The Font of Knowledge

Huxley and Orwell

2008-04-15T16:32:00.000-07:00

Brave New World and 1984. These two works are paralleled around a similar idea. These two works are involving a similar plot and similar characters. It is easy to draw up constants that run through both literary works. The article "The Two Futures: A.F. 632 and 1984" makes this analysis, while discussing that there are differences, as well. It is important to remember that even though Aldous Huxley and George Orwell wrote the books at different times, inherently influenced by each other and previous authors, the 17 year time lapse existed. Seventeen years held 1932 to 1949, which were crucial historical years.

"The Two Futures: A.F. 632 and 1984" creates a key contrasting and comparing of the literary warnings by initiating the analysis with comparisons. There are clearly similarities contained within both works. One was written after the other and both have the same basic principle. The ideas of characters being forced to conform to a society run by the leader or major force is a clear representative of the similarity. There are the people who are good members of society like Lenina and Parsons. There are the people who are too smart and can create revolutionary ideas like Helmholtz and Syme. There are the tragic characters like Bernard and Winston. There are also the lovers to many like Lenina and Julia. It is evident that these characters are not identical in nature; however, their characters outlines in the outlines of their environments are very similar.

A clear relation between the two pieces relating to characters is the tragedy of the seemingly heroic Bernard Marx and Winston Smith. These two people seem as though they are going to be the ones that stand up to "the man" (Mustapha Mond or O'Brien) and fight the power and be these incredible heroes that leave a reader flabbergasted. As mentioned in "The Two Futures: A.F. 632 and 1984", they are the two that cannot quite seem to stray too far from the party; yet, they do not fit in either. This is where their tragedy lies. They put up initial efforts and rebel against their parties, but in the end, they allow themselves to be defeated because they just do not want to go far enough. It seems Bernard could not stand up and help Helmholtz and John during the rioting and soma, and O'Brien manipulated Smith from the beginning in thoughts with the "we will meet in a place where there is no darkness". These men allowed their overbearing societies to be the victors. This is probably the biggest warning to readers. The people who appear to be the strongest against the strongest opposition are the ones who end up crumbling into submissiveness.

Besides the similarities, "The Two Futures: A.F. 632 and 1984" talks of the different influences and historical knowledge Huxley and Orwell had. Huxley had his book published before the rise of such totalitarians that Orwell saw. Orwell wrote from a different stand-point targeting the Nazis and Communists because he had seen those revolts and revolutions and purges and persecutions. Huxley saw the subtleties of the changing governments, hence the overabundance of his subtleties and precautions sprinkled throughout Brave New World. He did not think that the government would change so drastically right off the bat. He thought is was going to take time, which is why messages like balance between the "savage" and "civilized" societies is subtle. Orwell saw the overt movements and actions of totalitarian governments. He clearly understood this dangerous trend, even when the Soviets were even perceived as allies. This is why he published Animal Farm at a time no one wanted to see the bad side of communism. He saw the quickening dangerous trend spiraling out of control in the near future.

1984 and Brave New World are almost interchangeable in their messages for cautiousness. They are trying to warn against government suppression. They are trying to prevent society from becoming lazy and submissive. They are trying to provide textual realities that could become the future. "The Two Futures: A.F. 632 and 1984" clearly defines the worlds of the two authors to be parallels of one another, yet different. Characters and plots and main ideas are interchangeable, but this was explained by an acquaintance of Zamiatin and Huxley as proof "these ideas are in the air we breath". Maybe the similarities are because of too much Huxley influence on Orwell, or maybe the explanation is that more than one warning needed to be issued about grossly potential dangerous governments and societies.

What I stand for!

2008-04-08T19:01:00.000-07:00

Freedom. I stand for it, by it, and am willing to fight to the death for it. I look to ancestors and millions of immigrants who came to this country seeking it. The Bill of Rights designates freedoms. The Statue of Liberty signifies a welcome to the land of the free. Freedom is what the Founding Fathers intended. Freedom is the reason I am willing to die for the flying red, white, and blue colors on fabric that means so much more.

