Cover Letter

Dear Reader,

            I am pleased to inform you that I have survived my first semester of college. I’ve learned a lot from all of my classes this autumn including, English 115 with Professor Rowley. Quite frankly, I entered this particular class thinking, “oh, great, another teacher who is going to try to convince me that I can be creative with my writing, then pound the ‘hook, thesis, five-paragraph structure’ into my head for the entire semester.” I’ve never been one to enjoy English class. I’ve always thought, “I’m a biochemistry major, why do I need to know how to write narratives when I’m only going to be writing research papers?” I was very pessimistic when entering this classroom but Professor Rowley changed my view about the class and my writing skills (or lack of writing skills) about a week into the class.

            We began all of our essays by first doing Progressions, exercises which encouraged us to come up with “out-of-the-box” ideas. The first essay we wrote was about someone who has impacted our lives. Out of the multiple types of essays, I always dreaded writing personal essays because I could never find the correct balance between person (informal) and academic (formal). I began writing like I would any other personal essay; I chose my topic, stared at the computer screen for what seemed to be forever, then I finally gave up and moved on to studying calculus, something that actually made sense. I had such a difficult time when I began writing because I was accustomed to writing 20-page research papers that usually came out perfect on my first try. I wanted to get the perfect form of this essay when I wrote my first draft as well. What I soon learned, thanks to the article “Shitty First Drafts” we read in class, was that we should have multiple drafts of an essay before we are satisfied with the result of our paper.

At our next meeting, Professor Rowley introduced us to a few different methods of brainstorming. I had known about basic methods but I never utilized them; however, Professor Rowley made our class complete a five-minute “brain-dump” about the topic we chose to write about. So, I tried to write…still nothing came to mind. She then suggested creating a bubble-map/flow-chart. Pessimistically, I took her advice; when I got home I started thinking about different things I could mention in my essay. At first I just wrote down words but a few minutes into the exercise these words triggered different ideas and I wrote these ideas down. Before I knew it, I had about multiple things I knew I wanted to discuss in my paper; these ideas eventually became the topics of my paragraphs in my essay. I use this same brainstorming technique each time I have to write an essay; I even use this technique when I’m writing essays for other classes.

After writing our essays, we have peer edit days. We exchange papers, in class, and critique each other’s first drafts. Professor Rowley also edits our “shitty first drafts” and gives us many different comments that help us improve our next draft. This was my favorite aspect of this class. I have learned that I really enjoy editing and critiquing other’s works. Editing has taught me to look at my own work from the perspective of the audience. Now, before I submit an essay, I print it out and make corrections like I would if I was editing someone else’s paper. This is very helpful because when I would read from the audience’s perspective, I would identify portions of the essay that need more detail in order for the reader to understand what I’m trying to explain (probably like now). I would make a ton of corrections and then go back and rewrite parts of the essay. It also helped me see if I needed to reformat my essay. I would see if the paragraphs were coherent and transitive, if they weren’t I would go back and restructure the essay.

Overall, I have blossomed as a writer and an editor and I have Professor Rowley to thank for all of my improvement. Before, I would cringe at the thought of writing essays; now, I feel comfortable taking on any type of essay. I approach papers head on and feel accomplished when I finish them. With the help of these new brainstorming techniques, I no longer struggle to find main ideas; with the process of editing, I turn in my essays with confidence. This sense of security in my writing will help me throughout all of my further years here at CSUN.

Thank you,

Jasmin Gasparyan.

Essay 1: You Really Don't Know Jack

You Really Don’t Know Jack

“Dr. Death!” they yelled out, while judgmentally pointing their fingers at him. In 1994, protestors crowding the Michigan Court House were waiting for the verdict of Dr. Kevorkian’s first of many trials. This pathologist had assumed a new practice: assisted suicide, also known as human euthanasia. His quest to relieve patients of their suffering in order to allow them a dignified death struck inevitable controversy. Was this man playing God by doing more for his patients than what was written on his resume? Society could not digest Dr. Kevorkian’s defiance of law-imposed and religion-imposed limitations on medical practices; this was clearly demonstrated in the movie You Don’t Know Jack (2010). This film poses the formidable question: Which is more important – the ending of a person’s suffering or the continuation of a God-given life? Analyzing this film and Al Pacino’s portrayal of Dr. Kevorkian’s actions, I have found that as a society we have stripped terminally ill patients of their right to die with dignity by mixing the two polar concepts of religion and medicine.

