Sound and Fury

What is deafness? Depending on your Discourse, the term "deaf" can mean vastly different things. Both the Deaf community and the hearing community showed that they have very strong views on deafness and what it means to be deaf in the movie Sound and Fury. I found the incredibly strong views on either side of the issue to be fascinating.

On one side of the issue was the Deaf Community, represented by Peter and Nita, and also by Mari's parents. To Peter, "deafness is peaceful... if someone gave me a pill to make me hear, I'd throw it up." Deaf people are very proud of being deaf, and they feel that the cochlear implant surgery is scary and invasive. As Peter mentioned, "English is just moving lips; signing is motion." He feels that signing has more meaning than speaking, and that people can connect more through signing. It was interesting to see their side of the argument about the cochlear implant. They feel that it is almost a betrayal of their Deaf culture to give baby Peter or Heather an implant. They want the children to stay a part of "their world," and not move over to the hearing world. In my eyes, they are almost being discriminating towards hearing people. They claim that the hearing discriminate towards them, but I see it clearly as a two-way street. They don't want their kids to be a part of the hearing world; they don't mind if they interact with hearing people, as long as it is through sign language. The Deaf community is very concerned with personal identity--whether or not someone with an implant will identify as deaf, hearing, both, or somewhere in between. Many of them don't want Heather or baby Peter to identify with the hearing world because they fear that they will lose touch with the deaf world.

The other side of the debate encompasses the hearing: Chris and Mari and Chris and Peter's parents. To them, deafness is a disability, and they can't see why it shouldn't be fixed with a cochlear implant. To Mari, "the implant surgery is a miracle." They see hearing as being normal and deafness as being abnormal. To the Deaf community, this is very offensive. The hearing also cannot see why parents of a baby who is born deaf would not immediately consider implant surgery. They see it as helping the child be more "normal," and they think it will help them fit in. They worry about the child growing up and being ridiculed or excluded because they are deaf, and about the child having trouble having a career in the hearing world. Being a hearing person, I can definitely see this side of the issue. It would definitely be hard trying to be a professional and trying to communicate with the hearing while being deaf. However, this goes both ways. It is difficult for hearing to communicate with the deaf as well. Both have to make concessions and change the way they normally communicate.

Overall, thinking about this argument, it is very hard for me to say which side is "right." I have virtually no experience with the Deaf community or culture. However, I do think that everybody in this situation should've had a more open mind to the whole situation.

My Fear of Feet

Podophobia. It doesn't make sense, doesn't seem like it should be real. It's the fear of feet. Those sweaty, five-toed, fungi-ridden appendages just give me the shivers. I don't have a rational reason for the fear; however, it's not completely baseless. When I was six years old, and my sister was eight, I can remember us playing together in the living room, not a care in the world. I already had reason to be wary of my sister--she had always been the bane of my existence (or so my six-year-old mind thought). She constantly terrorized me just for the fun of it. Of course, my mom never saw what she did, only what I did in retaliation.

This particular occasion was no different. We were playing in the living room, my mother busy in the kitchen, when my sister decided it would be funny to shove her feet in my face. She peeled her socks off when I wasn't looking, and when I turned around to grab a Barbie, her wrinkly, smelly tootsies were smack in my face. Literally. She had underestimated and my face ran into her feet. I screeched and immediately recoiled, then sprinted to the kitchen (still screaming, to my mom's dismay and my sister's delight) and scrubbed my face in the sink. My mom was utterly befuddled by the situation, but my sister was elated and was rolling on the floor laughing (at least that's what I thought; my face was shoved deep into our kitchen sink at the time, so I relied on my ears and best judgment).

Once I felt I had been adequately decontaminated, I snatched up the towel and scrubbed my face some more. I then turned to my sister with fire in my eyes and made a beeline back to the living room. My mom caught me around the midsection before I could get anywhere, and sent both of us to our rooms. Both of us! As if I'd done anything wrong! I was furious, and at the same time I was completely disgusted. Never again will I look at feet as a normal entity. My feet are the only ones that should ever be near me. And don't even get me started on bare feet. Socked feet I can deal with, but bare feet? Try again later. I don't believe my sister recalls this particular incident, but she and the rest of my family frequently taunt me with my irrational fear. However, I have some vengeance of my own: my sister's irrational fear of people touching her neck.

Is "Blurred Lines" a Little Too Blurred?

