Literature

Literature, to me, is a way to express oneself through text and writing that inspires interpretation.  Though not all literature is found in text form, they all center around the idea. Movies, for example, are literature, as they form around the dialogue and expression of words. Picking my favorite example of literature was a very hard task. However, i will chose the two films that both confused me the most and had the largest affect on me. Those movies are Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Shining. The first film, 2001: A Space Odyssey, confused the heck out of me the first time i saw it. After watching it, my first reaction was, "wow, that was great" followed quickly by "wait, what just happened?"  To be perfectly honest, i still dont understand the film, but it tells its story of the evolution of man so well it was hard not to love it. The words 'show, don't tell' work perfectly, as 88 minutes of the film feature no dialogue. To me, literature is all about having the ability to interpret, and 2001 gave ample room for interpretation. The other Kubrick film, The Shining, is a film that, until this weekend, i had yet to see. However, after seeing it, not only did the film scare me half to death, but it quickly rose to the top of my favorite movies list. The movie, which is surprisingly sparse on jump scares for a horror/thriller movie, frightens its audience through the use of camera angles and techniques to inspire claustrophobia in the captive audience. Despite the movie taking place in a huge hotel, Kubrick has us peaking around corners and leaves us scared due to the unanswered mystery that is the Overlook Hotel.  The many lengthy shots throughout the film establish a genuine feel that is later destroyed by quick cuts near the film's climax, which helps to frighten the audience, as we feel that something is wrong as the tone and tactics change. These two films, both made by master director Stanley Kubrick are two examples of Kubrick's unmatched skill, and are amazing forms of literature as they express themselves in a way that makes the audience  have to work to understand the films' purpose. The high level on interpretation in these two, and many other Kubrick, films, make them highly successful and highly amazing pieces of literature.

To Compensate or Not To Compensate?

The argument of whether or not college athletes should be compensated is an issue that has been discussed for many years.  Despite the NCAA’s punishments, many colleges such as SMU have been caught paying recruits, and nearly every successful team faces some adversity in this regard. There have also been many individual athletes, such as Cam Newton or Terrelle Pryor who have been investigated or caught breaking NCAA rules through the selling or merchandise. On the other side, while players and colleges get punished, the NCAA and other organizations have made billions of dollars using the players for their own personal gain. According to USNews, the NCAA makes “6 Billion Annually”. The NCAA tends to argue that the athletes are student athletes, and as students should not be compensated. The issue here is that both arguments seem pretty sound, and in all honesty, it doesn't seem right that the NCAA nor the players receive the money. Clearly, what’s at stake here is billions of dollars in revenue, as well as the line between college and pro athletics. If college athletes are compensated, then what will the effect be on the professional leagues? If the NCAA keeps the rules the way they are now, it is likely that all will remain the same. However, if a third party one day decides that the money should be taken from the NCAA, the results could be enormous. The NCAA would more than likely cease to exist, scholarships may decrease because the schools would be giving money to the athletes, and many other large changes to not only sports, but culture and society as well would occur. The value of sports in society could fluctuate; the price of college could rise due to colleges needing money that they used to earn from college athletes, the number of scholarships would definitely decrease. This is all speculative, but the results of this debate are much larger than many people fathom. As the Courier Journal points out, all of this could most definitely decrease the number of jobs, due to a decrease in sports as a business, as well as the loss of scholarships.

The audience in this debate is, in all honesty, is any American who has, wishes to, or has kids who plan on attending college and receiving a job. As Huffington Post points out, the percent of those with a degree who are unemployed is 5% lower than the percent of those unemployed without a degree. If scholarships reduced, college prices jumped, or colleges lost funding due to the enormous cost of compensating past and present college athletes, the effects would be seen on every American throughout society. Every person has a piece of the pie at stake in this discussion, from the universities and NCAA, wishing to preserve their wealth, to the players, wishing to get a piece of the action from their own achievements, to parents, who hope to send their kids to college one day. People can be easily persuaded by the big numbers that the NCAA rakes in, but they rarely hear of the consequences of compensating collegiate athletes. 

