The Great Gatsby Reflection

Although I was only able to see the first hour of the film, I was able to experience the music in the film. I believe the choices of music were very unique and acceptable in The Great Gatsby.

The music that was used was very modern. He used familiar choices such as "Heart of the City" by Jay Z and "I Can't Stop." I believe the reason that he did this was to give a modern appeal to the audience and help them to connect more to the movie. The music helped me feel how Nick felt at the time when he was at the house party with Tom Buchanan, alive and young. Another reason I feel his music choice was appropriate was to touch on the fact of old versus new money. The music also showed how good the rich had it in the roaring 20's. All of the music that I experienced in the limited time that I have watched it were intense music in a happy time, such as when Nick and the gang were driving downtown and they heard "Heart of the City" being played while the other car was dancing and laughing and drinking like there was no tomorrow. From AP US History I learned that these times weren't so great for people that were less financially fortunate because it was almost the next Gilded Age where social disparity was extremely high.

The music chosen in The Great Gatsby was a creative masterpiece by Luhrmann. All of these ideas went into choosing the music and it turned out to astound and appeal to the modern audience. All in all, an excellent movie that I recommend to anyone (unless the ending ruins it to which I have not yet seen).

Map Analysis

In my map analysis I have chosen two that have mapped the world, but I will analyze America. One is from 1507 and the other is from 1581. Both of these maps are from the website below.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/gmdhtml/dsxphome.html

1. Looking closely at the map from 1507, it is seen that America hasn't been completely discovered. So far it was the eastern coast of America that has been discovered. The later version from 1581 shows the entire Americas mapped out, but a little more bulgy than we now know. Both of the maps have areas where flags are drawn on them to indicate which their owner resides from. Another close observation is that the older map doesn't have much about the terrain of America. The later version of the map starts to exemplify boundaries of european settlements and where the seaports are present as well as the routes that most boats take to get to America. In addition, the later map starts to show the terrain of America by adding trees and mountains.

2. These maps have writing that resides from the French culture (from my studies of French). With this being said, this is the story of how the French came to America. They began to learn about America from the east coast and worked their way west and acquired land that they could claim. In addition, the later map shows the average ways that they would get to America through their routes across the sea. Some assumptions they made were that any land undiscovered was part of the ocean, and another assumption was that no river was connected on the early map. On the later dated map, the cartographer saw rivers as not important and didn't include them. Both of these maps promoted the value of discovery because the reason for the making of these maps was to map the world. My observations from question one relate directly because it shows that there has been progress in the discovery of America because more land has been mapped out and it's not mapped out as ocean.

3. The quote I chose to relate to these maps reads, "Maps in subsequent Smith works portray growing English imperialism." Both of these French maps show growing European imperialism, their thirst for discovery. Also, as stated in question one, parts of the land show flags as to which areas have been claimed. Both of these show growing imperialism in Europe, especially from the French.

Is the American Dream Attainable Anymore?

Everyone that grew up in America has heard of the American dream: start from the bottom and work to the top. The best way to say it is by the novels that Horatio Alger published during the Gilded Age. During the Gilded age, it seemed completely acceptable to work hard and you will be rewarded for it, but is this idea still valid in today's society with social disparity and current economics? Can someone be very poor but be socially mobile in climbing the economic ladder to the top? I believe so. American education has attained a greater amount than we ever did, and we are making sure that everyone is able to fully allocate these resources, but there are some educational opportunities that are greater for the rich but nonetheless, what really matters is how diligent we are.