Beginning with the movie poster, this film conveys the very debatable topic of assisted suicide and addressing this issue from both sides. The scaling of the movie poster is completely directed on Dr. Jack Kevorkian (Al Pacino)’s face. The background is a circular gradient where the center (around Al Pacino’s face) is almost white and as it progresses towards the outside it goes from grey to black, suggesting light from the darkness.  His eyes seem sympathetic and full of wisdom and above him is the question: “Is this the face of a killer?” The text is in white, suggesting purity, not evil. “Jack,” written in red, contrasts with the white title symbolizing the “blood” Dr. Kevorkian has on his hands. Underneath the title is written, “The Life and Deaths of Jack Kevorkian,” also in red. Because we associate the color red with murder and death, the first judgment we make of Dr. Kevorkian is a negative one, full of angst and terror.

The secondary posters are each of a main character from the movie. The writings on each poster not only hint at each person’s story and how they were a part of Dr. Jack’s life, but they address the wickedness of human euthanasia. Each poster is formatted so that the negativity of the bold and capitalized words overwhelms the viewer and refutes the positive connotation of the smaller words below. These posters form solid biases towards the cons of this controversy through the powerful font and font size of the writings on the posters.

There are a total of five secondary posters (one for each main character). The first one is of Jack Kevorkian (Al Pacino) and it says, “THIS MAN WANTS YOU TO DIE on your own terms.” By referencing the fact that Dr. Jack euthanized or assisted in the suicide of terminally ill patients, this poster is putting a very negative connotation on the procedure. The futile rebuttal of “on your own terms” may become invisible to the viewer who is against human euthanasia, but to a viewer who is pro-human euthanasia these small words will form the desire to see the film. This is true for all of the secondary posters. Each poster follows this pattern of capturing the attention of audience members from both sides of the argument. Because this film addresses such a controversial topic, it uses this technique in order to gather a wide variety of spectators. Instead of implicitly stating what is right and what is wrong, it very slyly points out both the pros and cons of the argument in order to capture the attention of a diverse audience. By emphasizing the negatives (that Dr. Kevorkian and his colleagues are ‘murderers’), the posters use controversy and bias to lure in viewers to watch the film.

When watching this film you feel as though you are watching a documentary even though it is not entirely nonfiction. This aspect of the film makes it very unique and groundbreaking. You Don’t Know Jack addresses the debatable topic of assisted suicide by addressing the societal and religious issue of, “Is Dr. Kevorkian playing God?” The response to this question given in the movie by Al Pacino is the response that Dr. Kevorkian had given in real life interviews. His reply was that all doctors are playing God. In 2010, on the show Anderson Cooper 360, Dr. Kevorkian responded to the questions, “Are you playing God? Who gave you the authority to take away a God-given life?” by stating, “anytime you interfere with a natural process, you’re playing God” (CNN). He analyzes the fact that any procedure being done on a patient is interfering with their natural process, and yet, if a procedure is going to prolong the person’s life the government and the church won’t interfere with allowing or disallowing the procedure to be completed. On the contrary, because this person is physically suffering the church and state cannot allow him to end his life; many terminally ill patients are being tortured by being forced to live. Whether the viewers are for or against the topic of argument, in this case human euthanasia, they enjoy watching films that address these controversies because they gain a sense of satisfaction from seeing the two sides argue, then debating about it themselves. Films like this induce topics of conversation and will give people something to debate. This striking challenge to one’s beliefs only makes the audience want to view the film even more because they want to gather more evidence that their opinion is more accurate than the opinions expressed by others and in the film.

The film supports the argument for assisted suicides by informing the audience of the current method of treatment towards terminally ill patients. Instead of humanely injecting a fatally ill patient to end their suffering peacefully, hospitals will force-feed patients until their consciousness evades them and they slip into a coma. Afterwards, they will turn off the patient’s life support (their food and water) until the patient starves to death. To make this issue even more controversial, Dr. Kevorkian labels this process as “the Nazi method of execution,” implying that the hospitals are torturing these patients to death. A large portion of society is ignorant of the medical world and what truly happens in a hospital; therefore, throughout the movie, Dr. Kevorkian uses labels, such as the one mentioned above, in order to draw attention to this issue, and have society acknowledge the mere existence of human euthanasia as a substitute to this horrid process. Most people in our society may not enjoy learning about such a distressing topic; however, a superfluous amount of facts are specified throughout the movie and the audience gains a very large load of information by simply watching the film. As a society, we like to acquire knowledge without putting much effort into studying; therefore, the writers of this film have written the script in such a way that the viewers subconsciously learn a lot about the medical world by merely listening to Dr. Kevorkian’s opinions and the opinions of others. This is another reason this film connects well with its audience.   

The patients represented in this film are what really grasp the audience’s attention. The film captures the pain and suffering of Dr. Kevorkian’s patients very well which leads to a sympathetic audience. This empathy not only transfers over but it also makes the viewer think about how they would feel if they were stuck in this position. As a whole, society is not only very naïve of the magnitudes of pain some patients endure, but it is also ignorant of the number of people who pass away because of these horrid diseases everyday. According to The Seattle Times, about 1,500 Americans die of cancer every day; this statistic is one that few Americans know about. Films like You Don’t Know Jack, touch the audience and make them understand what others are going through. Audiences choose to watch films like this because they want to help others in their communities; by understanding what other people face on a daily basis, viewers feel like they can impact these people’s lives in a positive way.

