The Greed Within Me

Most people have never heard of the name Vin Baker. He was an NBA player who played for 13 seasons and was an all-star 4 consecutive times. Moreover, he has made almost a $100 million through his playing career, which could be considered as financially set for years to come. As we were reading "A Measure of Restraint” in class this week, I could not help but think of Baker when Marie Curie's death was described such that "her wounds came from the same source as her power".  Just so we are on the same page, Vin Baker did not die. However, his struggle through life is relatable to Marie Curie's downfall. A man who was once on sports biggest stage, Vin Baker had it all until he was dangling on the edge of poverty. His bad spending habits on drugs and alcohol caused him to lose all his money and become a manager at Starbucks. Since then, he has got back on track and is now working on Fox as a basketball analyst. Diving deeper into the subject, money gets into people's head and causes them to make bad choices. At the high point of his life, Vin Baker lost everything because of the reputation and wealth he gained from being an NBA player. Why did he not make these bad choices before he got into the NBA? He did not have a strong authority in society, which lead him to make good choices by working hard to get into the NBA. The source of power does not influence someone until they reach a comfortable lifestyle. Once they reach the point of bottom tier, or receive "wounds", they will eventually return to reality. When Vin Baker had to settle for the big transition from an NBA player to a Starbucks manager, he finally let reality sink in. He knew he needed to do something to turn his life around because settling for an average lifestyle after being considered royalty as an NBA player is not what he worked for so long to achieve. Thus, when some people achieve their "source of power", it leads them to take the wrong path which brings them back to where the started or even worse.

The Meaning Within Me

These days, our society is full of an intertwined web of speech that no one can understand. Steven Pinker states in his short story, “Words Don't Mean What They Mean", that "when people talk, they lay lines on each other, do a lot of role playing, side step, shilly-shally, and engage in a manner of vagueness and innuendo." If we put this reality aside and instead focus on a more paradoxical view regarding our society, what would happen if words truly mean what they mean? For example, let us take a common example of a boy and his parents. The boy really wants to go to his friend’s house, but he knows that his parents will not let him because his final exams are coming up. If we live in today's reality, the boy would ask his parents if he is allowed to go to the library to "study". In our case, we know what he really means because the boy's "studying" is his idealized version of "playing”. Of course, his parents cannot recognize this and they let him go. In contrast, the paradoxical view is the boy asking his parents if he can actually go to his friend’s house to play video games. Obviously, the parents will say no. Now let us weigh in on the consequences. In the world we live in today, the kid will go to his friend’s house to play video games. Clearly, his final exam grade will not look good and cause his parents to question what their son was actually doing. There is no way for the boy to hide the truth and he confesses that he went to his friend’s house. The result for the boy will be getting grounded for the foreseeable future. In our paradoxical world, the boy will be disgruntled that he is not allowed to go, but will study and receive a good grade with no punishment. So, which choice is really better? Would you lose out on the chance to miss having fun during your childhood to study, or would you have fun and face the consequences later. Although this might seem like a very obvious choice for some, the answers are surprisingly split in our society. Although most people will pick the first choice, this is the paradoxical view that nobody in our society follows. Even though it might hold true for this specific situation, it does not in the long run. It is inevitable that one will slip away from this viewpoint for whatever reason such as dignity, embarrassment or friendship.  

  

The Words Within Me

Every day in today's society, we hear hateful speech from every corner of our lives. When we go to watch TV, it is inevitable to see a news reporter spewing biased facts toward a cause. Moreover, even when walking to the grocery shop, we hear hateful words coming out of people's mouth due to an argument that has reduced the betterment of those people's lives. The point is that every day we hear these horrid comments and we cannot help but feel sorrow for the people receiving them. What can we do? If we see someone on the side of the road getting yelled at and try to intervene to make the problem better, the result would only worsen as the angry person would lash out at us too. Although Michiko Kakutani infers in "The Word Police" that these tiny specs of hate should be left ignored because it loses sight of the bigger problems at hand, I see an alternative picture. For example, as she says that "calling the homeless the under housed doesn't give them a place to live", her point is that the feelings of others won't help impact society in any way so it is better to ignore them. Although homeless might not be too harsh because it has been the accepted term in society for many years, other words will have a great impact on people which will disrupt the cohesion in fixing society's bigger problems. If someone constantly harasses you with certain terms to criticize you because you are poor, they will affect you every day. This will impact your motivation to benefit society. Why would you help the same society that is putting you down and making life miserable? It is not one person that receives this treatment but thousands and maybe even millions. A portion so large that is questioning whether or not to help society will keep the big problems in the society at large. If people at least adopt some politically correct words that are actually needed, then it could help motivate the people who are doubtful toward society to realize that society is deserving of these changes.

