Love at first sight is a phenomenon often coined on overly-dramatic romantics in love with the idea of love (@FriarLawrence @Nurse), while more realists drop the idea with mere claims of sexual attraction and illegitimacy. After all, how could we possibly fall deeply in love after a quick glimpse? How could that small glance leave us dreaming of spending the rest of our lives in the arms of a stranger? You couldn’t possibly be in love with this person – or could you? Scientists say that we are genetically wired for the possibility of love at first sight. Others disagree. There arguments include that the person supposedly falling in love doesn’t have the necessary knowledge about the recipient in order to feel this emotion, and also doesn’t have time to exercise the activities typical of romantic love. The first argument implies that love does not consist merely of sexual desire but instead of character traits that one wouldn’t be able to see upon first glance and the latter says that love is not just feelings, and instead the activities that underlies it. Both oppositions show fundamental mistakes in their claims. Firstly, being the stereotypical beings we are, we often spontaneously pair attractiveness with benevolence, where beauty is evaluated as good. So, while love at first sight can often mislead the lover since it is, in fact, based on imagination, it can still be very intense love because of our misinterpretations. The fact that this love is based on unreliable information doesn’t necessary mean it wasn’t love. Research has shown that the romantic love we see is often based on rose-colored illusions and idealizations. Love is an emotion just like any other: jealousy, anger, happiness, and can be manipulated. For example, jealousy is often constructed from misbeliefs about a companion’s activities or feelings. Even though the information was incorrect, the jealousy was still real. Additionally, the truth that this love may die over time still does not take away from the fact that there was love. Time is not an accurate measurement of love. Contrarily, the intensity of any romantic behavior is likely to lessen over time. Therefore, seeing that love at first sight involves the same beliefs and readiness of a more traditional falling-in-love, it can be a real instance of love.
To illustrate, in the renown tragedy of star-crossed lovers, Romeo and Juliet, William Shakespeare offers an exaggerated means based around the idea of young love at first sight. Ironically, this exchange started at a party for the possible betrothal of Juliet to Paris, and poor Romeo sighing over his glimpse at Rosaline. However, these significant others were soon forgotten when Romeo and Juliet laid their eyes onto each other, with Romeo’s exclamation of “For I ne’er saw true beauty till this night.” (1.5.52-53) Juliet goes on despite the obvious obstacles, knowing her “…only love sprung from [her] only hate!”(1.5.38) While their actions were hasty (and ultimately lethal) in the way of young lovers, there’s no room to say that love did not dwell in them. The shortness of time combined with the extremity of the matter makes a logistics head spin, however, again, obviously they felt an emotion strong enough to take their very lives at the idea of losing each other. To conclude, we should heed to Christopher Marlowe’s idea that “What we behold is censured from our eyes./Where both deliberate, the love is slight:/Who ever loved, that loved not at first sight?”

In The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, two suitors, Paris and (of course) Romeo, have their eyes set on the quivering thigh and red lips of Juliet, eager for her betrothal. Strangely, the similarities and differences in these gentlemen are strikingly equivalent; they are as different as they are the same. For one, both are extremely self-centered in their wills toward Juliet. Upon first bringing up his proposal to her father, Capulet, Paris is so intent on having Juliet for himself that he disregards Capulet’s insistence that Juliet has not yet ripened and to “Let two more summers wither in their pride/Ere [he] think her ripe to be a bride.”(1.2.10-11) Instead, he responds that “Younger than [Juliet] are happy mothers made”, not caring about how she feels on the matter. Similar to Paris, Romeo is so eager for marriage that courtship is out of the question which is further indication that neither of them really care for her to a great extent and rather just want her “…quivering thigh, And the demesnes that there adjacent lie.” This is further proved by their easily impressionable minds where Romeo has a tendency to jump for girl to girl with haste and Paris being described as “a man of wax”, suggesting that he was just superficial beauty without genuine character. As for social standings, Both men are presumingly wealthy, as Romeo has servants (Abram and Balthasar ) and upon the couple’s death, the families plan to get gold remembrance statues. Seeing as Capulet agreed and knew Paris as a friend, he also must be well connected politically and from a good family. Next, straying from the negative side, both men show levels of integrity in the tragedy. Romeo shows this by proving his love through his undying devotion (no pun intended) by proving his love through his actions. Paris does the same when he tries to uphold the law by making a citizen’s arrest upon seeing Romeo at the tomb.
On the contrary, both men show significant differences in age, personality, and finance. Physically, though both are attractive, Romeo is a “blooming flower”, only sixteen at the time, while Paris is closer to Juliet’s mother’s age, obviously making him more mature and arguably a better suitor. Additionally, Paris was a kinsman of the Prince, well-loved and a good friend of the Capulets. Contrarily, Romeo was a Montague (do matter how much he swore of his name), an ancient enemy of the Capulets. Also, their personality traits and means of interest differed highly. Romeo was a head-strung lovesick boy with no means of supporting his new wife, where Paris is already established with a fair job. Furthermore, Romeo’s love was untraditional and ruled by passion, climbing in through her window to compensate their marriage. However, Paris is more conventional in his ways and asks Capulet for Juliet’s hand in marriage instead of hoping for the night to shield his entrances and using “lover’s wings” to soar above her wall (ah hm, breaking and entering even if poetically). Lastly, Romeo never treats Juliet as if she were his property while Paris dares to say her face is not her own, acting presumptuously before they even got married. To conclude, both males exhibited traits that one may see husband-material, but are similarly lacking a trait the other possess that they do not.