 This film also puts an emphasis on Dr. Kevorkian turning down many of his clients in order to address the argument society presents of “who’s to judge if a person should live or die?” If a doctor can decide to perform surgery on his patient in order to prolong his life, why shouldn’t the same doctor be able to painlessly take away the life of a person who is not only suffering physically but also has no chance of recovery? As a society we fear that this system of human euthanasia will be abused and doctors will unnecessarily take away the lives of their patients but this fear is illogical. We trust doctors with our health every time we get sick therefore it is absurd to believe that a doctor would take away the life of a patient who has a chance at recovery. A specific example to support this response occurs when a person who has a speech impediment approaches Dr. Kevorkian asking for his life to be ended. Dr. Kevorkian turns him down saying that the patient is merely clinically depressed and is not suffering physically. He refers the patient to a psychiatrist but refuses to end his life. This appeals to our humanity because it shows that Dr. Kevorkian, like all physicians, truly cared about his patients, would not take away lives with potential, and was not just a quack with a medical degree. The audience of this film enjoys this humanistic look on, not only Dr. Kevorkian, but on all physicians because we want to believe that people are innately good. We want to believe that if our lives were on the line, then our physicians would make the morally correct decision that Dr. Kevorkian makes in the film.

Al Pacino’s depiction of Dr. Kevorkian is very authentic. Even when watching interviews with Dr. Kevorkian you sense his intelligence transfer over to humor and sarcasm, and Al Pacino captures this aspect of the character very well. If the actors in the film didn’t portray their characters well, then the audience would not take this film seriously. Because the characters are so genuinely played, the film has a sense of validity that appeals to society’s pathos. Society can be very easily swayed to change their opinion on a subject if you can appeal to their pathos (emotion) and this movie takes advantage of that by addressing this issue seriously yet sparking the humor and, eventually, the humanity in us all.  And, although it is addressing such a morbid issue, this movie is a lot lighter than one would think. Dr. Jack’s intelligence being conveyed through comedy lightens the mood of the film and captures the audience’s attention.

The film You Don’t Know Jack wasn’t created to make Dr. Kevorkian famous or reputable. This film was created to inform the public of the nature of assisted suicide and it’s positive aspects; human euthanasia isn’t the gruesome act that society has made it out to be. Many terminally ill patients are in dire need of a savior like Dr. Kevorkian. By appealing to our humanity and understanding, this film makes us understand the necessity of human euthanasia in our communities. It may seem like a morbid act now; however, many other aspects of the medical world were considered ghoulish and immoral when first being done, too. For example, when transplants were first done, the church was in a frenzy because they claimed it was not God’s intention to take one human’s organ and put it in the body of another; multiple stepping stones were passed in order to legalize and adapt to the thought of transplants. This film is one of the stepping-stones for human euthanasia.

Works Cited

Cooper, Anderson. "2010: Kevorkian Admits Helping Dozens Die." Anderson Cooper 360. CNN. 16 Apr. 2010. CNN. Cable News Network, 16 Apr. 2010. Web. 22 Oct. 2012.

Mazer, Adam. "Scene with Journalist and Interview." You Don't Know Jack. HBO. New York, New York, 24 Apr. 2010. Television.

Huget, Jennifer LaRue. "Report: 1,500 Die Every Day from Cancer." The Seattle Times. The Washington Post, 17 June 2011. Web. 29 Oct. 2012.

You Don’t Know Jack. Dir. Barry Levinson. Perf. Al Pacino, Susan Sarandon, John Goodman, Brenda Vaccaro, and Danny Huston. HBO, 2010. Film.

Essay 2: Gaining Technology, Losing Privacy

Gaining Technology, Losing Privacy

            In 1968, the “Wiretap Act” was passed to protect Americans wire and oral privacy (for phones and other means of communications). With the advancement of technology the act was amended to the “Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA)” in order to include electronic communications. Many different court cases, such as United States vs. Councilman, were undergone in order to revise the Act to cover technological advancements. For years we have fought for our right to privacy, to be able to withhold any information we considered personal; yet, recently, with the advancement of technology, we have been releasing our information without giving a second thought to the idea of our privacy. With amenities such as our smart phones, it is difficult to not release our information into the virtual world of the Internet. Applications, such as Footprints, Phone Tracker for IPhones, and Chase Bank, are helpful to everyday tasks, such as contacting friends, knowing where your children are, and depositing a check, leading people to believe that they are only beneficial to society and cannot be bad; however, most of these applications are methods of accessing our personal information and, consequently, lead to an invasion of privacy.