 

The American people have always grasped their choices and ideas around money. Here in the United States, money is what makes the world go 'round (to be cliché). We envy the rich and look down upon the poor and feel we need to help bring them out of poverty. This idea has constantly been burdened upon America: how good you are is dependent on how much money you make; however, this is also America, where the American dream can be conquered. We hear about these victories every year. From Steve Jobs and his Apple Empire to Oprah and her strive to work to the top; there are many examples of how the American dream can be achieved. Nowadays, it seems that the American Dream is slimming for children who are less fortunate than others. In Sean F. Reardon's article No Rich Child Left Behind, he writes, "the rich perform better in school than children from middle-class or poor families" (Source A). In Reardon's article, he also writes, "large national studies conducted between 1960 and 2010, I found that the rich-poor gap in test scores is about 40 percent larger now than it was 30 years ago." Others agree with this statement such as the author of Social Mobility in America: Repairing the Rungs when he/she writes, "One study suggests that the gap in test scores between the children of America's richest 10% and its poorest has risen by 30-40% over the past 25 years" (Source B). This can't be a coincidence if this has been the trend for decades. The rich have more resources than the poor and can use them in helping their children to become intelligent and prepared for the real world. Figure three from Pursuing the American Dream: Economic Mobility Across Generations shows us that most Americans stay in the social class that they were born in (Source F). Lastly, "The Great Gatsby Curve" by Paul Krugman shows us that the United States is very inelastic when it comes to social mobility (Source G). All of this reliable information does prove a correlation between the success of the American dream and the social disparity that disconnects us from social mobility.

 

Even though facts suggest that social mobility is difficult at this time, many optimists suggest that diligence is what we need. Sara Rimer interviews Nicole Done in her article Gatsby's Green Light Beckons a New Set of Strivers and Nicole states, "For me the American dream is working hard for something you want" (Source C). Nicole's inspiring quote is something that Americans hold true to what was said by Americans during the Gilded Age. It was the "Horatio Alger" way, and if you worked hard, it would be cruel to get nothing in return. A famous quote by Samuel Goldwyn is "The harder I work, the luckier I get." Whether or not you believe in luck, this quote seems to hold true. An example would be studying for exams. If you work hard and study for exams, the more likely, or lucky, you are to succeed. Another person who believes in this mentality is Yasmina Shaush. In the article This I Believe: The American Dream Lives On, it entails, "The true beauty of America lies not in its fruited plains or purple mountain majesties, but in the determination of the people" (Source D). The American dream is made by the people that want to achieve it. The diligent people are destined for success. Figure one from Pursuing the American Dream: Economic Mobility Across Generations entices us that 84% of children exceed their family's income (Source F).

 

There is one point that has come to my attention after engulfing in the midst of this topic. When reading about income, it was all determined from your choice in a career. Most people strive for the job that generates the most income; however, many people choose the job they find most appealing. This idea of "falling back" is well stated in the article Economic Mobility Is Determined by Personal Choice, which reads, "If Warren Buffett’s son opts to become a priest and take a vow of poverty, that might say wonderful things about his son, but it says nothing about economic mobility" (Source E). With this in mind, the job that these people choose might not be the job with the highest salary, or even a slightly lower salary. This could skew data that has been brought to the table about how social mobility seems inelastic. It has also occurred to me that after watching People Like Us, many people like being around people that are in their same social class, and this could result in people choosing jobs that could generate a certain level of income that's identical to others in that social class.

 

It is a difficult dilemma that we are stuck with. There are many ideas that support the idea of social mobility being inelastic and the American dream becoming less attainable to those that are less fortunate than others. On the other hand, there are many outliers that haven’t been included in data that could skew information and void data. I believe that what it comes down to is diligence. Anyone can go and be that nobody that turns into somebody if they're diligent and ready for the road that lies ahead.

View From the Bourgeois Vous (Upper-Middle Class)

After taking the Christian Science Monitor quiz, it has come to my attention that I am coined as an Upper-Middle Class American, in which I cannot deny. I see myself as more in the “middle” middle-class, but now that I am reflecting more on my life I can see how I am in the upper-middle class. Money has never been an extreme issue and I’ve been able to get almost everything that I’ve asked for without hesitation (besides video games that have been rated as mature). Looking more in depth on the quiz itself, I think the questions asked were pretty valid towards determining your social status; however, they never considered education. In my opinion, education is extremely important because the poor are seen as uneducated; therefore, timid to people that have the opportunity to get an education. I also wish the class didn’t ask about how much money you have left over after your expenditures because I don’t keep track of all the money that I spend and have left over. Other than that I have no complaints about the quiz and I feel it was very accurate in determining my social class.

