Quick Story?

For you

2008-06-08T20:56:00.005-04:00

I was told you would be the best teacher we would ever get, but I never fully understood the magnitude of what this statement meant until this year. You've taught me so much outside of literature (which is a lot seeing as how much you have taught us about language, and motifs, and novels) that I do not even know where to begin. You've taught me about myself and about others. I now know how to see both sides of the picture and how to enter the "on going conversation" of the world.

I don't think a day ever went by when we didn't complain about something in the beginning of the class, but you were always there to listen. Other students and I have decided you should change AP Language to Life Lessons 101 because what we learn transcends the classroom.

My mom wants me to be a teacher so I can be just like you and both of my parents have the upmost respect for you and your teachings. What they do not know, however, is that you are the AP Langers' mother away from home and that just like you have always been there for us, we'll be there for you!

Pleasure over Terror

2008-04-25T11:17:00.003-04:00

There are arguably many similar characteristics between Brave New World and 1984—the characters, the divisions in the state, the destruction of the past, and the limits on scientific and technological advancements. However, these two dictatorships seek to control their people in two very opposite ways. The terror used in 1984 seemed to be proven as the driving force in any future dictatorship through the rise of Hitler and Stalin. The two men rose to world power through their use of fear and through the forced loyalty of their people. Nevertheless, the world saw the fall of both Hitler and Stalin Russia and the use of pleasure in Brave New World appeared to withstand the test of time. And now it seems that pleasure is the most likely source of any future dictatorship’s power.

With the rise of both scientific and technological advancements, the conditioning and genetic engineering of Brave New World are already being seen in today’s society. The brutality and atomic threats of 1984, meanwhile, have begun to decline.

From the perspective of 1948, the world of Nineteen Eighty-Four seemed very probable; but from the perspective of 1959, much less so. Soviet Russia after Stalin is no longer quite the brutal and terroristic state it had once been, and so, assuming that no atomic war intervened to destroy all calculations—and mankind—“it now looks as though the odds were more in favour of something like Brave New World than of something like Nineteen Eighty-Four” (13). (Conclusion: The Two Futures)

The end of the Cold War marked the decline of atomic obliteration, and although the U.S. is still threatened by nuclear advancements in North Korea and Syria, those threats are still drastically less than those of the Cold War. The real source of power seems to be coming from the area of science. Parents may screen their children for diseases such as cystic fibrosis and the debate of producing a completely genetically engineered child has begun. Governments have the knowledge needed to completely condition a person, but have morally refrained from doing so (at least publicly). The ability to completely rid the world of disease is on its way and with it travels a source of power—power from pleasure. Any future government will be able to harness that power to rid its country of pain, disease, and hardship. But Brave New World serves as a warning against any government using it to create a dictatorship.

Huxley argues it takes too much effort to fully produce terror within a population. He “makes the point that terror is a less efficient administrative tool than pleasure; the stick less a guarantee of stability than the carrot.” The inner party in 1984 works hard to produce fear within the outer party members. Thought police patrol throughout the city; the telescreens are always on and watching the party members, and the reader sees how long O’Brien must torture Winston before he finally submits himself completely to Big Brother. Despite all of this effort to produce terror within the population, it is still not completely effective. There are still people like Winston and Julia who purposely disobey party rules. There is this innate desire in them to rebel against the government that is trying to suppress them. And, yet, the government in Brave New World is trying to suppress its people, so why do not more citizens rebel? The answer is because the people of Brave New World do not know they are being suppressed. The Brave New World government has granted them pleasure; they are content with their lives because due to genetic engineering and conditioning they do not know anything else. Even Helmholtz does not purposely rebel against the government. Instead he is merely trying to find what else there is to life. He knows he has more potential, but just does not know where to find it. Because power from pleasure is more effective and easier to administer, a future dictatorship would use such pleasure over terror to control its people.