Waking up in the morning at whatever time and picking whatever clothes I want and praying to Muhammad or God or Buddha (even though you do not pray to Buddha) and talking freely about government (faults and positives) and the freedom to learn whatever I desire are the best parts of this country. From a good, objective history teacher, it is easy to learn about all of the atrocities of the country along with the highlights. Other countries do not necessarily teach much about how the government works, and the United States government not only teaches all about the processes and acts and workings, but because of the insight into the government, there have been various reforms to make the whole system more and more democratic. Voting for the first time this February 1st, on Super Duper Tuesday, I exercised both my 19th and 26th amendment rights. That feeling of freedom and power in the ballot box and knowing that my vote counts in determining an election is well worth any struggles along the way.

Of course, many may argue that our freedoms are being suppressed, and I should want to fight against that suppression. I think it is then important to look at how far the country has come away from freedom suppression. Of course, during time of war freedoms are limited. They always have been. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and during World War I Schenk v. United States determined the "cannot say fire in a crowded theater" and inciting violence suppression of speech, and during World War II, Franklin Roosevelt put thousands of Japanese-AMERICANs into interment camps. The point is that only one of these ideas stuck, and that is the one that decided the suppression of speech that would incite violence was better for the whole. War is not an excuse to suppress freedom, but rather it makes Presidents act a little to radically to try and protect the country's masses. Checks into reality make other politicians realize that these initial actions were too harsh, hence why the Japanese-AMERICANs are not still unjustly interned and people cannot be held without knowing what they are being tried for. Another example of the forward movement with increases of freedoms and democracy are with court cases and political practice. Before Chief Justice Burger ruled in Gideon v. Wainright, it was decided that the rights in the Constitution only protected people from the federal government and not state governments. That was why Florida could try people without giving them attorneys; it was not in the state constitution. After that point, people were protected by the Constitution from state governments, as well. Miranda v. Arizona is a testament to that. The country is not perfect, but it is trying. Voting rights have been increased over the years. People have the power to pick the president because there are no faithless voters in the electoral college and primaries choose the candidates for each party. There are some suppressions of freedoms and prejudices that still exist which are just as bad as no freedom, but the country is gradually shifting to more freedom for the people.

This country is not perfect. No country is perfect, just as no people are perfect. There have been a history of faults and terrible misdeeds. There has also been a history of valor and bravery and courage all to protect the freedoms that this country holds so dear. I am willing to be the next person to be killed in battle, simply so everyone who reads this article can still have the freedom to agree of disagree. One of the best things a person can do to be a dutiful citizen and patriotic is to never stop questioning. Do not be paranoid that there is always some kind of conspiracy, but make sure to look into reasoning for things before making a downright statement. Try to look at the whole picture, rather than just personal conflicts with laws and rules. Take advantage of the freedoms that people have fought so dearly for, and remember that you may not agree with war overall, but think of the reason why men and women go to war. It is usually because they think the country's freedoms and liberties are at stake and want to protect them for you and me and the rest of the people and future people. Freedom is not free, but exercising freedoms that have been already won is free. I love living in a freedom filled country, and other people should try to enjoy it too.

Darwinism vs. Eugenics

2008-03-07T08:40:00.000-08:00

Darwinism is a concept introduced by the scientist and social philosopher Charles Darwin. His studies and information helped shape the modern evolution theory. The first time his studies came under strict scrutiny and protest was during the Scopes Trial of 1925 when the Modernists and Fundamentalists clashed. Evolutionary theory and the cycle of life is only part of the stage that evolved into something more: genetics and genetic engineering. Since Watson and Crick discovered the double helix structure of DNA to present day cloning trials, scientists are continually advancing studies into a whole new realm of research. The field of study is shifting toward fixing genetic mutations or manipulating genomes or even changing DNA sequences. Some of the questions being drawn from this research include the following: will there be a limit to changing the nature of DNA, will this allow anyone to choose traits of children, will there be regulation of the genetic engineering, what types of diseases can eugenics cure, and even will genetic problems be cured forever? The decisions end up resting on such factors as cost, regulation and legislation, disease, classes, among others. While giving parents genetic engineering as an option for their children may eliminate disease or damage social problems, the consequences of unnatural manipulation are potentially more troubling.