The Life Within Me

One scorching summer day in the 7th grade, I sat in my living room pondering what I was going to do to not waste another precious day before school starts. I looked around hoping to find something intriguing, but instead I gave up and went outside. Although it was at least 90 degrees outside, it did not stop me from playing basketball on my driveway. I went through my normal routine, but after 15 minutes I could not bear the heat so I went to take a water break. As I was gulping down my whole bottle, I saw something furry from the corner of my eye. At first instinct, I thought it was a fox because there were recent sightings of it wandering around the neighborhood. As I set my water bottle down, a squirrel came into full view. It stared at me for a solid 20 seconds, so I thought it wanted some water. As I squirted some water out of my bottle in the direction of the squirrel, it darted into the bush before running up a tree. 4 years ago, I didn't think much about this moment. Now, after we discussed "The Death of the Moth” in class, I couldn't help but bring my mind back to this minimal moment in my life. Just as Virginia Woolf depicts the moth as an "insignificant little creature", I too thought this squirrel meant nothing to the world. As I remember this interaction, I cannot help but think that this moment, which meant nothing to me, was a pivotal moment in the squirrel's life. Moreover, it thinks that it barely escaped from a tragic incident that instead was nothing more than a few water drops. Since this incident had taken place four years ago, there is a high chance that this squirrel has passed by either old age or a terrible incident. As I think of the tragedy this squirrel could have gone through, I too like Virginia Woolf feel pity for the animal but it is not going to majorly affect me regarding my future. Still for the squirrel's family, this tragedy could have a high emotional effect on them. Listening to Woolf's story, I realize now that anybody's life will not matter in the long run except to a countable number of people. For example, even if someone famous dies, thousands will be sad for a week or two but they will soon continue on with their daily lives. my point is that although your life is not meaningful to everybody, it should be meaningful to yourself. On that day 4 years ago, that squirrel thought it experienced a life or death situation and it was probably relieved to escape with no harm. Except for the people reading this blog, nobody will ever realize or even care about the story of this squirrel.

The Consumer Culture Within Me

Last Year, I went on the spring trip to Disney World with the Troy High Orchestra. Although I have visited before, I could not wait to experience the joy that every kid has when they are on their way to one of the most famous attractions in the world. As I walked into Magic Kingdom, the swarm of people walking around in 90-degree weather was infinite. Everywhere I went I saw people walking around in brightest of attitudes even though they were surrounded by complete strangers. I continued observing and I realized that at least 95% of people had Disney merchandise on. Hats, shirts, backpacks, cups and many more appeared as I walked towards the castle. Later that evening, even I was absorbed into buying a hand-held rubber castle that costed eleven dollars. I knew, I that it was overpriced and I should not have bought it, but I did not know when I would have an opportunity to buy an actual product in Disney World again. As of now, this souvenir sits on the desk in my room and whenever I look at it, I cannot help but think of all the memories I had in Disney World last year. I remembered these events while I was writing my in-class essay on an excerpt from "The Plastic Pink Flamingo". In the essay, it could be clearly seen that Jennifer Price was sarcastic throughout her essay. For example, as "Americans had hunted flamingos to extinction in Florida", she thinks of it as "no matter". Moreover, she seems to be exposing the through consumer culture of Americans with an example of the Flamingo. Although she does have a thorough argument about how Americans are wasting money on useless items, I see an alternative perception. For many years now trends come and go, and when you miss them, you feel like you are not part of a unity of people. When the flamingo trend diminished into a part of American history, people forgot about this period until there is a moment of joy in the recollection of an item from it. People who bought this flamingo merchandise can relive the days of the enjoyment in the past. Coming back to the Disney merchandise, when many of the people who I saw that day in Magic Kingdom grow old, they will still have these items that they treasured a long time ago and pass it on from generation to generation. That is why we still remember the flamingo trend in the 1950's. My point is that instead of critiquing the buying of useless stuff, we should cherish these items because there might not be a time when they come back into the scope of society. As for my Disney castle, I will keep it for as long as I can to remember these days of excitement.

The Dilemma Within Me

As I stepped into the crowd of people, I couldn't help but cover my nose. The smell of dead fish could not circulate into the air due to the mass of tourists trying to get a view of the action. The Pike's Place Market in Seattle is one of the top tourist spots in the entire city. One might opt to see the city skyline at the top of the Space Needle or adventure the beautiful greenery of Mount Rainier, but the fish market gives viewers a spectacle like no other. I somehow pushed my way to the front, where the first thing that came into view was a dead fish flying across the market. It was caught by a worker and promptly cut into pieces, packaged and sold to customers. It was obvious to note that as people were holding up money to the cashier, the workers kept throwing. At one point, one worker dropped the fish and it quickly was disposed into the nearest trash bin. Three years later, I couldn't help but remember this incident as we were reading "Consider the Lobster" in class. This got me thinking, as lobsters " cling to the containers sides, or even hook its claws over the kettle's rim", is there an immoral effect on a fish's dead body being thrown around for the enjoyment of the customers to watch? In this case, there is a big difference in these two instances. The lobster is alive and the fish is dead. However, the fish is not mainly being killed for how good it tastes because the customers can go to any other fish market where they will serve fresh or even fresher fish. Customers mainly come to see  fish flying in the air. This means that the fish are mostly being killed not for enjoyment during consumption, unlike the lobster, but for visual appeal to gain customers. Moreover, in the long-run, what would happen if all the fish that they use goes extinct from over fishing or disease? It would be a lose-lose situation for the fish and the sellers. Conversely, the idea that these sellers at Pike's Place have is a good one in that they are the most famous fish market in the entire country. They probably gain millions of dollars every year, solely for their entertaining way of business. Still, every fish that they drop is disposed, meaning a wasted life. This type of dilemma has caused great amounts of controversy for decades and the circumstances seem like they won't end for a while. So, from the time I stood there in Pike's Place Market watching fish fly three years ago, I still ponder which is more important: The enjoyment of humans or the life of an animal?