"I know you want it, but you're a good girl," croons Robin Thicke as he dances seductively next to nearly-naked models. His hit song "Blurred Lines" has been touted "kind of rapey" by reporter Tricia Romano, and she is not alone.The video is offensive, sure. The lyrics are questionable, and the video is worse. Clearly, chivalry is not a strong theme in the song, but to go so far as to call it conducive to the rape culture? To me, that seems a little far.

Thicke's video is abhorrent to many women (and even men), and rightly so. The explicit version features women clad only in nude-colored thongs, while the "clean" version (only released after outrage) has the women scantily-clad, but technically covered. From the video, it is very clear how the song came to be so controversial. However, when one digs deeper into it, the song may not be as harmful as people are claiming it to be. As Jennifer Lai puts it, "Blurred Lines" is "overly cocky and presumptuous as hell," but that does not mean it is promoting rape.

As Lai points out, the song's lyrics do, in fact, let the woman call the shots. Thicke says "Go ahead, get at me," clearly indicating that he's waiting for the okay from the woman. In the video, it is definitely not just Thicke who is "getting nasty." Granted, he is fully clothed and making all of the suggested remarks, and has scantily dressed the women surrounding him, but he is not the only one whom kids shouldn't look at as a role model. The women in the song, though they don't say a word, speak volumes with their dancing. Now, I'm not suggesting that women who dress or act seductively are asking to be raped. However, they are acting very enticingly, and most men I know would certainly be aroused by them.

Critics, including Romano, point out the repeated murmuring of "I know you want it" throughout the song. While this can be a rapist's slogan, it can also be the sentiment of an aroused man who is just trying to get with a woman. So, while the video could certainly be taken as promoting rape, as Tricia Romano thinks, it should be looked at more closely, and from all perspectives. There is nothing to say what Thicke's true intent for the song was, but he claims it to be speaking to the "tired, overused good-girl-with-a-freaky-streak fantasy." If this is true, it is easy enough to understand. By reading the lyrics more closely, one can see that the song is probably not about rape, as it does speak to the woman and her actions and desires.

Though Thicke has clearly crossed a line with his "Blurred Lines" song and video, there is nothing to definitively suggest that it is suggesting that men become rapists. Sure, it is a dirty song with an even dirtier video, and clearly doesn't play to the chivalrous attitudes so many women desire. However, not all women desire a knight in shining armor. Some, as in the ones in the video, want to be suggestive and seductive, and want men's attention. Some really do "wanna get nasty," as Thicke says in the song. So, while not all women want what Thicke is offering, there is definitely a population out there who does want it. They may like rough sex, or may have other deviant desires, and that is no wronger than women wanting the "perfect man." There are different types of men, and different types of women, and "Blurred Lines" simply plays to a very specific group.

On the surface, Robin Thicke's hit "Blurred Lines" could easily be seen as "rapey," or conducive to the rape culture. However, on closer investigation, it is simply tailored to a very specific group of men and women, and to many, it is hard to understand their ways. Any way you look at it, the video is pretty awful (even the censored one), but there is nothing to tell us for sure that Thicke is promoting rape as okay. Some of his lyrics are definitely questionable, such as "I know you want it," which is repeated throughout the song, but there are also those who suggest that all of this is just innocent fun for everyone. Not everyone enjoys the kind of sex that Thicke is suggesting, but that is okay. Admittedly, the song is catchy; that doesn't mean I agree with its message. I just think it's a bit too far to call the song, and by extension Thicke himself, "rapey."

"Autobiography of a Face"

For my nonfiction book, I chose Autobiography of a Face by Lucy Grealy. In the novel, Lucy describes her long-fought battle with a potentially terminal cancer, Ewing's sarcoma. The cancer is in her jaw, and she must undergo multiple surgeries that leave her face permanently disfigured. Grealy was diagnosed at age nine, and her entire life was shaped by her face.