Genetic engineering displays a combination of advancing science with scientific inquiries. It allows for the changing and manipulation of naturally occurring genetics. One of the positive allowances of this type of work is the potential for curing disease or genetic mutations or possibly death. On the other side of the spectrum, the disease ends up translating into death, in some cases. The consequence of curing death and disease could be the drastic ballooning of population. In a morbid way, illness and disease are a way of population control. Tampering with gene manipulation could lead to unheard of numbers in population, thus taking death out of the cycle of life.

Other than illness and disease and death, eugenics has many other facets that need to be considered. Programming genes to behave in a certain way could allow for parents to choose levels of intelligence, looks, skills, and other possible characteristics. These types of choices allow for children with greater potential and opportunity. This could then translate into helping low income families rise through prosperous offspring, breaking cycles of homelessness through education, and maybe even increasing democracy because of well educated voters. The negative aspect of this side arises when cost is tossed into thinking. Will genetic engineering be expensive? Who will pay for the genetic engineering? If the government ends up paying, who will qualify to receive the benefits of government funds for the procedure? Should individuals have to pay for genetic engineering on their own, will the lower income families be at disadvantages? If so, will there be bumping heads between the classes? There are various other questions that need to be well considered, beside the benefits.

Leaving the cost and disease aside, the actual legislation or lack thereof the genetic engineering needs to be carefully examined. Will regulating genetic engineering make it more or less effective? Regulating the process could lead to limits in the exploration of the field's potentials or even force people to limit their choices of children's combinations. Regulating the process could lead to limits of how much people can play God or even force their potential offspring to live a predetermined life. If the government allows for scientists to run freely with genetic engineering, will there eventually be a point where it has to step in, in an effort to control the slippery slope of manipulating genetics? This control could lead to a society of complete predetermination and government intervention. This control could lead to a society of contentment and perfected needs and actions of people through intervention. As a whole, the regulation of genetic engineering proves to be a layered problem that needs tending to each layer. Because regulating is more difficult and more compound than natural cycles of life, consequences of eugenics are likely compound and difficult, as well.

Many sides of the eugenics issue must be looked at while forming an opinion about the issue. Regulation, cost, and disease and death all must be individually looked at. The natural cycle of life must also be known in detail, too. There is a reason for death and disease; it allows for the cycle of life to continue. Eugenics may be a temporary answer to illness; however, in the long run, there are many more potential problems that can arise. These potential problems could be far more threatening and harmful than illness and death. Genetic engineering may be a way to solve other such societal problems, but again, survival of the fittest and social Darwinism are the natural solution of society. Genetic engineering has the potential to create great solutions for society. The unnatural manipulation, though, gives rise to more potential harm than good.

Leave Me a Comment

2007-12-09T12:39:00.000-08:00

I absolutely love hearing people's take on different things. I may not necessarily agree with those opinions and may strongly resent them, but I still love to hear them. Leave me a comment under this post about anything. Leave one about a new fact you learned today or your favorite name for a future child or that you think I am an idiot. Anything! Just leave one. You do not even need to know me and just are browsing my blog. Just leave a comment because I will love it.

This Needs to Make Headlines-best appeal to pathos

2007-12-01T11:46:00.000-08:00

This needs to make headline news...not some of the other junk that makes the news these days!!!
Like the Rosie O' Donell war of words...celeb weddings...who's not wearing undies...etc.
If you agree, please pass this along.