Over the past couple days, we’ve been reading about social class and what others see on this issue. In the article Shadowy Lines That Still Divide it reads, “At a time when education matters more than ever, success in school remains linked tightly to class.” I believe this statement is true because most of the wealthy Americans have an outstanding education. Also, in order to fulfill the requirements of a highly regarded and well paid job, you need to have an education that aids you in performing the requirements. In the article Money Always Talks, it spoke about how the less fortunate feel uncomfortable around wealthier social classes. I can relate because, being an upper-middle class American, I have found myself surrounded by wealthy people in an area known as Maple Bluff. I felt I couldn’t engage in conversation with these people because they were talking about topics that I couldn’t relate to. The topics of conversation were about eating at the country club and about where they have travelled to. Unfortunately, I haven’t had the opportunity to travel to many places or dine at a superb country club. It made me feel shy and nervous. I just wanted to leave and talk with people who could relate to me.

This leads me to an interesting point, social classes engage with their same social classes. In the excerpt of the documentary People Like Us that we were watching, it was talking about only WASP’s could be around other WASP’s, and any outsiders would be dismissed immediately. In my own experience, this is the same way. Being an athlete, I tend to hang around with other athletes. If a non-athlete approached as and tried talking about the same topics that we were discussing, we gave him a very perplexing look because it seemed that he didn’t have any credentials because he wasn’t an athlete. This is just like a regular person trying to jump into a WASP group and make casual conversation.

In our society nowadays, there are many stereotypes that split social classes and make others feel lesser than the wealthy, but one goal is everyone’s mind, rich or poor, and that goal is to be the best you can be (from excerpt of movie). This ideal makes our society strong and you can belong to any social class. As long as our society holds this ideal, I feel that our country will only continue to improve with stereotypes and social disparity.

Cochlear Implant, Superb or Spoiling?

When speaking about disabilities, it always seems like something to be looked down upon. There are always doctors trying to correct these disabilities, and not thinking of the repercussions. Sound and Fury brought a new perspective to the deaf culture with further analysis on the cochlear implant that corrects hearing on the disabled. This film brings in two families from different backgrounds and bearing a deaf child, and they need to choose between giving their child the cochlear implant or keeping them the way that they were born.

The first family was completely deaf, and they were submersed in the deaf culture. When they found out about giving the cochlear implant to their daughter, they were quite skeptical. After visiting numerous public schools and hospitals, it was concluded that their daughter seemed out of touch with the hearing world. She wanted to hear because she wanted to be able to speak to the children that couldn’t use sign language. The public schools only seemed to discourage her and push her away from what was socially normal. Visits to the hospital only seemed to discourage the family and her more. Even if the operation was successful, it would take time to develop because the daughter is at the age of five. The parents of the daughter seemed to be losing interest because after more visitations to families who had gone through with the cochlear implant, they were out of touch with the deaf culture. The family would’ve made their final decision right there, but there were others who disagreed because they would re restricting the child from being able to operate in an ever-changing world.

The next family was fully capable of hearing. When they realized there son was deaf, they wanted to take immediate action. The cochlear implant seemed like a marvelous idea. When you’re deaf, you have limitations. You can only communicate with people that know sign language, and this leaves you out of an entire culture. With the cochlear implant, you would be able to communicate with both the hearing and the deaf world (considering you would learn sign language). Life would be much easier, and you would have a higher chance of success in the business world as well. The family knew the right choice for their six month old baby, but they were being criticized by the deaf culture because the baby couldn’t choose for itself. They wanted the family to wait until the baby could make its own decision, but the longer you wait, the chances of the operation being successful diminish. Most people feel like the baby won’t want to be in touch with the deaf culture after successfully having the implant, and that’s a major reason to why families don’t want their children to have this operation.