Additionally, any future dictatorship above all will want stability. Stability is key to how long a government will last and how much it will grow. Therefore, the search for power should be based upon what source will produce the most stabilizing effect. “The lust for power can be equally well satisfied by inflicting a humiliating pleasure rather than a humiliating pain; and the power of pleasure has the advantage of being more stabilizing.” Pleasure has this ability to be more stabilizing because the governed people will be content with what they have. They will not want more in their lives and will go through each day performing the same tasks over and over again without questioning their existence. The people of Brave New World find additional pleasure through sex and daily rations of soma. Sex is their outlet for their emotions and because they cannot stay committed to one person there is no fear of finding love. Soma on the other hand is an outlet from emotions and clouds any problems or worries the people may have. Today’s societies already have the scientific knowledge for contraception and hallucinogens and it is only a matter of whether a government decides to take advantage of these things, in addition to conditioning and genetic engineering, that they will be able to control an entire population.

While it appears because of scientific and technological advancements and because of a desire for stability that a future dictatorship would seek to use pleasure to control its people, there is still potential for the use of terror. It is important to realize, though, that the complete destruction of the past is necessary for either source of power to completely work. If a population has knowledge of the past, then there is the possibility of a rebellion for the way things were. The use of pleasure, however, would lower the risk of other rebellions due to contentment within the population, thereby making it a more desirable source of power.

Source:

Conclusion: The Two Futures: A.F. 632 and 1984

Republican Party

2008-04-09T20:29:00.005-04:00

Most children do not fall in love with politics at the age of seven. Even fewer associate themselves with a political party at the age of twelve. So how then did I become committed to the Republican Party? Perhaps, it was the political dinners at the age of four or the car rides listening to Rush Limbaugh. My family does, however, have differing political philosophies. My father does not believe in capital punishment. My mother believes in abortion. My grandfather is a registered Democrat. So what then keeps me committed to the Republican Party?

I believe in the Republican philosophy that “government is responsible for national defense and that only a strong America can remain a free America.” A weak country can easily be overtaken, but a strong one poses a formidable force in the world. America has become a world leader because its strength discourages enemies from attacking it. And this strength comes from both its military and from the ideas of democracy that established the country.

Many argue, however, that the War in Iraq and our deep involvement in the Middle East is an infringement on the rights of a foreign people, and in the process we are, therefore, destroying the cornerstone of America—freedom. But our national defense is actually protecting our freedom and the freedom of others, while keeping America safe! The rights of the people of Iraq have been suppressed by a dictator for too long. We may not have the right or the responsibility to impose our ideals and beliefs on the country, but we do have a responsibility to give them the right to live. Hussein murdered at least 5,000 of his own people in the chemical bombings of Halabja and although we have not found weapons of mass destruction, Hussein certainly did have them (hence the genocide in Halabja) and it is possible that he would have had them in the future. Through the War in Iraq, our national defense has kept America safe, while protecting the right to criticize or support the war.

I believe in the Republican philosophy that “the right of the individual to achieve the best that is within him, as long as he respects the rights of others, is the source of our Nation's strength.” Every person is created equal and should have the opportunity to reach his or her highest potential. The government should not tread on individual rights unless an individual has tread on the rights of others. If a person becomes a murderer, the government has an obligation to the victim to prosecute the killer lawfully. The punishment may involve the death penalty, but because the murderer has acted deliberately and because he treaded on the rights of another, we are not taking away his right to live. He had already taken that right away when he murdered his victim. The strength of America comes from the government’s ability to reduce its involvement in the lives of its people, while still protecting their right to live.

I believe in the Republican philosophy because I believe in a strong military and less government regulation.

Republican Philosophies from:

http://www.gibsoncotngop.org/philosophy.shtml

The Ayn Rand in Ms. Hassenplug? or The Ms. Hassenplug in Ayn Rand?!