It's a tough, but heartwarming story...with a picture of John Gebhardt in Iraq

John Gebhardt's wife, Mindy, said that this little girl's entire family was executed. The insurgents intended to execute the little girl also, and shot her in the head...but they failed to kill her. She was cared for in John's hospital and is healing up, but continues to cry and moan. The nurses said John is the only one who seems to calm her down, so John has spent the last four nights holding her while they both slept in that chair. The girl is coming along with her healing.

He is a real Star of the war, and represents what America is trying to do.

This, my friends, is worth sharing with the WORLD! Go for it!! You'll never see things like this in the news. Please keep this going. Nothing will happen if you don't, but the American public needs to see pictures like this and needs to realize that what we're doing over there is making a difference. Even if it is just one little girl at a time.

James Gates U. S. Navy

Thankfulness

2007-11-18T17:05:00.000-08:00

There are so many elements of my life that I must be lend my thankfulness to. Most notably, I want to be thankful for the opportunities that I have been given. There are so many different experiences that I have been completely blessed to take part in. I was able to go to Rutgers for genetic research, participate in a Christian missionary trip, go to Girl's State, participate in community service with various people and affiliations, and most importantly, that I have been able to live and reap the benefits of living in the best country in the world. Because I live in this country, I have been given the blessings that so many around the world are not given. People complain about the problems we have in our country and the issues we have to deal with; yet, problems such as homelessness are terrible and should be non-existent but are so much less major in our country than many other stable countries (Great Britain, France, etc).

There are many other gifts we are given as citizens of the U.S. that are much more precious and better than other countries. People complain about what we have to go through to get a driver's license or that we have to pa $50 to get a new one. Well, people in Germany have to pay $500, take a type of behind the wheel for a much longer time than we do, pay for learning material to study for the test (about $100), among other numerous requirements, and if they do not pass the first time, they have to pay the $500 again. All of those requirements are approximates, by the way. The actual numbers may be higher, but I am sure that they are not lower. The basic point that I am trying to get at is that the United States is a good place to live.

I do not know that much about other countries and will never claim to know everything; however, from what I have learned in German and other classes only reinforces my ideas that we live in a wonderful country. Sure, we have had our problems; the only difference is that my history teachers have taught me all the sides of history, where the U.S. is at fall too. Many other countries claim that we say we have never done these things in our country, but Americans are aware of our faults more than people would like to admit. We have accepted what we have done wrong and try to provide some type of compensation for it, in most cases. I do not see England giving religious freedom or benefits to the Catholics in Ireland that they persecuted. We know that we have wronged our black population and seek to make it right by providing rights listed in the Constitution.

I love this country more than I could ever express. That is why I, among with many other men and women, am willing to die to ensure that all of you can still live in it. I want to make sure that all of you are proud of where you came from and happy to live here. Believe me, you may think the grass is greener in other countries, but it is not. Read up on a little world history and current events in the world. You will be less single-minded of how you hate or love the United States. Many men and women have paid the ultimate sacrifice to make sure that you can still have all of your freedoms. DO NOT take that for granted at all. Love every moment that you are given the opportunities that you are. I know that I am thankful for such things. I love my country and love my opportunities. God Bless America and all of the Americans that make this country great.

Social Issues pertaining to The Glass Castle

2007-11-10T11:34:00.001-08:00

Homelessness is a problem in The Glass Castle that does not technically pertain to Jeanette Walls but ends of dealing more with her mother and father. She may not have dealt with complete homelessness during her younger years; however, it is all a matter of opinion. There were times when she was living in below standard forms of housing, which is sometimes constituted as homelessness to certain people. She did not usually live in well-maintained environments and housing, and at a few points in time, Jeanette and her family had to go and live with both sets of her grandparents.