The first family decided on moving to a more socially accepting deaf community where the five year old daughter could continue to be deaf and receive a good education in the process. The other family chose to get the cochlear implant for their child in hopes of making his life easier and making him feel included in the world. There are conflicts to both sides, and it’s an interesting and difficult choice to consider when two different cultures rest on the line. I have one question I’d like you to consider though. If someone was blind, it would seem that the proper treatment to fix it would be extinct, but when it’s dealing with deafness the opposite seems to occur, why?

Can't See, Not For Me

It wasn't until recently that I stumbled upon my greatest fear. I was visiting a friend, having a good time and all was well. We decided to watch a film that seemed to be quite frightening: Paranormal Activity. At first, I thought nothing of it. I regarded it as just another ghost story that ends up resolving itself. I was mistaken.

As the end neared further, the characters of the story were being tormented in the most gruesome way imaginable by a demonic force. From being dragged into the darkness to hearing piercing voices while doors slamming shut, the antagonist seemed to be at the upper hand. The characters were just begging for death by the end of it. Ever since then I have always feared paranormal entities and demonic forces. I find myself awake at night trembling at the slightest sound I hear. It's as though these forces touch me at night and that's why I wake up with my eyes bulging right before the television turns off from its sleep timer. An odd coincidence? I don't think so, it never happened before I saw that movie. Why is it happening now? Even during the day I find myself at times searching around the room because my mind says that something is near, something dangerous and feeds off the trembling hands of its victims. Some say these creatures and forces can be summoned by various boards and books such as the Ouiji board. These forces stop at nothing to make you fear everything and everyone until you sit in your room going insane. Communicating with them will only strenghten the bond that is between one and these forces.

I don't see myself ever going as far as insane, but after Paranormal Activity, it seems that I'm one step closer to heading down the path of the protagonists of this film. Dead and never seen again. I also decided not to watch any more for fear that I won't sleep at night and imagine myself in abandoned houses just being dragged down into the darkness by some demon that wants to rip my soul and have if for himself.

Assange, Manning, and Snowden: Innocent or Insane?

The controersy regarding illegal documents is very tacky. On one hand, there is the first amendment which states freedom of speech and press. On the other hand, releasing of sensitive documents could result in an uproar revolts. The choice is between what is ethical and what is right?

Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, is being brought to question after his release of many key documents; however, he and his colleagues believe it is for the safety of the people. An article from the Wall Street Journal entitled "Can the U.S. Bring Assange to Justice?" discusses this dilemma in greater detail.

In the article it was said that the United States law states that it's a crime to disclose secret information "relating to national defense." It was also said that no news outlet has ever been punished for publishing secrets.  Since this is the case, how can the United States possibly try and win this case? Due to the first amendment, it makes matters even worse. Freedom of the press nearly gives all rights to newspapers to publish whatever they feel is right to publish. With this impossible task in mind, the United States needs to try and convince the court that it is in the right of the public that they keep secrets to themselves. If insane ideas got out to the public, then it might cause political instability and throw the country out of spin.

To be in tune with Assange, his main focus is the people. During TED talk, Assage stated that the safety of the civilians was very important. There is nothing worse than a corrupt government making decisions that benefit only them and not the people of the country. Assange is sacrificing his own personal identity and integrity to release documents, and that is very courageous. Whatever he is releasing must be an important document because he putting himself on the line. The same was the case with Manning and Snowden, but does this incredible courage describe them as martyrs?

I believe that the Unites States government should be the winners of this brawl. The article said that the government created their law for privacy and they should be given that. I feel the government is like a person, and every person has the right to privacy that concerns them. Until the releases of the documents are severe enough to cause damage to individuals of the United States, the government should be able to keep the documents they own private to themselves. This way no one will be harmed, and the stability of the country will remain in tact.