When Lucy is first diagnosed, she certainly doesn't take the news like most other children, or even adults for that matter, would. She is excited because she has always wanted to be "different from everyone else." She sees cancer as her way of standing out from the crowd and getting noticed. Lucy states that her "heart thrilled when [she] heard the words 'emergency surgery,'" and she wasn't referring to a thrill of fear. This was intriguing to me--I still get nervous about getting a shot. I can't imagine the fear I would have felt as a nine-year-old having to face countless surgeries, tests, and other procedures. It made me wonder what it is that make some people like this. Why is Lucy so excited for the surgery, and to be "different?" Why, on the other hand, are some kids so eager to fit in and be just like everyone else? Did Lucy truly understand the impact this disease would have on her life, and if she did, would she ever have been so excited? "Sometimes it is as difficult to know what the past holds as it is to know the future." This idea is very poignant, especially in Lucy's situation. It really made me think about how much our past can shape our lives, whether we realize it or not. Something that happened five years ago could have an impact 10 or 15 years down the road--we just never know. This is kind of scary to me, because it adds yet another element of unpredictability to our lives.

Another big element to Lucy's story is bravery. In my mind, this is the part of the book that is the most heartbreaking. Lucy tries her hardest not to cry or get upset, which is understandable, but when she does, she gets extremely angry at and disappointed with herself. Her expectations are too high--sometimes everyone just needs to let it out. Especially a child with cancer (or, frankly, anyone with cancer). Her philosophy is "one must be good. One must never complain or struggle...One must never, ever cry." This stopped my in my tracks. Never cry?! That would be detrimental to a person, to never show any emotion! It also brought up the age-old question: nature vs nurture. Lucy's parents hold the same philosophy she did. Her mother, after Lucy cried at her first chemotherapy appointment, tells her that she is "disappointed...that [she'd] cried." I would like to know if Lucy's mother was truly such an unsupportive parent, or if she really didn't understand any of what her daughter was going through. Obviously, Lucy was raised on the idea that crying meant weakness, but surely it couldn't be that ingrained in her head? Lucy all but punished herself for crying at her appointments. She later states that her mother "was afraid for" her, but I don't think that she should've transferred her fear onto Lucy in such a fashion; Lucy was dealing with far too much.

"What was it like to be somebody else?" Lucy is constantly asking herself this question. She believes that she is ugly, that nobody will ever love her, and that her face will define her life. I think that her face does define her life, but only because she lets it. She places so much stock in her appearance that she is never able to let her personality shine through. In order for Lucy to live a better life, I think she should've just tried to forget about what everyone else thought and just focus on being the best person she could be. I realize, however, that I am in no position to say this; I have never had to deal with anything more appearance-altering than a scar on my leg that has since faded. This is the problem with Lucy's disfigurement: it will never go away. A large portion of her jaw was removed in an attempt to cure her, and it will never grow back, never fade. I can't even imagine what it would be like living with that, but I would like to think that I would be able to put it aside and just live my life. Lucy has a very hard time doing that, and I think it is because it happened so young. Children her age are so impressionable and cruel--Lucy was forever mentally scarred from the incessant teasing and taunting that happened to her. Other boys told her no one would ever love her, and I think that is where her belief comes from. She was too young to have to deal with any of this, let alone the cruelty of others. This is an overarching belief that she holds until the day she dies--that she will never be loved because she is too ugly. I can't imagine living like this.

Lucy's story really affected  me. She faces so many hardships in it, and has little to no support from anyone throughout her ordeal. I know that Lucy was an incredibly strong person (she died in 2002); she dealt with this all alone and lived through it. When I seriously think about it, I don't know if I could've gone through what she did. It is incredible to me that she never had any problems with depression or mental illness. Most people I know would probably turn to drugs or alcohol (I don't like to think so, but I may even do so) in the face of what Lucy dealt with. Her face and the problems in her life were infinitely connected. She wanted someone to "fix [her] face, [her] life, [her] soul," and that really stuck with me. We put so much stock in appearances that an "unfortunate" one can completely take over our lives. She even asks "where was all that relief and freedom that I thought came with beauty?" Our expectations of being beautiful are so unrealistic, but we don't realize that until it is too late. With Lucy, even though she was a survivor of cancer, she could never shake the mark it left on her, physically at least. Oddly enough, she didn't seem to have any psychological problems that stemmed from her ordeal, besides thinking that she was ugly, unlovable, and worthless. Lucy's story really taught me a lot, and it made me think about what is truly important in life. It also made me very grateful for my health, and for the supportive people in my life. Lucy had neither of those things, and yet she was able to go on living. I admire her for that. She truly believed that "[her] life was 'different' from most people's, but it was essentially [her] own."

I will leave you with an incredibly thought-provoking quote from Lucy. It really struck me and changed the way I think about things:

"Joy is a kind of fearlessness, a letting go of expectations that the world should be anything other than what it is."