What is it they call
Caucher or Frost:
haphazardly stringing together
emotions, souls.
Derived from adolescence,
or nature,
or so-called philosophical beliefs.
Trying vigorously to convey a truth
but aimlessly lost in caesuras,
tropes, and professors.
Can not a flower be simply a flower?
A silken tent purely a shelter?
Or a well-curb from which one
only kneels to see their likeness?
Must simple minds make everything complex,
Beyond their own understanding?
Do they enjoy the bafflement
of the complex puzzle straining
in their little minds?
Perhaps that is the pleasure.
Simply a game:
a labyrinth with ceaseless turns.
Never really having a definite end,
but not necessary needing one either.
Enjoyment in the struggle:
twisted and turned interpretations
A tortuous knot of paradox:
seductively intricate.
All in the quest for simple truth.

Books whisper,
savants listen
To the hushed warnings of days past,
Knowing that a world is formed with each exhale,
With each stroke,
each impression.
Yearning for the enlightening kiss
of days gone by.
Knowing that a wispy brush
can open eyes

Savages jeer,
thinking only materialistically:
Feints formed from simply elements and plants past,
No more than ink or paper.
Meer ideas meant only to destroy,
not realizing the mangling and miming
occurring within their every beings.

Oh, Hippocrates!
Relieve the hypocrites of this ailment:
abominable pride and transgressions.
Stand back, Steinbeck!
Forget nicotine; numbing ignorance
would have surely dubbed your heart.

Where is the end?
Undoubtedly The End?
Or will a brave soul stand
to free these idiots?