2008-03-30T16:47:00.003-04:00

Ayn Rand explains in her lectures on the Art of Nonfiction,

"Remember that if there was no indecisiveness [in writing], there would be no pleasure in solving a problem, nor in writing anything. Therefore, take the bitter with the sweet (which is a bromide I would kill you for using in writing)."

hmm...I think we may have been threatened not to use cliches before. haha

Progress

2008-03-07T16:46:00.007-05:00

Social Darwinism allows for human progress. Herbert Spencer argues mankind has an innate desire to move towards “individuation.” People compete for jobs, look to move up in social classes, and defend their lives when threatened. This individuation, which is a product of self-interest and survival of the fittest, creates progress and growth. Although there would be progress in the allowance of genetic engineering, that progress would ultimately be stopped through the destruction of Social Darwinism.

To prohibit genetic engineering would be to prohibit progress, but only in the sense that the progress of genetic engineering would be stopped. The evolution of mankind and, therefore, the evolution of technology and national governments would continue. However, these progressions would ultimately be halted in the allowance of genetic engineering. Social Darwinism, as developed by Spencer, states “that the transformation of the homogeneous into the heterogeneous, is that in which Progress essentially consists…” (Spencer). Mankind develops from the simple to the complex. Numerous ethnicities, religions, governments, and social classes have been created throughout the history of the Earth. Genetically engineering embryos, whether it be screening for disease, designing physical traits, or choosing intelligence and strength, would stop this development. The characteristics of humans would be chosen for them. Their successes in life (lifespan, income, intelligence) would no longer be a result of perseverance or drive. Instead humans would not strive for a higher level of progress because they have already been genetically engineered to be at the highest level.

As seen in Brave New World, the world population has been genetically engineered and conditioned. There is no movement from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous because there is no progressive movement at all. Social Darwinism has been destroyed through the removal of individuation. As Henry Foster explains, “We also predestine and condition. We decant our babies as socialized human being, as Alphas or Epsilons, as future sewage workers” (Huxley 13). Humans of the New World do not strive for more because they cannot. Epsilons are denied oxygen as embryos; freemartins are made sterile, and rocket-plane engineers are created to only enjoy being upside down. They have been denied the freedom to chose their own future life styles. The destruction of Social Darwinism in the Brave New World is due largely to genetic engineering.

Social Darwinism also includes class structure. It is assumed that “the mass of the community has become segregated into distinct classes and orders of workers” (Spencer). It can be argued, therefore, that the Brave New World keeps with Social Darwinism in its divisions of Alphas, Betas, Gammas, and Epsilons. However, this segregation is artificial. A primary component of Social Darwinism is the limited influence of institutions, such as government, on individual lives. “For human beings to flourish and develop, Spencer held that there must be as few artificial restrictions as possible, and it is primarily freedom that he…saw as promoting human happiness” (Sweet). The Brave New World government creates these divisions through genetic engineering and conditioning. By predetermining the lives of its citizens, it is not only imposing major restrictions on the freedom of individuals but it is also stopping progress. Genetic engineering, today, would also produce major restrictions on human life. Parents or government could control an individual’s life before he or she is even born. By controlling the genes of a human, an artificial life is created and the future progress of that individual could be prohibited.

While genetic engineering allows for progress, the results of such progress would cause the destruction of Social Darwinism and overall growth. And with the destruction of Social Darwinism and growth, human freedom, the source of happiness, would also be destroyed. The benefit in the allowance of the progress from genetic engineering does not override the negative elimination of societal growth. It is necessary to stop the progress of one event to save the progress of mankind.

Works Cited

Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006.

Spencer, Herbert. "Herbert Spencer: Social Darwinism, 1857." Modern History Sourcebook. 7 Mar. 2008 http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/spencer-darwin.html.

Sweet, William. "Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)." The Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy. 7 Mar. 2008 . http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/spencer.htm.

Thank You

2007-11-19T19:24:00.000-05:00

There isn’t a day that goes by when I don’t think about college. It used to be I had years until college. Now it’s I have months. Soon it’ll be weeks and then days. I’m not the type of person who is excited about leaving. I’d rather stay at home. Looking forward into the future makes me look back on the past. I’ve had such a good childhood. Why would I ever want to leave it?

My mom. She does everything for me. She makes my lunch, does my laundry, vacuums my room. She has done so much for me that I’ve never had to wash a pile of laundry or fold my clothes. I’ve never had to worry about making my lunch. There is always a meal at the end of the day and someone to talk to after school.