"The Great Lawsuit" & "If Men Could Menstruate"

Margaret Fuller and Gloria Steinem had some interesting views on the age-old debate of man versus woman. They are obviously very different views, seeing as Fuller's was written in 1843 and Steinem's in 1986. They share the (unfortunately true) opinion that men find themselves superior, and agree that men flaunt their position in society. However, they do both make some very interesting points that really made me think about my position in society as a woman.

One line that really caught my attention in Fuller's piece was the line: "there exists...a tone of feeling towards women as towards slaves." Were women really considered that inferior? It was shocking to me that any woman at any point in time would've felt this way, and it seemed as if they had no way to defend themselves. Men considered them to have "the prerogative of reason...allotted to them in a much lower degree," so they would never have their voices heard; they were not considered to be intelligent enough. It was as if they were not good enough to be able to possess reason and intelligence--they were treated like animals, much like African Americans were. Fuller then goes on to claim that "all men are privately influenced by women;" this seems contradictory to me. Didn't she just say that men didn't trust women to make decisions, that they weren't worthy of being intelligent? I do agree, though--whether they want to admit it or not, men are inherently programmed to respect the women in their lives, whether it be their mother, sister, or wife. Fuller also predicted that a woman was "not likely to leave [the home] more than she now does," which has obviously turned out to be untrue. Now, not only do women go out with other women, they leave the house to shop, run errands, and work all the time without their kids or husbands.

One real question remained after I had read Fuller's piece. Would women being perfectly equal to men bring harmony? Everyone expects that there would be no unrest if this were the case, but is that true? I am not saying that women should not be equal to men--they absolutely should be. However, I don't think it would solve all the world's problems like people think it would. It will be interesting to see what happens if women are ever actually equal to men.

To be quite honest, Gloria Steinem's article made me a little angry. To suggest that men would be considered superior to women for enduring something that women already do just seems preposterous to me. Menstruation is considered a disadvantage to being a woman. If we are considered unreasonable or cranky, men often ask us if it is "our time of the month." We dread this monthly occurrence, yet Steinem suggests that if men menstruated instead of women, it "would become an enviable, worthy, masculine event." It is clearly considered a weakness of women. Honestly, this whole debate comes down to perspective. All of these differences between men and women are made up, fabricated in our minds. It's almost as if we want to be different, want to be separated from the opposite sex. Men often claim superiority for many reasons, and after reading this article, I can see that clearly. The phrase "women are equal, just different" really rubbed me the wrong way. Why do we have to focus on differences? Also, women are not truly equal. Even in today's society, there is still discrimination and inequality.

One line that really stuck out to me was this one: "Judge Cites Monthlies In Pardoning Rapist." For one thing, I doubt anything like this would ever really happen. Also, when women try to blame their periods for being on edge, tired, or unable to do things because of cramps or other things that come along with our "monthly gift," they are just scoffed at and not believed. I just find it hard to believe that men would ever be able to use it as an excuse to this extent.

Obviously, I am very opinionated on this issue. I think being a woman myself has something to do with it. I don't think men and women will ever truly be equal, for more reasons than one. It just seems silly to me the "differences" people try to make up that exist between men and women--most of them are only in their heads and make for a more difficult life for everyone.

"Is Google Making Us Stupid?"

I have often had the thought, especially when using actual books to do research, that Google is making us lazy as a society. Simply type in a phrase, question, or word you wish to search for, and within milliseconds you have billions of results at your fingertips. They are even organized so that the most relevant web pages are among the first results listed. This would be how Google is trying to "understand exactly what you mean and give you back exactly what you want." While this is not necessarily a bad thing--it is certainly a more efficient way to research than painstakingly combing through encyclopedias and nonfiction books looking for exactly the information you need, sometimes to no avail--it definitely does have its downfalls. For one thing, it is very easy to get distracted from what you are looking for, with the countless ads and hyperlinks on the sites you find. One minute you could be reading an article about the Korean War, and within three clicks you could be watching funny cat videos on YouTube.

