... Everyone else is "there", sucking breath mints and splashing cologne and swigging wine coolers. You're "not there." And if not there, nowhere."

The Hidden Side

              I love stories that bring up characters that have a hidden side/motivations. It's even better when these characters are portrayed in such a way that makes them seem cunning or manipulative. For these two reasons alone I was absorbed by the first five chapters of The Great Gatsby. The story consists of many characters that fit these two qualities. They have an artificial outward appearance and choose to hide themselves deep inside. In doing so, however, the characters use lies. Mr. Gatsby, for example, seems to have grown up in the "Middle West" of San Francisco; Jordan Baker seems to have changed the minds of witnesses. Even Nick, who seems to be the most honest character in the novel, uses manipulative words. Gatsby, however, is the most notable character for this trait with his vast connections and use of others. Although he puts up a front that seems genuine and trustworthy, his relations with others just serve to further his own means. This can be  seen with Nick. Gatsby befriends Nick because of one reason: his present relations with Daisy. Ultimately, however, one can see Gatsby's change in nature once he achieves his purpose. He loses interest in Nick after being reintroduced. Nick is simply a tool at Gatsby's disposal.

"They had forgotten me, but Daisy glanced up and held out her hand; Gatsby didn't know me now at all... I went out of the room and down the marble steps into the rain, leaving them there together."

              Even early on, however, we can see that Gatsby is not as flawless as when he first appeared. He makes mistakes when lying, and occasionally fails to hide his emotions. He slips up the most after being reunited with Daisy. When Nick asks what business he's involved in, Gatsby, not thinking, tells Nick that it's "[his own] affair". He is unsure of what to do when Daisy enters; he "reevaluates" himself and his possessions when touring, and nearly "topples down a flight of stairs". These instances demonstrate the persona that Gatsby has spent the last several years creating: one of grand wealth and importance. He believes that such a thing is essential for him to win over Daisy. In doing so, however, he lies. He hides his genuine personality. He uses others. He involves himself with scandalous people and activities. He sacrifices his own past and his own identity. To finally achieve his dream of being with Daisy, Gatsby destroys himself.