The Work Inside of Me

This week we read a story which describes the struggles of being in a working environment. "From Serving in Florida" reveals the constant terror that workers have to deal with throughout, for some, their whole lives. As I was reading this story, I continuously pondered the thought of just how different the lives of the rich and poor are. Starting with the poor, we see that many of them either did not have the opportunity to get an education or they misused it. This puts them in a situation where they are forced to look for a minimum wage job or live on the streets. Most, at least, try to look for a job where they would work as long as they could. As they continue to work for years, they start to collect money and manage to create friendships with other co-workers. Soon enough, they feel like they are in a stable position in life and content with what they have. On the other hand, rich people are on the other side of the spectrum. They usually start of as a person who is hard working regarding education and slowly moves up the ranks to a very comfortable lifestyle. The other way might be they live off their wealthy parents. Either case, there is a point that these people do not even have to work resulting in them bathing in their luxury. Vacations, parties, houses, cars and more all at their disposal whenever they want. Sure, these material items might be fun for a year or two, but later they might realize that it doesn't feel right to not be productive or accomplishing something in life. For instance, Bill Gates easily can disappear from the Earth and enjoy the rest of his life in peace. Why does he continue be productive in today's society? Because there is a breaking point for a rich person in which it feels as though they are just existing for the sake of existing. Now looking back on a rich and poor person’s lifestyle, would you rather enjoy a lavish lifestyle but not be productive or a lower lifestyle but have good relationships with people and a sense of accomplishment?

The Words Inside of Me

This week in class, we read a study called "Are Women Really More Talkative Than Men?" and it claims to debunk the theory that women naturally talk more than men in their daily lives. In our discussion, it came to a point where we decided that this study would not change much in society today because it is more or less considered useless. The idea of which gender talks more would not help benefit or destroy society today, so why should we even think about making a study? Although the study of which gender talks more isn't that important, the study of how much a normal person talks throughout the day could be more helpful to the world. For instance, if there is a person who says more than 20,000 words per day, we can easily classify them as an extrovert. Extroverts are usually known as an out-going or expressive person. If we look at some of the richest people in the world such as Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos or Mark Zuckerberg, we know that they were very intelligent but to make that intelligence prominent they had to form relationships and work with the people around them constantly. Now when everybody thinks of them, they are looked upon as initiators of a new era. Now, there is no question that there were people just like them who had intelligence but failed. Moreover, they failed not because of their products, but because they didn't expand it outwards toward society. They probably were not outgoing, forcing these other men to build their prominence. Also, there are probably other great products that people create but are not shown to society because they are more of an introvert. If this study of gender stereotypes instead focused on how many words people say per day on an average, we could see the difference between an introvert and extrovert and what they both bring to society. Would the study show the common belief that extroverts have a bigger impact on society or vice versa? If the result is the former, then maybe people could start introverts to expand into society so their ideas could be shared toward the world. Unlike the study that was created to break a gender stereotype which would have no gain to society, this idea could really help change society in a positive way.

The Color Within Me

In class this week, we read one of our first short stories called "There is no unmarked woman" and it led to a great discussion to what we really perceive the world to be. The first thought that comes into my mind when we refer to people as "marked or "unmarked" is markers. These markers, when we were younger, gave us colorful insights to spread our imagination further. When we think of the word "marked", the colors that would symbolize it would be blue, red, yellow, green and so on into the endless swirls of hues. Alternatively, the word "unmarked" associates to us nothing on the page, indicating white. While the "marked category" was categorized as endless colors, the unmarked is characterized as the single color of white. This is exactly what Deborah Tannen tries to distinguish between men and woman. But I strongly clash with this perception. Why do we have to classify people into groups when everyone is distinctively different in some way? For example, everybody is born in different shapes and sizes with different physical features. Why, then, do we have to classify men as unmarked and women as marked? All men do not look the same so why would portray them all as the color of white? Moreover, why do we have to focus on the differences of men and women regarding fashion, surnames or chromosomes? Shouldn't we classify them by their personalities? That is often to be the most intriguing and decisive part of a human because it shapes who you are in the future. Your fashion, for example, will not keep up with you in the future because everybody will grow old. Nobody will really care about how you look but instead focus more on your personality and how you act. If you only care about how you look on the outside and ignore your real feelings inside, when you become old you will be isolated from your peers. Overall, everybody has a different charisma which makes every single person different, so we should not characterize certain people as one color like white but instead characterize each as one of the uncountable colors of the universe.