My dad. He supports me in whatever I do. He pushes me without forcing me to do things. He’s there at my ski races, watching me race on the skies he tuned for two hours the night before. He drove me to eight colleges this summer and it is because of me he put 17,000 miles on his car in 4 months. And, yet, he doesn’t care because the only thing that matters to him is that I’m happy in life.

My parents. Together they have raised me to be who I am. I am indebted to them forever. They’ve paid for my skies, my soccer camps, my flight to Italy, my clothes, my movie tickets. They’ve driven me to soccer games, ski races, friends’ houses, piano lessons, doctor’s appointments. They’ve done all of this for me and don’t expect anything in return.

So as my last birthday at home came and went, and as my last Thanksgiving before college comes and goes, I just want to say:

Mom and Dad, thank you. Thank you for all that you’ve done for me. Thank you for raising me the way you have and thank you for always being there for me. Thank you for all of those mornings you saw me off to school and thank you for all of those nights you tucked me into bed. Thank for all of those hugs and kisses you gave me and thank you for all those lectures and speeches you told me. Thank you for always believing in me and thank you for never giving up on me. Thank you for always loving me and I hope you know I love you too. I hope I make you proud because I couldn’t be prouder to call you my mom and dad.

Alcoholism

2007-11-09T19:53:00.000-05:00

The children of alcoholics were often overlooked in the past. Attention was always placed on the alcoholic himself to get him into treatment for his substance abuse. However, today it is just as important to treat the child because he or she can break the “three generation” disease of alcoholism. The child must realize that he or she needs not to continue the cycle. An emphasis has now been placed on the idea that anyone can break the addictive cycle. The children of alcoholics are not destined to live their parents’ lives. So how then does Jeannette Walls break away from alcoholism? If no one treated her, how is she able to fight the statistic that children of alcoholics are three times more likely to continue the cycle and become alcoholics?

Firstly, Jeannette is able to channel the emotional effects of an alcoholic parent into positive motivation to break the cycle. The embarrassment and anger she sometimes feels toward her father drives her to leave Welch and all its troubles behind. These emotions bring her to New York City, to Barnard, to a successful career in journalism.

I climbed in next to the driver. On the way home—with Dad still singing away in the back, extending the word “low” so long he sounded like a mooing cow—the man asked me about school. I told him I was studying hard because I wanted to become either a veterinarian or a geologist specializing in the Miocene period, when the mountains out west were formed. I was telling him how geodes were created from bubbles in lava when he interrupted me. “For the daughter of the town drunk, you sure got big plans,” he said. (183)

Her father is known as the town drunk and, yet, this will not hinder her hopes and ambitions. Jeannette will not follow in her father’s footsteps. She harnesses the shame she feels from his substance abuse to prove everyone wrong. The daughter of an alcoholic, or the child of any alcoholic for that matter, needs to set high goals in order to break the continuous cycle. If the child has nothing to live for, then why should he or she stop the addiction? Jeannette’s emotions give her the determination to not live a life of addiction and they ultimately lead her to success.

While Jeannette does not have the parental support a child needs, she does have strong support from her siblings. Both Brian and Lori (more so than Maureen) help Jeannette to break the cycle. Because of alcoholism and other problems in the family, the children grow to be independent. This independence allows them to set examples for each other to follow.

Brian grabbed the bottle out of my hand. He emptied it into the kitchen sink, then led me out to the shed and opened up a wooden trunk in the back marked TOY BOX. It was filled with empty liquor bottles. Whenever Dad passed out, Brian said, he took the bottle Dad had been drinking, emptied it, and hid it in the trunk. He’d wait until he had ten or twelve, then tote them to a garbage can a few blocks away, because if Dad saw empty bottles, he would get furious. (113)

By emptying his father’s liquor bottles, Brian sets an example for Jeannette; alcoholism is not a path to take. Such sibling support contributes to their success in breaking the cycle. Without Brian or Lori, Jeannette would surely see the destructive nature of alcoholism, but would not have the guidance to tell her the life of an alcoholic is not a life to live.