There are more problems with the way our society reads and takes in information, however. As the article points out, "the deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle." We are unable to sit down and read and understand a long piece of writing because of the way our brains have been trained by the internet. We are too used to efficiency, so we cannot function without it. For some, "thinking has taken on a 'staccato' quality," because this is the way that people read and take in information nowadays. This could easily leave us unable to think on a deep level and form connections when we read, which would be detrimental to us. The ability to contemplate ideas and really think is invaluable, and it is something most people unfortunately take for granted. Forming these connections between ideas is how we help our brain to grow and stay healthy, and without that ability, our brains may deteriorate. The article states, "the human brain is just an outdated computer that needs a faster processor and bigger hard drive." When I read this, it made me think about how we are letting our brains fall into disrepair, and if we just started to go back to the old ways and really think on a deeper level, we may be able to "update" our cranial computers.

I think the problem that Google is causing lies in our attitudes. We have simply become used to having the world at our fingertips online, and for this reason we are losing the need to think deeply. Our society is one "seeking maximum speed, maximum efficiency, and maximum output,"so that is what we have come to want. I wouldn't say this necessarily means we are "stupid," as Nicholas Carr suggests, it is just the way we are trained to think by our society. So, if anything, I think our society is making us stupid with its ideas and focuses, rather than Google. As the article states, "the ultimate search engine is something as smart as people--or smarter." This, to me, is an incredibly scary prospect. Is our society really so desperate that it wants a computer that is smarter than humans? I do, however, take umbrage to the wording of this. Can a computer ever really be "smarter" than a living, thinking human being? By what definition of "smart" is this measured? Sure, it may be able to pull up any piece of information when asked, or answer any question it is given, but can it really think? Does a computer have the ability to maintain a thought process and form a train of thought? The idea that "intelligence is the output of a mechanical process" is an outrageous one to me.

After thinking about this for a while, I realized that the basis of this entire article is incredibly ambiguous. Everyone defines smart in a different way, and therefore stupid is defined differently as well. So is there really any one way to measure the effects Google is having on our minds? Personally, I think it would be incredibly difficult, maybe even impossible, to do so.

So to answer the question "Is Google Making Us Stupid" may not be black-and-white. I think that, at the moment, we are letting it do just that. However, I think we are very able to reverse the effects Google is having on our brains. After all, if Google is making us stupid, we must have been smart at one time, right? We just need to reject the current ideas of what reading and research are, and transition back to the old ways of curling up with a good book for the night or scouring the stacks for information.

"The Ethics of Living Jim Crow"

This story struck me from the very first sentence. It talked about "how to live as a Negro," as if there is some sort of difference in the way blacks and whites should have to live. In this day and age, this idea is considered archaic and awful, but at this time, it was widely accepted as just the way things were. The story also talked about "Jim Crow wisdom--" but is any of this really "wise?" The separation of whites and black neighborhoods, the war games between black and white children, the inhumane treatment blacks receive: all of these are normal occurrences in this story, and none are questioned as being wrong. It is assumed that Richard is stupid ("'Whut yuh tryin' t' do, git smart?'"), savage, and rude, and is treated with nothing but disrespect and condescension. While this is obviously wrong, it happened for hundreds of years before anyone even so much as thought to make a change. Why is that? Even most blacks just accepted this treatment, as the characters in the story did. It makes me wonder: were they too scared to fight for change, or did they just truly believe that this treatment was what they deserved?

There was another sentence in this story that really took me aback: "even Negroes have those visions." Talking about the dream of working one's way up in a job, this sentence made me stop in my tracks. It really struck me that people could think that people of a certain color are not capable of having the same aspirations. It's as if people thought that blacks had different brains than whites, which is obviously absurd. It especially blew me away that this statement came from a black man. Were they so conditioned by whites that they felt as though they didn't deserve to have such thoughts? Or perhaps they had just always thought they had to "'stay in [their] place' if [they] want to keep working." Such dreams and aspirations could get blacks fired, or worse, killed. It's awful that these people had to live in fear like this, but unfortunately, it was a reality for them every day of their lives. 

As much we don't like to admit it, there is an inherent racism in every human being. We may treat everyone the same, but ask yourself this: do you ever judge someone of a different race or think about them as "sketchy" or "creepy" without anything more than a glance their way? I just feel, especially after reading this story, as though we really need to take responsibility for our thoughts and feelings and try to change them. Though we don't see this blatant discrimination anymore, that doesn't mean there is not still inequalities and injustices. We need to own up and really make a change--the first step would be instilling in our children that everyone is truly equal, not just "sort-of" equal.