Laying in bed, a boy of barely six shuts his eyes as flashes of firefighters and superheroes race through his mind. Panning around the room, one would see a varied assortment of fire trucks and other childhood what-nots, but the main focus is a distant framed picture: an ever-smiling dad, clad in red and punctuated by a repetitive promise; “I want to be just like you, Daddy.” Similar to the boy’s fascination with heroes and dreams of even filling the shoes of his biggest hero, we also have dreams that will better ourselves and others and give life a sense of adventure.
With big dreams come big responsibilities and accomplishments, thus thrusting one into an edification process, bettering themselves and consequently others. To illustrate, long days, even longer nights, and countless hours of tedious work embody a doctor(or Doctor-to-be)’s life. However, they still push through, when in reality, they really didn’t have to set such high goals and dreams. Seemingly endless hours at the bedside of the ill where the last hope is a well knowledged doctor puts immense pressure on said doctor(s). Without those high dreamers, where would the world be? Back to colonial times where someone with such a minor thing as a common cold is left to die? Thankfully, people have stepped up, dreaming big, bettering themselves and others through their works. With ambitions soaring, they save lives and fulfill passions one dream at a time. Pushing against the current of lethargy and indifference, one would find that dreams save. They’re real. They’re at the tip of the tongue, ready to be savored and grasped and given a breath of life. Likewise, Martin Luther King grasped this with his famous proclamation of “I have a dream!”, which was filled with such gusto and pride, despite the inevitable persecution, that it encouraged other dreamers to speak up. Thus, he started a movement that kick-started the end of segregation, paving a path for abolitionists and ultimately shifting societal morals to those promoting the so-called idea that “All men are created equal”- an idea that was supposed to be the foundation of America. Had his dreams not been so ambitious, the course of the world would be changed. Marching through the streets of the narrow-minded, blinded by socially acceptable norms, straight on to Capitol Hill, proved to be a gigantic accomplishment for him and his people. Hence, history shows us that steadfast dreams can truly move mountains.
Also, dreams are what separate human beings from mere robots, mechanically going about life with no hope because they lack adventure and meaning. To illustrate, in The Glass Menagerie, Tom’s dreams for adventure with the Marine Merchants or simply just being unbound from the holds of the restricting boa of his house were so overwhelming that it literally drove him to the brink of insanity. Pursuing his yearn for adventure, he left his tiresome job at the warehouse to do what really made him feel alive, and jumped into the real world head first. For, living in a house of lackadaisical puppets isn’t the meaning of life; the meaning of life is to give life meaning, which is only acquired through having and following dreams. Lastly, sometimes dreams are paradoxically the only hold unto reality. Such as in The Things They Carried, where countless memoirs from the past and hopes for the future assuage their need for meaning. Like Mark Fossie bringing his beloved to war and planning a future with her despite the horrors abounding, thinking it would keep him alive in theory. Reliving past hopes of the American dream (white picket fence, a dream job, and 2.5 kids) is what truly gave their lives meaning in the hell of Nam. Literature is a representation of the mind and body, therefore, though fictional, these dreams are not just figments of the imagination, but instead a glimpse of how the crave for meaning and thrill are satisfied.
Years later, that once-young dreaming boy slips into his black boots and helmet, catches one last glimpse of the picture on his nightstand, and dashes out of the door into another day of mystery, adventure, and fulfilled dreams.

Do you believe the ending to Frederick Douglass’ story is adequate/sufficient?

Adamantly believing that a slave’s chance at extricating from their damned lives, towers over the reader’s simple curiosity and
hope of a satisfying story; I agree that Douglass gives just enough information to capture the essence of the narrative without impeding on his brethren’s possible chance of freedom.
For instance, in Douglass’ opening phrases of Chapter 11, when explaining his minutiae regarding his escape, he counters with this, “First, it is quite probable, that others would thereby be involved in the most embarrassing difficulties. Secondly, …such a statement would most undoubtedly induce greater vigilance on the parts of the slaveholders…by the means of guarding a door by which some dear brother…might escape. ” Had he continued to write the story without any thoughts of the others involved, he would have potentially endangered his relatives. This integrity speaks louder than any story or words could have possibly said. Subsequently, giving the readers one last glimpse of his true disposition without having to intrude on another man’s hope of a desirable, liberated life.
Also, Douglass was an extremely humble man who wanted his book to do much more than make a measly dollar or gain empty publicity. Instead, he wanted it to change, transform, and mold his ready audience along with stubborn peers. Staying somewhat ‘under the scenes’ if you will, Douglass profoundly points out that he “… [has] never approved of the very public matter in which some of [his] friends have conducted what they call the underground railroad, but to which [he] think[s]… had been made…the upper ground railroad.” Though he genuinely appreciated their work, he doesn’t believe that they should be proclaiming such things in such a public manner, perhaps even “like the Pharisees”; for it could unintentionally cause more harm than help.
Therefore, Douglass shows, once again, his compassionate and thoughtful knowledge as he gives up part of his testimony on behalf of his brethren’s safety. Surely, had every detail been released, it would have potentially altered the course of history having a ‘butterfly effect’ starting with a single slave. Though the curious ear may be disappointed at the abrupt ending, but thinking ethically, one will realize that Douglass did, in fact, do the right thing in ending the narrative the way he did. To conclude, the end of the book completely for filled the purpose the it was initially intended for, even when leaving out details.

Respond to the following quotation: “He who passively accepts evil is an much involved in it as he who helps to perpetuate it.”