            Smart phones store all sorts of information onto their databases. These gadgets can save anything you have entered into your phone and modify their archives to be personally useful to each user. Even in regards to texting, the iPhone modifies its auto-corrections to suit the vocabulary of its user. It is one of the most useful and easy-to-use pieces of technology that has been invented, thus leading people to believe that it is harmless; it is handy and worth every penny, so how could it be bad?

The answer to this question is simple enough. It is only bad if the user is ignorant of its functions and capabilities. In the article "Sorry, Smartphone Owners, But You're More Likely To Have Your Privacy Invaded" in Forbes Magazine, Pew Research Center reports, “Some 15% of smartphone owners say that someone has accessed their phone in a way that made them feel their privacy was invaded…” (Hill). A mere 15% acknowledge that their smartphones hold a massive amount of personal information and that many people, through different applications on the phone, can access it. This proves that most of society is naïve about the existing invasion of privacy through smartphones; therefore, society does not know that there is any sort of threat to losing their personal information.

            Consumers also want to justify their expenditure on such a gadget, which leads to the denial of the existing negative aspects of a smart phone, such as the invasion of privacy. On the other hand, many people who do learn and accept the idea of this existing security threat stop the use of applications on their phones and withhold their information. The Pew Research Center has also reported, “30% of app users have uninstalled an app that was already on their cell phone because they learned it was collecting personal information that they didn’t wish to share…” (Hill). This claim proves that smart phone users are more careful about their personal information when they are informed of an existing threat to their privacy.

A specific application on the iPhone that is a complete invasion of privacy is the “Find Your Friends” App. The application is for iPhone users only and it allows you to track the exact location of your friends/family at any given time through the tracker on the iPhone. Although users of the application may say it is not invading your privacy because it is merely telling you the location of the person’s iPhone, this application opens a new window to invading our privacy by allowing others to know our whereabouts 24/7, thus leading to stalking and trailing of people.

Yet, many parents approve of this assaulting application. Parents are not only protective and scared, but are also curious about their children’s lives, which leads to them invading their children’s privacy. Parents will say using this application it is not an invasion of privacy because they feel they have the right to know exactly where their children are at any given moment; however, in reality, it is an invasion of privacy because these children may not know that their parents are tracking them and following their every move. A plus side to this application is that the user of the phone (even a child) can delete it; on the other hand, as reported by Amy Lee in the Huffington Post, the new application Footprints has “a parental control feature that makes it impossible for the child to remove it (the application) without the passcode” (Lee). IPhone applications are becoming slyer and easier to manipulate even by adults who are just learning to use a smart phone for tasks other than making phone calls.

Another issue that has arisen parallel to the use of smart phone applications is the rate of identity theft from smart phones. Smart Phone applications and websites in relation to Chase Bank and Bank of America store information that has been entered into their databases. If you enter your pin, username, or password on the Chase website while on an unprotected wireless network, a hacker can easily take hold of this information and have access to your bank account. According to the article “Baby Boomers Need to Improve Their Digital Security Practices” in TechJournal, “81 percent (of adults ages 46-64) own desktop computers, 61 percent use laptops, and another 30 percent have smartphones.” Yet, out of all these adults “almost 60 percent do not use a cell phone password” (Paulson). With smart phones and their applications saving all information that is inputted into the database and the lack of security due to misuse or non-use of passwords, it has become easier than ever for a hacker to access the information quickly and without the owner knowing. Therefore, smartphone users should always use password protected wireless networks when accessing banking websites or applications.

Another factor that assists the invasion of privacy through technology is the fact that most smartphones and laptops automatically connect to nearby unprotected wireless networks. Hackers can compile information from one’s smartphone or computer that is connected to the same network as the hacker, especially if the network is not password protected. In the New York Times article “New Hacking Tools Pose Bigger Threats to Wi-Fi Users,” Kate Murphy states, “a free program called Firesheep, released in October, has made it simple to see what other users of an unsecured Wi-Fi network are doing and then log on as them at the sites they visited” (Murphy).  The way this system works is complicated to understand but it is exceptionally simple to use; the report conducted in February 2011 claims, “More than a million people have downloaded the program in the last three months” (Murphy). This means that over a million people have access to tons of personal information on other people’s devices. This massive invasion of privacy can be specifically blamed on the expansion of technology and the explosion of access to these technological advancements.

We all know that “tablets and smartphones simply make life easier by allowing access to family photos, banking, shopping, and medical records from any location at any time” (Murphy). What most people don’t know is the vulnerability of their personal information when it is put onto the database of a technological gadget. Technology is invading our privacy and, as a society, we rely heavily on the Internet and our smartphones for even miniscule tasks, but we need to take precautions in order to maintain our privacy. Passwords and locks will reduce the risk of being hacked when on a public wireless network; putting little to no personal information on smartphone applications will remove the risk of losing that information.