While The Glass Castle is a memoir of hardships, it is also one of success. Jeannette is able to break away from poverty, abuse, and alcoholism. She defies statistics and is able to create a life for herself.

Walls, Jeannette. The Glass Castle. New York: Scribner, 2005.

Jeannette Walls

2007-10-23T16:45:00.000-04:00

If Jeannette had been born to a different family, would she be where she is today? Would she be as successful? Granted there probably would be no Glass Castle, but would she still have made it to New York, lived on Park Ave, and wrote about celebrities?

I'm not so sure. I think her dysfunctional family drove her to success.

Oh and by the way, I'm quite happy that the star story is true and I found her mother to be a much better artist than I thought she would be.

Linda and the Lives of the Dead

2007-10-10T18:48:00.000-04:00

The Things They Carried is a book for everyone. It is not just a war novel or a romance. It is also a mystery, a comedy, a tragedy. It can be anything. The power of the book lies in its ability to affect each and every reader differently. The stories of the soldiers are not just the stories about the men who fought in Vietnam. They are our stories. Every burden they carry is a burden that we carry. In their backpacks, can be found our own guilt, our own grief, our own hope, or even our own joy. O’Brien says of his novel,

The title is meant to refer to all of us…not just the soldiers. [It’s about] the spiritual, the emotional, and the psychological baggage we all carry…You sort of accumulate more and more of these spiritual burdens the longer you live and they help to define who we are, what our yearnings are, what makes us happy and what doesn’t. [The title’s] meant to go beyond the war to the human race in general.

So what about Linda? How does the story of this mysterious girl fall into place? Who is she and what does she represent? Surely, she is not you or I. We are still living but, perhaps, she fits nicely into our lives and experiences.

Not all of us may have yet experienced the death of someone we know, but we will. Linda represents the lives of all the dead (as the title of the chapter she is found in is strategically called). She is your best friend’s father who died from cancer. She is your grandfather who died from a heart attack. She is the neighbor who was in a fatal car crash. Maybe she is me in ten, thirty, or even seventy years.

The dead have not actually left us. They are gone physically, but not spiritually or emotionally. They live on in our memories as Linda lives on in the memories of O’Brien. He can revive her; bring her back to the world through his writings. So why does he write this whole story about Linda, the movies, and the knit cap she always wore? O’Brien wants to connect us to her. In the process, he reconnects us to our dead, too. Through the description and story of Linda, we remember our own family members, friends, and neighbors that have died. We reestablish that bond we had with them. We relive the emotions or events we experienced with them and with their deaths.

Most importantly, however, we are reassured that it is okay that we were not ready for them to die. O’Brien writes, “At some point I had come to understand that Linda was sick, maybe even dying, but I loved her and just couldn’t accept it” (236). We cannot imagine someone who is close to us not ever being in our lives. We never truly picture them gone until it actually happens. It is an experience everyone goes through and O’Brien hopes to unite us together through the story of Linda.

The most powerful passage in the chapter about Linda is the metaphor for death as a book. Does it work in The Things They Carried? Perhaps, it does or maybe it does not. It is all perspective, but the most important thing is that it works in our own lives.

“Well, right now,” she said, “I’m not dead. But when I am, it’s like…I don’t know, I guess it’s like being inside a book that nobody’s reading.”
“A book?” I said.
“An old one. It’s up on a library shelf, so you’re safe and everything, but the book hasn’t been checked out for a long, long time. All you can do is wait. Just hope somebody’ll pick it up and start reading.” (245)

It is a comforting thought for most, not so comforting for others. However, the main focus of the passage is that the dead have not left. They are still present. We are just not always aware of them. Maybe, they are not necessarily waiting for us to remember them. Perhaps, they have their own lives to live in another time and place. But bring them back. Relive their voice, their laughter, their actions. They do not mind if we do so.

O'Brien, Tim. The Things They Carried. New York: Broadway Books, 1998.