"Talk of the Town"

John Updike and Susan Sontag chose to speak with very different perspectives about the same event in their “Talk of the Town” essays. Both were very honest and real, and they made me as a reader question my previous perceptions of the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

Updike witnessed the attacks and the aftermath firsthand, and gives a very personal and emotion-wrought account of the day. At first, he viewed the events as “more curious than horrendous,” which seems like a natural human reaction. We as a species are an inherently curious one, and we always want to know more. That being said, Updike also noted that it seemed as if the events were all playing out on television, and frequently made references to this analogy, such as “the south tower dropped from the screen of our viewing.” He also made mention of the fact that the whole thing didn’t seem real to him. This point of view was interesting to me—was it just so surreal to watch that it truly didn’t seem as if it were actually happening? Or, was it just so terrible that people wished it weren’t happening? Another thing I was curious about as I read was how Updike felt when the reality did actually sink in—when he realized that this was a real event and he had actually witnessed all these people die. It must have been a very powerful feeling, one that I can’t even begin to fathom.

Another thing that intrigued me about Updike’s essay was his view on freedom. He called it “mankind’s elixir, even if a few turn it into poison.” This, to me, is tremendously powerful. We as Americans must choose how we use our freedom, whether we cherish or abuse it. This decision can mean the difference between, as Updike points out, kamikaze pilots and upstanding citizens. He also said, at the end of the essay, that “New York looked glorious.” This poses a question: is New York so beautiful, and will it always be beautiful no matter what, because we still have freedom?

Sontag chose to focus more on the media and how we as a country handled the attacks. She was not afraid to speak her mind about the media and our government, and said some things that I think could be quite controversial. She discussed how America was “the world’s self-proclaimed superpower,” which I find to be quite true. Americans generally think themselves to live in the best, most powerful country in the world. However, did this pompous attitude instigate, in some way, these attacks? The way I see it, this attitude and boastfulness, and also our exercise of complete power over other countries (“the ongoing American bombing of Iraq”) could rightfully make them angry. Does this give them an excuse to attack us? No. But it certainly gives them a reason to want to.

Sontag’s article was very demeaning towards our leaders in government. While I think they did need to do more than tell us “America is strong,” I don’t feel they deserve quite the criticism that Sontag is throwing their way. America needs to have strong leaders who can handle situations like this in better ways than just reassuring everyone that everything will be okay.

Introducing...Me

As most of you are acquainted with me already, I will keep this brief. However, for those of you whom I haven't had the pleasure of meeting, I am Emily Murwin, and I will be a senior this coming fall (though I wish that could say college freshman--you could say I'm a bit impatient for that part of my life to start). I wouldn't say I am a terribly interesting person, but I do have my quirks and unique hobbies that I will share with you here. Since, as I said before, I am not the most patient person, let's get started.

I know this could make me sound like somewhat of a "nerd," but I really do enjoy school. Believe me, I'm not jumping out of bed everyday and skipping to school singing, but I like to learn and consistently thirst for knowledge (hence the impatience for college). Science is by far my favorite subject, which is most likely the reason that I want to be a pediatrician. As people frequently remind me, this is A LOT of years of school, but I am sincerely looking forward to it (call me crazy). Another completely unrelated subject I enjoy is English. I have been reading non-stop ever since I could get my chubby little hands on books, even "reading" to my dad at age three after memorizing Tarzan. Writing is another passion. I mostly write fiction--short stories and poetry--but occasionally I will compose the odd editorial or two.

It may sound like all I do is school and school-related things, but I do have other hobbies, such as photography. I prefer my subjects to be flowers, benches, buildings, and the like--nothing that can start crying or throw a fit when I am trying to capture the perfect shot. Not only do I have a digital camera, I also have a film camera circa 1980 that I enjoy experimenting with. This is much more difficult, but I enjoy the challenge, even when my photos don't turn out well at all. It's not something I get to do terribly often, but it's something I love  nonetheless.

Besides these things, I also babysit what some would say is an obscene amount. I have a multitude of families that I watch. In addition, I teach swimming lessons and lifeguard at the McFarland Pool. I guess you could say I like kids. This is another part of why I aspire to be a pediatrician. I have a lot of aspirations in life, but this is probably my main goal.

Well, that's pretty much me in a nutshell. More posts to come soon, but I promise no more boring monologues about myself and what I like to do. Thanks for reading!