Works Cited

Doughton, Semone. “SPECIAL REPORT: The Dangers of Mobile Banking.” WTVM.com-Columbus, GA News Weather & Sports. WTVM, 15 Nov. 2012. Web. 24 Nov. 2012.

Hill, Kashmir. "Sorry, Smartphone Owners, But You're More Likely To Have Your Privacy Invaded." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 06 Sept. 2012. Web. 24 Nov. 2012.

Lee, Amy. "Footprints IPhone App Lets You Track Your Kids, Spouse, Friends (PICTURES)." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 05 May 2011. Web. 24 Nov. 2012.

Murphy, Kate. "New Hacking Tools Pose Bigger Threats to Wi-Fi Users." The New York Times. The New York Times, 17 Feb. 2011. Web. 24 Nov. 2012.

Paulson, Neil. "Baby Boomers Need to Improve Their Digital Security Practices.” TechJournal RSS. TechJournal, 01 Oct. 2012. Web. 24 Nov. 2012.

Essay 3: My Mentor, Miss Tatev

My Mentor, Miss Tatev

“You are a gem,” she would say, “a gem amongst the thousands of barren rocks.” I have always had one mentor, one confidant, one friend who I could count on: my aunt, Tatevik. She has always been there to help me through all of my trials and tribulations. Her wry, sarcastic humor, combined with her intelligence, sincere concern, and non-judgmental attitude is what makes her such a valuable mentor. When speaking to her, I feel safe and comfortable; she always gives me educated and avid solutions to most of my problems. Having such a significant figure in my life, I have found that as young adults, it is necessary to have an experienced mentor who will guide us through the multiple paths of our lives. Without a positive role model like her, I would have strayed onto the wrong course of life, which would have resulted in dire consequences.

Growing up, we all place a ridiculous amount of pressure on ourselves to be the best we can be. And, as if our own expectations aren’t enough, we have our parents badgering us to try harder and accomplish even more. A mentor should help you rise to meet and overcome these pressures. Being born into a family where everyone seemed so “perfect”, I always had a superfluous amount of pressure coming from my parents. According to them, I had to be the brightest student in all of my classes; I had to be the most graceful dancer in my studio; I had to be the most fluent in Armenian at Saturday school. All of these expectations took a toll on me because I never felt that I could be good enough for my parents. Realizing that I was about to crack under the pressure and just give up entirely, I approached my aunt for help.

My aunt Tatevik, a 20-year-old UCLA student, was always giving me the advice I needed to move forward from every dilemma I encountered. I told her about the pressures my parents were putting on me, and she helped me realize that these expectations were accomplishable if I could balance my schedule correctly. She would call me everyday after school and in her small yet strong voice say, “Jasmin, what have you done so far?” “Jasmin, take a break, eat something. Watch ‘The Little Mermaid,’ and then get back to work.” “Jasmin, I hope you’re not slacking off!” Every phone call was humorous enough to lighten my mood, yet meticulous enough to let me know that I had to finish all of my work. Even just speaking to her on the phone and venting about my day would be comforting.

Balancing out my schedule is only one of the many difficult endeavors I faced growing up. Adding on to the list of anxieties I overcame, as a young adult, was peer pressure. My aunt helped me distinguish good peer pressure from bad peer pressure when I was leaning towards the wrong crowd. At the time, I was transitioning between two groups of friends. One group was very reserved, diligent, and school-oriented, while the other was calm, athletic, and socially active. She explained to me how, depending on the group of people I chose to associate with, my peers could either pressure me to do well and try my hardest to succeed in school or they could interrupt my studying and lead to a very active social life. But I wasn’t ready to give up either of my friends; I had many strong bonds with the people in each group. With my aunt’s help, I ended up balancing my two groups of friends so that I could enjoy my social life without it taking a toll on my grades.

My aunt helped me figure out my own beliefs and opinions by letting me slowly blossom into the best version of myself without the tainting influence of others judgments. According to my mother, the only truly important aspect in life is financial security; everything else can be dealt with if you are well off financially. Given that I had no idea what I wanted to do when I grew up, my argument against my mom’s financial security bias was weak. My aunt supported me when I argued with my mother about how choosing a career is as important as, if not more important than making money. It’s unlike any other decision we make in life because we can’t just change our job at any given moment.

After dealing with the nonsense tossed at me by my mom, my aunt helped me begin choosing a career. First, we sat down and took about a dozen “which career is right for you?” quizzes online. When we realized that after each quiz taken we were more doubtful of my future career, we turned to a different approach. My aunt helped me write a list of things I enjoy doing, then a separate list of things I’m good at, and we linked each factoid with a major. Eventually, we narrowed the list down to Math, Biology, Chemistry, or Biochemistry and we associated each of these majors with a few careers. After a very strenuous process of narrowing the list down, we came to the still uncertain conclusion: “something in the medical field.”  