The essence of this quote is that a person who doesn’t actively try to stop evil shares the same guilt as the criminal who causes or advances evil behavior. In other words, since society is not a utopian world and evil does exist, we all have the opportunity to observe or become aware of evil behavior or actions that are unacceptable, that break written or moral laws, or that violate human rights. With this awareness, Martin Luther King suggests that without resistance, we all flock together like blind sheep and go blindly toward evil. In so, we actually help advance evil rather than stopping it. For example, consider the novel, “Fahrenheit 451”, in which the civilians readily accept the cruelty distributed by the firemen or the ‘antagonists’ such as Beatty, instead of actually standing up against the evil shown towards all. Though, they, themselves, did not rise and run with a torch, obliterating houses and murdering the innocent, they also did not do anything to stop it. Therefore, they are (knowingly or otherwise) endorsing that sort of behavior and just as guilty as the persecutor. To give you a metaphor, the one who doesn’t try to stop a criminal is an accomplice to murder (sometimes literally). Though they never physically do anything ‘morally wrong’, they are just as bad, if not worse than the actual evil-doer. The accomplice still gets charged for the crime and in some cases could be prosecuted even if the actual criminal is not convicted. This is speaking both physically: having stated in the USC section 2 of title 18, that (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States is punishable as a principal and
(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal. And also morally: one should know that it is wrong to harm another regardless of circumstances. This being said, we should know that if you are not actively helping a situation of victim, you are subsequently harming them.

A young girl, clad from head to toe in flowered floaties, waddles down the steaming sidewalk to the deep end of the pool, eager to play with the ‘big kids’, but not sure if ready to jump into the “deep beyond”. But, alas, the shouts of bliss lure her curious mind, diving in with soon-to-be besties and starting a new chapter in her life. Similar to the girl, people must be willing to take chances because, it can both build and enhance relationships and it is the way we learn.
Life isn’t like Facebook where one can ‘bravely’ sit behind a computer and send potential friends requests or sub tweet about their crush on Twitter. Instead, people have got to be able to take risks and reach out,strengthening and creating bonds. For example, the new girl, baring a deer-in-the-headlights look, dares not to say a word, adding to the proliferating “What ifs?”, until a kind soul smiles, giving her the chance to talk. Weeks later, the girls are attached at the hip and promptly named Bffls. Now who really took the risk here is debatable, but nevertheless, a risk was taken, caution thrown to the wind, and an inseparable friendship formed. Though such a simple notion was taken in the end, it meant the world. Both girls could have stayed ‘content’ in their individual worlds, fearing rejection, but didn’t and instead built a relationship. In addition, consider the song “Don’t Take the Girl”, a heart-warming tale of a young boy who would rather have anyone in the world tag along than a silly girl. However, finally, with a huff, takes the initial risk and lets her go. Years pass and the bond grows, taking more and more risks each verse: kissing her in the movies, saving her from a robber, and finally offering his own life to God in place of hers. This progression of risks ending greatly strengthening the relationship.
If everyone were to sit in their own little bubbles, never even attempting to test to waters of discomfort, nothing would ever be accomplished or learned. To illustrate, in Shaw’s “Pygmalion”, Eliza takes the risk of being under Higgins’ consistent criticism, but had she stayed as a mere flower girl, would have never have reached her full potential and stayed an ignorant peasant. Instead, she beats all odds and accomplished more than ever expected of her by the ultimate sacrifice of her own life in order to become a lady of status.
The summer winds have long shifted, but the now-aged women remembers that day,reminiscing with her friends over a cup of black coffee. Then, she turns the page in the memory book, smiling, “If that summer taught me anything, it would be take risk! Make mistakes; dive in.”