There are two things that people consider contributors to homelessness. The first is individual characteristics and the second is structural problems. Most of the Walls's problems were due to a lack of foundation and stability with the parents. The parents were not just getting bad breaks, but also had individual characteristics that helped lead to their downward spiral of failures, instability, lack of income, and lack of jobs. There were structural problems, as well, that helped contribute to the ongoing problems of the family. Rex Walls was unskilled, and ergo, he had to compete for the low-skill jobs, which were few. The mother had mental problems and was not receiving the proper money to help her get treatment, which furthered the chances and likelihood for the family to become homeless. Not only these reasons, but the Walls parents refused to accept money or any type of welfare from the government at any point in time. This is one of the reasons that people remain homeless, even with the increase in money allocated to social programs. Some people do not like the idea of taking money from the government of receiving any type of charity.

Most of the reasons that forced Jeanette's parents to be homeless in their later years were solely related to individual characteristics. The parents wanted to be homeless; they thought of it as another adventure. Personal opinions and feelings were the only contributors to their lifestyles because Rex Walls could go out and win money gambling and playing poker and could have made a dishonest living for himself, yet a living. Rose Mary Walls could have sold paintings or got some sort of a teaching job in New York City or tried to get some form of mental health help; however, she continued to paint for herself, while never trying to receive any profits. They never tried to get themselves away from being homeless. They never allowed Jeanette or anyone else to help them, after Lori threw them out of the apartment. They enjoyed the idea of being homeless too much to want to get out or away from it.

The passages on page 3, 255, and 266 were the ones I chose to discuss in The Glass Castle with regard to my social issue of homelessness. There were three very different passages because Jeanette's tone varied so much from passage to passage. Sometimes, there was a slant and other times, no slant was presented. Anyway, these three passages presented homelessness from three different perspectives.

The first of the passages on page 3 talks about homeless within a family. Jeanette displays her feelings of guilt about having parents that are homeless, while she lives a comfortable lifestyle in a nice apartment. It shows how Jeanette talks of her outfit one second, and the next, she sees her mother rummaging through a dumpster for any type of "treasure". The passage goes on to say that Jeanette does not want people to know about her family or her past. She wants that part of her life to be kept secret and away from her current life, which makes her feel guilty. It shows the effects of homelessness on a family and how Jeanette feels a personal tie to these homeless people because they are her parents. Basically, it brings a reality check that the homeless on the street are part of someone's family. This homeless woman happens to be a part of Jeanette's.

The second passage is on page 255 and presents homelessness from the parents' perspective, making the whole situation seem like a great adventure. They talk about where they can sleep from night to night, the shows they can go see for free, where they can clean-up and keep hygiene at a maximum, and the food kitchens that are open. Everything seems great from the parents' eyes. They give Jeanette and their kids the impression that their lives are a breeze and everything is just fine. They almost make it seem like it is more fun and better to be homeless, which is why they refuse the help and money that Jeanette and her other siblings try to offer them. It almost seems like the parents just do not want the kids to have to take care of them. Rex and Rosemary to not want to take any more away from their children than they already have. In an attempt to keep the kids from worrying too much, they decide to make their lives seem fun and adventurous like when the kids were little. This type of psychology used to make crappy times seem better to the children.

The third passage is from an outsider's perspective, and it is on page 266. This is from a very objective standpoint. It talks about the terrible conditions and environments of the homeless squats or broken down shacks that these people resided. No descriptions are sugar-coated. The conditions of how truly terrible the conditions are is accurately described throughout this passage. Jeanette gives a distance to the homeless people. She does not describe emotional ties to her parents, just shows how bad their living conditions are. This helps to show that outsiders who have comfortable homes and environments do not truly understand the severity of the environment that homeless call comfortable.