At this point, I was exhausted by just the thought of going to medical school. Who could devote themselves to school for 12 years? I figured I’d just graduate high school, get my pharmacy technician license, and work as a pharmacy tech. My aunt was shocked and mortified when I told her about my plan. But instead of yelling at me about how senseless I was for choosing this path, my aunt explained to me that I was selling myself short. The girl who got A’s in all of her AP and honors classes shouldn’t be a pharmacy technician; she should be a Doctor of Pharmacy. This led me to my career choice. I wouldn’t be at a university, if it weren’t for my aunt.

She has always said to me that I am a gem, not knowing that she is the one who has polished and molded this gem to its current state; I am her gem. I would not be the person I am today without my aunt’s guidance and unconditional love. She taught me to never sell myself short by letting me know that I am intelligent enough to meet and even surpass my own expectations. She’s taught me to be independent and, most importantly, to have faith in myself. Thank you for allowing me to grow while steering me in the right direction throughout all of these years. Miss Tatevik, I am forever in your debt.

Rant on the Humanity of Robots.

            The article “Artificial Minds” was quite a confusing but very interesting read. Throughout the entire article you are being bombarded with questions that, in my opinion, are rather unanswerable and if answered are very biased responses. By using movie examples such as The Matrix, A.I., and Star Trek: The Next Generation, the author is trying to convince the audience that this concept of technology being human-like and possessing emotions is not unheard of and can be believable due to the explosion of media based on it. The author presents an upfront contradiction of “ (1) Computers can’t do what we can, and sine having a mind means doing what we can do, artificial minds are impossible. (2) Computers can do what we can, and since they don’t have minds, we don’t either, or at least much of what we think about the mind is false.” When reading this I thought about all the myths we learn from our community as we are growing up. False and unprovable statements such as Freudian theories of the subconscious to the idea that we only use 10% of our brain consume our lives and lead us to believe, or at least consider, contradictions like the one this author uses. To program a computer to feel something and to have the computer actually physically feel something are two very different things. We, as humans, do not need to be taught or programmed to feel or express our emotions; we come out of the womb screaming! This is the difference between artificial life and human life. You can make a robot physically look like a human, behave like a human, and think like a human but it will never be naturally and subconsciously a human.

"Artificial Intelligence" The Film

Artificial Intelligence opens with an “end of the world” scenario followed by the introduction of robots to society. The narrator explains that robots did not consume any products (other than those they are built with) and they did not need to be taken care of like human beings; therefore, they were vital to world recovery. The robot you see in the beginning of the film is not differentiable from the rest of the humans in the room. Professor Hobby, played by William Hurt, explains that the difference between robots and humans is that the former do not have any emotions; they are intelligent, expressive, and have memory responses but they do not possess feelings or have any emotional reactions. An example of this occurs when Professor Hobby pokes the robot’s hand with a needle and she squeals but when asked how she felt about what he just did, she said, “I do not understand.” When asked, “What did I do to your feelings?” she said, “You did it to my hand.” Professor Hobby then asks the robot “What is love?” She responds with actions such as, “Love is first widening my eyes a little bit, then quickening my breathing, then warming my skin…” Professor Hobby points out that the robot knows how to physically depict love but she has no real emotion attached to these actions. Robots cannot genuinely express love; therefore, he proposes to the group that they create a robot child who can feel and express love. The group seems uneasy about the proposal and one of the members brings up the point that we as humans are uneasy with the idea of loving a robot. She asks, “What responsibility does that person hold to that mecca in return?” in regards to a robot child loving a human parent. As a society, we are genuinely fearful of technology taking over our lives; therefore, we push away the idea of connecting with a “fake being” and strive for real human connections. We have labeled technological entities as emotionless so if a robot did possess feelings, we would be unaccustomed to the idea and would reject the robot from our lives.

"At least we're doing something" vs. "Are you really doing anything?"

            When reading articles about how technology has affected society, we tend to hear a lot more negative than positive. Falling into this category is the article “Can You Hear Me Now?” by Sherry Turkle; falling outside of this bias is Clay Shirky’s article, “Gin, Television, and Social Surplus.” Clay Shirky argues that spending our free time on the Internet is not a negative thing arguing that most people are learning from these sites and gaining some sort of knowledge instead of just being a couch potato. Sherry Turkle, on the other hand, says that society is becoming non-interactive because we only interact with virtual reality. She argues that by creating a virtual reality, the Internet and its many sites make the users believe they are having close relationships with people when in reality (actual reality) these relationships are non-existent. Clay Shirky responds to statements like these by saying, “At least they’re doing something.” Shirkey sees the positive in this situation, that cognitive surplus (that we as consumers not only want to consume and keep but we also want to share, to do well, to participate, to help others) exists and that the Internet is going to help people share with and help others. Yet, Turkle would say we rely so heavily on our gadgets and being in front of screens that we don’t feel the need to share or be with other so is society really doing anything?

