Vamlet

#butfirstletmetakeaselfie

     This week we discussed photography and the value of a picture.  Long ago, photographs were rare and each one contained vast amounts of history and beauty.  Old photographs are looked back on and analyzed, because each tells a story. But in a few centuries, will people be analyzing our "selfies"?
     urbandictionary.com defines a "selfie" as "A picture taken of yourself that is planned to be uploaded to Facebook, Myspace or any other sort of social networking website. You can usually see the person's arm holding out the camera in which case you can clearly tell that this person does not have any friends to take pictures of them so they resort to Myspace to find internet friends and post pictures of themselves, taken by themselves. A selfie is usually accompanied by a kissy face or the individual looking in a direction that is not towards the camera," or my absolute favorite, "A ridiculous practice of narcissism." Personally, I think that social media such as Twitter and Instagram have contributed to the devaluing of a picture, along with humans' desire to be viewed in a positive light.  I think that many people only post pictures so people see that they're having fun, and it is a type of bragging. (Not everyone, but this is true for a lot, even if they don't realize it).
     Pictures don't capture (no pun intended) as much as they used to.  They're a lot easier to view immediately now, so people can take how ever many they want and only keep "perfect" ones. However, there is a lot of perfection in a flawed photograph.  It shows the true mood of a moment; each deleted picture contains a memory.  The so-called "selfie" is nothing more than the word itself-a picture of faces.  There is no value in it, and it cannot capture a part of the moment besides what your face looked like. Wouldn't you rather have a group picture or be able to see the background? Isn't that a better, more in-depth memory?
     Pictures have become more of a social status update than an actual, personal memory for the people in them. Meaningful pictures are posted online, but not nearly as often as unneseccary ones. I think that if social media wasn't as popular, there would be many more meaningful photographs than pointless selfies.
   

(If you have not seen the #selfie song, I strongly suggest) (but also there may be some inappropriate words so please be sure to get parent permission before viewing)

The Hallway is Yours, Your Highness

     Rules exist almost everywhere, including many places in the school. The rules are supposedly there to keep us safe, but who cares?
     In the hallways, you're supposed to try to keep to the right, use the door on the right, and not block doorways/entrances/etc. However, why not just walk on the left? Go through the door on the left? I absolutely love and encourage when everyone goes through the wrong door (or both doors from the same side, forcing everyone else to wait, including me who is happy to wait there until someone finally realizes that he maybe should follow simple courtesy, as difficult and inconvenient as it may be). Everyone should go around with the attitude that he is the only person that matters, because that is the only way to live a successful life.
   My friend was going down the correct stairwell when all of a sudden someone else came up, going the wrong way. The wrong-goer proceeded to yell, "out of my way, I'm going to be late!" and my friend was very irritated by this and did not move. Upon hearing this anecdote, I was shocked that my friend would be capable of such rude behavior.  Always yield to the person going the wrong way, because he is always right. The day everyone realizes that the wrongs are actually right and that everyone else is better than she is is the day the world will finally run smoothly.
    The parking lot is another example. Many cars do not stop at mandatory stops/crosswalks.  But why should they? Why not make the pedestrians wait for a change? You're in the car, you're much bigger so you could take them, easy. Also, people have began to use the wrong lane and cut off people last minute, saving themselves time by getting in front of everyone.  Many people dislike this and honk and are irritated and feel it's unfair, but why? That person is obviously better than you are, they do not need to follow the rules like the rest. (Don't ask why they're better than everyone else, they just are and everyone knows it so you should, too.)
      The moral of these stories is to never think of anyone but yourself. You're royalty, and everyone else is the dead bugs on your windshield. But also assume that everyone is better than you are because that is true, as well. They are royalty, and you're a bug.  It's not a double-standard. Not at all.

A Not-So-Happy Medium

     In both "A Measure of Restraint" and "Okefenokee Swamp," extremes are discussed. Chet Raymo discusses how science is beneficial, but only to a point. When it goes too far, it can be detrimental or immoral. The author of "Okefenokee Swamp" implies different levels of analyzing-the first passage takes a more medium, descriptive stance while the second is a completely negative one. The only thing missing is the opposite end: a strong positive one. But is there really such thing as a happy-medium 100% of the time?
     The cure for cancer will never be found without extensive study. Scientists will need to go further and dig deeper than ever before. If they never take risks or do things that some disapprove of, they may never get anywhere. I'm not saying that there is no limit, but it should not be rigid. This leaves the problem of where to stop: where in the middle of not doing enough and doing too much?
     Also, when describing something, how should you describe it? If someone asks you what a local park is like, how much bias should you give? You want to give her an accurate representation of it, but if you think it's a waste of time, you don't want her to waste hers, too. Is the picnic area just a picnic area? Or is it infested with bugs, or a perfect area for family time? How much does this person want to know? Should she experience all of it it herself or trust you?
     Every single day people try to find the "happy-medium." It's the ultimate struggle between too much and not enough, so happy-mediums are perfect, but extremely, frustratingly difficult to find.