Tebowing vs. Postmaning

In his the first chapter of his renowned novel, "Amusing Ourselves to Death", author Neil Postman brings up many arguments regarding the nature of society, however possibly his most interesting claim is the one he concludes his introductory chapter with. This claim is that the "Age of Typography" has woefully transitioned into the "Age of Television" (8) or in simpler terms, modern society focuses on images instead of text. Neil Postman argues that this change in the nature of society has given way to the rise of entertainment and presentation (image) over the actual quality something has (text). I agree with Postman that this is an issue facing modern society. Too often does it seem that people get swept away by something’s presentation vs. its actual value. Being a sports connoisseur, I will turn to football for my example of presentation over value. Specifically the career of one Timothy Richard Tebow, whose “fifteen minutes of fame” might be one of the greatest in the history of the NFL, and how he exemplifies the principle made by Neil Postman. Tebow played in the NFL for three years after a prestigious college career with a Heisman Trophy while playing for the University of Florida Gators. Due to his success late in games, Tebow lead his team to the spotlight and to a playoff win in 2011. After this, the Broncos shipped Tebow out for Peyton Manning. The New York Jets were naive enough to get caught up in Tebow-ing, and traded a 4^th and 6^th round pick to the Broncos for Tim. They should have followed the wisdom of Postman and looked at the hard textual evidence on Tebow, as they would have seen what kind of quarterback he was. Tebow was in fact a very par to slightly subpar player, which was evident after the Jets parted with Tebow after a single season, once they had seen what sort of QB he really was. Had they looked at the textual evidence, they would have seen a player with a sub .50 and a QBR below 30. Postman, had he been somehow the GM of the Jets, certainly would have not gotten caught up in the attention Tebow got from television and other forms of media, and would have instead opted to keep their draft picks. Tebow exemplifies how television and other media has surpassed text as the primary form of medium, as he and countless other stories, ideas, and creations become big news due to their presentation. Tebowing and his religious side was just the presentation Tebow needed, as he turned a subpar NFL career that would have gone unnoticed into a career in which he earns 1.6 million per year and 2.84 million followers on Twitter while greats like John Elway have only 300k followers on Twitter. This clearly shows the validity in Postman’s argument that people prefer an entertainer, such as Tebow, over a producer, such as a 2-time Super Bowl winner.  Tebow’s career, while an odd example, perfectly exemplifies the issue with modern society based on the principles stated by Neil Postman. Therefore, I declare that we create a new craze, which I will dub “Postman-ing”, in which everyone gauges worth based on something’s actual value opposed to its presentation. Instead of kneeling down and putting our fists to our temples, we shall go to our computers, and to our books, and find textual evidence and statistics to prove a thing’s worth.

A Simple Opinion on Freedom of Speech and the Charlie Hebdo Attacks

                In my eyes, the best argument in the articles is the opinion taken by Karl Sharro in The Atlantic article.  His belief that, “we should reassert the rights of satirical magazines and radical preachers alike to express their views, and the freedom of anyone and everyone to challenge them”, really points to the fact that everyone should have the right to say whatever they want without feeling in danger. In a perfect world, this is true, and everyone just says sticks and stones to any insult that may be made to them. However, this is not a perfect world, and as the Charlie Hebdo attacks clearly show; people have to be more careful about what they say for their own personal safety. I believe everyone should still have the right to say what they please, but they need to be wary of others opinions and reactions. If you do something that you think may anger another person, just be mindful of their reactions, and accept that their reactions are caused directly by your actions.  In all honesty, despite not doing anything “wrong” the cartoonists in Paris did publish some things that they knew might really annoy another large group of people. They took a risk, though they might not have known it, and the result was a direct reaction to what they published. Basically, you should have the right to do or say something that may anger another; however you need to be ready to have that person punch you square in the face. That goes for racist speech as well. Charles Lawrence claims in his article, “On Racist Speech” that using racial slurs “restricts the speech of minorities” whom they are spoken of. However, in my opinion, it is similar to the Charlie Hebdo situation. Some ignorant jerk should have the right to insult another human being for being a specific tone, however he better be ready for a proper response that may come of his actions. More or less, people need to take responsibility for things they do or say and not just point fingers. That being said, in no way do I condone the actions that took place in Paris. Did people have the right to be mad about the magazine, sure, but did they have the right to kill 12 people in response, of course not. It was a completely outrageous response for the satirical magazine’s actions. However, the magazine must admit that they, in some way, shape or form, were responsible for what occurred in Paris. ....  

An image of Muhammad from Charlie Hebdo. This type of image and many others are images that enraged parts of the Muslim Extremist Community. Translated, it reads, "100 lashes if you don't die laughing." Compared to some of the other depictions, this one is fairly mild.