I think both writers have convincing arguments that are supported well but I agree more with Clay Shirky. I am a bit biased towards him because I have read and heard many of his speeches before and I enjoy hearing his positive take on this topic. I also think his theory on “cognitive surplus” is very persuasive and very believable therefore audiences would side with his argument more than Sherry Turkle’s.

"Can You Hear Me Now?"

In her article “Can You Hear Me Now?,” Sherry Turkle debates that technology has consumed its consumers lives. By creating a virtual reality, the Internet and its many sites make the users believe they are having close relationships with people when in reality (actual reality) these relationships are non-existent. Turkle argues that our popularity and success is no longer measured by our actions but our actions through technology such as “calls made, emails answered, and messages responded to.” She believes that we no longer have any free time or time to ourselves because we are “always on” and always engaged in some sort of networking whether it be on our phones, computers, or laptops. She also argues that our emotions are being put on stand by because we no longer experience the same things past generations have felt. She gives the example of a 12-14 year old kid finally being on their own to walk to school, but now has mommy on speed dial and, therefore, will no longer experience the feeling of being scared. I think a better example would be the feelings of anxiety and anxiousness people would feel when they couldn’t wait to go to school because the wanted to tell their best friend something; we no longer have this connection with our friends. We no longer act out our stories, we simply text what happened and leave out the emotion of the story.

"Gin, Television, and Social Surplus"

In his article/speech “Gin, Television, and Social Surplus,” Clay Shirkey talks about how American society has grown parallel to the growth in technology. From the Industrial Revolution up to now, society has adapted to technological advancements and has found new uses for these gadgets. With the invention of the television and the transformation to a five-day workweek, people now had ways to spend their free time; however, most of this free time was spent on the couch watching TV. “We did that for decades,” says Shirkey, “We watched I Love Lucy. We watched Gilligan’s Island. We watched Malcolm in the Middle.” He argues that now, instead of spending most of our time watching TV-shows, we use up most of our spare time on the Internet, on social media/networking sites. He also says that this isn’t a negative thing; most people are learning from these sites and gaining some sort of knowledge instead of just being a couch potato. He supports the World of Warcraft guilds by saying, “At least they’re doing something” in response to the TV producer who he claims was thinking, “Losers. Grown men sitting in their basement pretending to be elves.” Shirkey sees the positive in this situation, that cognitive surplus (that we as consumers not only want to consume and keep but we also want to share, to do well, to participate, to help others) exists and that the Internet is going to help people share with and help others.

"The Veldt." Frightening Future Family Facilities.

The short story “The Veldt” is about a family from the future who live in a grand self-operating facility. This home cleans itself, cooks for its residents, cleans its residents (e.g. brushes their teeth, combs their hair, washes their bodies, etc.), entertains its residents, etc. It literally is self-operating; thus, all of machines and rooms are always active. The children’s nursery is the jewel of the home. This room creates an alternate reality that is controlled by the children’s minds. By merely imagining a real place or fantasyland, the children are “transported” to the location; the room’s enormity, glass walls and height add to the realism of being in these sites. In the beginning you sense angst as the mother, Lydia, asks her husband, George, to go up to the nursery and check what is occurring. When George gets up to the nursery, the setting is the Veldt: the grasslands of South Africa where lions are feasting on their prey and the people in the room feel as though they will be the lions next meal. Although George tries to assure Lydia that there is nothing to fear, we understand that something is haywire because the children are spending most of their time in this violent frenzy. The nursery is symbolic of all technology and this terror of the nursery is meant to relate to society’s fear of technology taking over.

Realizing that their children are spending too much time in the violent chaos of “Africa,” the parents decide to turn off the nursery for a while in order to relax the children’s minds. When the children, Peter and Wendy (which, I think, is a reference to “Peter Pan”), are notified of their parents decision they throw tantrums; however, instead of their tantrums changing their parents minds in their favor, George and Lydia decide to turn off the entire house and gain back control of their lives. This is a commentary on how all children of the current era are spoiled by their parents and by the technological luxuries they posses. Especially when Peter asks, “Will I have to tie my own shoes instead of letting the shoe tier do it? And brush my own teeth and comb my own hair and give myself a bath?” This shows the writer’s over exaggerated pessimism towards society and our reliance on technology.

The parents realize that this house is taking over their lives by disabling them; when everything is done for us automatically, we become disabled in the sense that we no longer want to put any effort into doing things ourselves. After George shuts off the entire house, including the nursery, the children cry and whine until he agrees to turn it on for one minute so the children can say goodbye to their “other worlds.” The children trick their parents into going back into the nursery, lock the door, and allow their parents to be eaten by the lions. This is meant to show how monstrous society has become; the children have no sense of guilt when feeding their parents to lions. It is dreadful to think that technology has made us into robots with no feelings but that is how the children in this story are represented.