Children Cooking Cupcakes?

     Once upon a time, in a speech to the National Woman Suffrage Association, Florence Kelley used child labor to propel her argument. I think this was an extremely good idea because of the pathos she conveys, and the rhetoric she uses to advance her argument makes her justification seem very intelligent..
     Imagine this: you're enjoying a "Pink Elephants" cupcake (yes, this is a real thing http://pinkelephantcupcakes.com) and then find out that a child laborer slaved over it for hours. Does it taste as good now? No, and now you feel bad for having enjoyed something that put another in pain, especially a helpless child. This is how everyone that heard her speech felt; they empathized with these children and did not want them to suffer.  When Kelley refers to women sleeping through the issue, she implies that without a vote, women are completely helpless. This was a win-win situation, however, because if women could gain the right to vote they would indeed help the children.
     Maybe Jesus played a role in this too--not just conscience. Jesus wants the children protected, and women too.  It is a common moral (or religious belief) that all people should be treated fairly, and providing children with wretched conditions and prohibiting women to vote based on a simple, biological factor is completely unfair and immoral.
     Today, this does not seem like as big of an issue but it is only because of heroes like Florence Kelley that devoted their lives to helping others. Her speech also shows how combining to issues to benefit each other can have a very successful result.


(We had Pink Elephant cupcakes for my brother's grad party and I can assure you that they tasted better knowing that whomever made them earned at least minimum wage and worked in a building with safety regulations).

Silhouettes of Danger and the Battle of the Sexes

    In the piece we read this week, Staples discusses how black people are treated differently and seen as more dangerous and violent.  While I agree this stereotype is real, I know it is false and I do not feel that way at all in public.
     The only judgments that make sense are ones that the person can control-clothes, what he's carrying, etc.  Skin color gives absolutely no insight to what a person is like or what his purpose is.
     No matter what the color of skin, if anyone approaches me I tense up.  Day or night, paranoia consumes me when I'm alone and see someone. A shadow alone is enough to speed up my heartbeat, and I assume many others feel this way.
    This being said, I feel that if I was a boy, I would not be as scared.  Girls are seen as week so they are taken advantage of and have a much greater chance of being victims of things such as rape.  According to RAINN, 9/10 of rape victims are women, and 1/6 women in the United States have faced either attempted rape or completed rape.  With these statistics, how can you trust anyone, of any age or any race?
   Although the stereotype itself is completely false and racist, I feel that for those who believe it simply do because it has been wrongly imprinted into their brains and coincides with a survival instinct.  For them, it is a means of self-defense because people are not willing to risk their lives for anything, and no one knows whom to trust.  In my opinion, race does not matter whatsoever; it is much more a matter of not trusting anyone at all.

The (Stereotypical) Family

     The chart we made in class this week depicts what we thought to be standard qualities for all four types of relationships; however, our in-class discussion refuted these ideals because everyone is different.  Some said their moms are more protective while some said their dads. We also discussed cultural differences between these relationships but I think it all comes down to one thing: trust.
     The amount of trust in each relationship determines how the relationship works. If there is no trust, the relationship will not blossom.  Saying this, trust is earned not given, so all relationships are either built up or destroyed over time.  If a parent trusts its child, the child is more likely to trust the parent so they will probably get along better. This "trust" goes both ways, so I think it is in the middle of a "tiger-parent" and one who lets its child do whatever it wants.  The child needs to trust that her parents are doing the best thing possible for her, and the parents in turn need to trust that they've raised the child the right way and that she will do the right thing.
     Going off of this, when we thought about our relationships with our parents, mine with my dad and mom seemed to be very similar.  Of course there are some differences, but both my parents are protective and loving and easy-going and strict.  It's all relative.  Even though stereotypes exist, I don't think they're very accurate because all relationships are so vastly different.