Ulta, Sephora, VS… Ulta, Sephora, VS. Adolescent minds spin in circles like the merry-go-round at the corner of the mall as glamour shots and perfumes cloud their heads. Ads shout out,”You want to be beautiful?” Well, come in.” “For only three easy payments of $59.99 (and half your soul), you will be on your way to obtaining the prestigious title of Miss Universe.” Yeah, right! Five pounds of skin cream or loud clothes won’t make you runway-ready, as 17 Magazine insinuates. However, true beauty can not be bought, for it comes from within. Therefore, I believe Dove portrays that idea perfectly through the use of imagery, spoken words, music, and the propaganda technique, ‘plain folks’.
In the strikingly differing ideas of beauty portrayed by imagery and plain folks, used by both 17 Mag. and Dove, it’s easy to lose the genuine concept of beauty, which comes from one’s inner self. Teenagers, or anyone for that matter, aren’t necessarily the epitome of dewy-faced, flawless models; they don’t jump out of bed, glowing hair flying behind their backs, pouty lips smudge-less, or eyebrows as if they were painted on by Van Gogh himself. This is the illusion that the corporation 17 Magazine wants us to believe. Obviously, this is intentional to make influential people buy every tube of lipstick, scrap of clothing, or bangle that their little heart thinks the need. Beauty enhancing products have become a necessity rather than a want. Nowadays, if a teacher asks,“What does one need to survive?”, a classroom full of hands would shoot up, anxiously thinking, “Well, that’s simple. Air, water, food,… and a long, silver chanel necklace, oh course.” At that point, both myself and the teacher would have boarded a one-way ticket to Mars, yet even then our clothes would be “so last light-year.” Unlike this false assumption that everyone can obtain beauty by worldly standards set by 17 Mag., instead, humans are human. Simple enough, right. Well, apparently not. People have bedraggled hair. People have annoying acne. People have rumpled clothes. BECAUSE THEY ARE PEOPLE. Raw, real, natural, beautiful people. Not everyone’s a pin-up. This is fully presented by Dove’s ad, featuring everyday people living everyday lives. Rather than being posed against a perfectly purposely weathered white brick wall, the students can be seen taking selfies and being interviewed in their backyards or kitchens. There were no rushing assistants with starbucks or people busying themselves with outfits or props; none of that to worry about. Instead, these girls were worried about what this company was trying to sell and I’m not talking about magazines. 17, in it’s core, sells insecurities resulting in the worldly definition of beauty. The ad showed the girls lack of confidence, evident in their faces with plain clothes and naked faces. It shows beachers full of girls listening to a motivational speaker speaking of just that topic and laughing along at the cliche idea of selfies and editing.

During a prom committee meeting last Tuesday, February 23rd, the members, made up of people from the community, came to a consensus to ban freshman from prom this year in response to an incident with a freshman the past year.

The prom committee should revoke this decision because a sum of upperclassmen are dating freshman and planned to take them to the prom, not all freshman are immature, and an individual’s behavior does not and should not affect a whole different group.

Firstly, with the mixed classes of high school, it is only natural to assume that upperclassmen, some of which are seniors, could be dating freshman. Using this same logic, one can see that said senior/freshman couples really only have this one year to have a high school prom together. Now, for arguments sake, take the freshman’s wants out of the equation and see only the senior’s perspective. In all reality, prom is more for the senior class than any others; after all, it is their last year. The seniors dating freshman have now been deprived of their “perfect prom night” because their dates have been taken away! Seniors are not to blame for an immature act done by a freshman last year. They shouldn’t have to go to prom alone or not at all because of this. It’s their senior prom- a once in a lifetime experience. That should not be taken away simply because they are dating a freshman. Yes, one could put the blame on them for choosing to date a freshman, but that is easily disposed with the idea that one does not choose who they decide to like. Thus, thinking on all of the upperclassmens behalf, their freshman dates should not be banned.

Secondly, a single person’s actions does not mean the whole group will behave in that way. There have been little to no problems with freshman years past.. The people that carried out these acts should be the only one’s with consequences. This means a whole group, a different group for that matter, should not be carrying that person’s consequences. High school is supposed to prepare students for the real world and the workplace. In the workplace when an employee intentionally messes up, they are fired, not the rest of the employees. So, if it’s true that highschool is supposed to prepare students for the real world, they should back this up with real world truths and show the students that they have consequences to THEIR actions.

Lastly, freshman are not automatically immature simply because they are freshman. That term is often coined on that group because of their age. However, this is not true; many freshman are quite capable of acting in an orderly, mature manner. If one was to take out all the classes that had a few immature people, there wouldn’t be a prom. Freshman are perfectly capable of being mature. For example, before even entering high school, an incoming freshman has to go from basically having their teachers hold their hands through every course to setting out an entire high school blueprint. That takes a level of maturity that they had to achieve. Additionally, many are involved in extracurricular activities that carry them to other schools and there has been no behavior problems there, which shows their ability to be mature once again. Also, a large majority of freshman are mixed in with sophomores and upperclassmen in their everyday classes. Using the logic that the prom committee used, with no disrespect to their decision, they would have to segregate the whole school in hopes of depleting freshman immaturity. This would take away from the diverse learning settings and carrying back into the real world point, not let them experience anything out of their freshman bubbles.

Those opposing state that freshman are too immature to attend prom, however as stated above this is not true and plain unfair to the upperclassmen and freshmen alike. Some students are offering the idea of a spring dance, but that doesn’t even compare to prom in the least.

To conclude, the prom committee should revoke their decision to ban freshman because the sole actions of an individual should not deprive others of the prom night they deserve.