One of my favorite quotes from this short story was, as mentioned above, Peter asking, “Will I have to tie my own shoes instead of letting the shoe tier do it? And brush my own teeth and comb my own hair and give myself a bath?” (14) This shows the writer’s over exaggerated pessimism towards society and our reliance on technology. This view of a disabled society is becoming more and more accurate as we become more dependent on technology.

Another quote I liked was, “Perhaps they needed a little vacation from the fantasy…” (11) I think this quote is the most ironic sentence in the entire story because it is suggesting that their lives are fictional and they need to go on a vacation in order to return to reality. Normally, people go on a vacation to enter a ‘fantasyland’ and escape from reality for a few days, but this family is proposing a vacation to bring them back to reality.

"I'm Not Even Sorry"

My assignment: Go a day without texting, using your iPod, or using a networking site.

My interpretation: Go a day without communicating with your boyfriend, without viewing any images of your peers and what they ate throughout the day (InstaGram), or not listening to music all day (or even worse, being forced to listen to the radio).

My outcome: I had decided to leave my phone at home so I wouldn’t be tempted to text throughout the day, but the moment I woke up I received a “Good morning, Sunshine!” text from my boyfriend and responded with “Good morning, Blue Skies!” thus failing that part of the task; I then moved on to not using my iPod for musical purposes. I made breakfast, ate, grabbed my bag, sat in my car, plugged my iPod into the USB device, put on the John Mayer Playlist, and realized I failed this part of the task as well. I moved onto the third option of the assignment; I was determined not to mess this part up. I went to my math class then my art history class and my day was quite busy so I had not even thought about visiting any social networking sites. However, I had watched an episode of “Friends” the night before and texted my cousin with a witty remark about Joey before making my way to bed. She had been asleep so she had not responded…until now. I started the engine of my car, was about to back up when my phone vibrated; I shifted the gear of my car back to park and without even think slid my finger across the iPhone screen. Of course, the Facebook app opened up and my cousin had posted a link with a hilarious “Friends” gif on my wall. The assignment had been failed. We use technology so adamantly throughout every single day that we find it difficult to reframe from using it. I failed at this assignment and “I’m not even sorry.”

“Is Being ‘Plugged In’ Changing Campus Life? A Conversation” or Have We Just Become a Duller Society?

In the article “Is Being ‘Plugged In’ Changing Campus Life? A Conversation” by Liz Williams, Ethan Kolek, and Meg Kluge, students from the University of Massachusetts debate the overtaking of students lives by technology resulting in minimal interaction on campus. They blame this dissociation of students on “plugged-in-ness.” The argument stated is, “students are physically together are not interacting” with each other because they are too busy interacting with their technology. The counterargument, after agreeing that some students do spend a lot of time “plugged-in,” states that “the connection enabled by the World Wide Web, email, chatrooms, and instant messaging allow students to interact with a new, larger community.” Personally, I do agree that the Internet has opened us to a lot of new networking methods and we connect with people whom we may have never associated with but I also know that Internet connections are not as strong as person (in-person) relationships. And although the article argues that, “Shallow people are likely to have shallow relationships whether they are developed on-line or in person” I think that relationships have more meaning and weight if you physically spend time with the person.

I also found an image that supports my argument on a random blog.

“Society is Dead – We have retreated into the iWorld” but isn't our iWorld a more interesting realm?

In the article “Society is Dead – We have retreated into the iWorld,” Andrew Sullivan discusses the woes that exist in society because of increased Internet communication and decreased social interaction due to use of iPods, iPhones, iTunes, etc. He discusses, accurately, how we have limited our lives by only interacting and paying attention to things we approve of. He says, “Technology has given us a universe entirely for ourselves — where the serendipity of meeting a new stranger, hearing a piece of music we would never choose for ourselves or an opinion that might force us to change our mind about something are all effectively banished.” Therefore, instead of listening to an unordinary thought, idea, or song, we immediately disregard it as not being apart of our world or our image. We have no more sense of adaptation; we only ignore and remain oblivious to the new social mediums by remaining in our own social circles. Sullivan goes over the pros to being so overcome with our music in order to counter the argument in the next paragraph. He says, “What do we get from this? The awareness of more music, more often. The chance to slip away for a while from everydayness, to give our lives its own soundtrack, to still the monotony of the commute, to listen more closely and carefully to music that can lift you up and keep you going.” I am usually the one preaching this argument, but he goes on to say that by gaining this glimpse out of reality we are losing the actuality of our lives. He says that we no longer pay attention to the conversations around us, in which I would respond, yes, we mind our own business and no longer eavesdrop on other people’s conversations. He continues to argue that we no longer allow our minds to wander, but that is truly not the case. By listening to our music and by being engaged in some sort of activity, we are aimlessly thinking about something we are interested in which keeps our minds active and alert.