Social Issues-Homelessness

2007-11-03T18:21:00.000-07:00

The idea of homelessness is very relevant throughout The Glass Castle and our ongoing nation. Jeanette Walls's family is living in substandard conditions, even when they have a home. It is not until nearly the end of the novel that actual homelessness is experienced by her father and mother. Walls portrays these situations in a number of ways. At first, she talks about feeling guilty of her comfortable life, especially because her mother is living on the streets (pg.3). In the next passage, she talks about homelessness as an adventure and describes the passage from her parents' perspective (pg.255). Finally, Walls objectively talks about the realities of being homeless and describes the terrible conditions that her mother and father are succumbing to by living in the squats.

All of these ideas and problems tie in with the current issue of homelessness in the United States. There are five periods of time when homelessness has been considered a large problem. The first time was when England sent its poor population to live in the United States, the second was after the Civil War with all of the displaced soldiers and civilians, the third was with the westward industrial expansion during the late 1800s and early 1920s, the fourth was the Great Depression leading up to World War II, and the fifth is the 1980s to present day.

There are two different ways that homelessness is view: the conservative and liberal ways. Conservatives blame homelessness all on individual characteristics, while liberals blame it on structural problems. Most people accept a median between these two views. The largest problem is how the issue is dealt with. Even though economic issues and cutting of funding to homeless programs is generally considered one of the largest reasons for homelessness, the recent influx in funds to these programs and economic prosperity of the 1990s has not improved the homeless situation. Two counts of homeless were taken in 1987 and 1996, both revealing that the amount of homeless persons has not lessened. The issue has continued to be terrible and not break apart.

Most people are also in a dilemma of how to solve these problems. Some groups think that direct aid to important things are needed, such as shelter, clothing, and food. Other people see goals such as voting or helping get jobs as being more important. It all depends upon a person's view. The problem with just giving direct aid is that it may cause people to become very dependent upon the government because they are getting what they need fast and not having to work for it. The problem with helping the homeless vote is because they are uneducated and do not always understand and getting jobs usually keeps them in their current state because they get low paying, unskilled jobs.

There are so many sides to the problem that need to be addressed. The fact that some of the richest countries in the world are having these terrible problems demonstrates that it is not only the third world countries. While many classes and races and genders are typically more represented among the homeless population than others, statistics show that homelessness does affect everyone and is growing proportionally different than it used to. For instance, adults with children are beginning to show themselves more on the streets. There are well over 800,000 homeless living in the United States. An astounding number that needs to be adjusted as soon as possible.

Weight of the things they carry

2007-10-04T08:34:00.001-07:00

There is no tighter bond than that of soldiers during a time of war. The camaraderie and joint experiences only strengthen this relationship further. Specific to this novel, Tim O'Brien and the other men of his unit experienced the Viet Cong together.

From the start, weights are continually mentioned. Most of the first chapter, called "The Things They Carry", mentions the weight of gear and the sharing of the gear among the men, when weight became too much. From there, it moves on to discuss the weight of intangibles and how those intangibles were even more of a burden sometimes than the pounds of gear. No matter what weight is placed upon the shoulders of the soldiers, the fact that they experience these dilemmas and tragedies together helps to relieve some of the pressure.

It is apparent during the book that some of the men just are not build to uphold the pressure of the weight of duty and responsibility and gear and fear and emotion. These times reveal themselves through soldiers who simply lost their minds, such as Rat Kiley, or the men who carelessly wondered ahead, such as Curt Lemon. The ultimate result for these carefree attitudes and lack of mental stability leads to the same result: death. There are men who ventured over to the swamp and malaria country that should not have been there, due to an inability to uphold Newton's law of motion. By this, I mean that they could not provide an equal and opposite reaction to every action. I am trying to give the visual they that could not counterbalance the weights placed upon them.

I was actually utilizing the idea of weight and responsibility to help write an assignment for American conflict 2. It was interesting to see the ideas I incorporated because I personally believe that men feel the same from war to war. The assignment was to write a letter home from London to discuss personal feelings about the upcoming invasion and so on (we are talking of a time period of May-June 1944). All of the words and phrases and ideas that I presented in the letter could easily have been slightly altered and be a letter home from one of these soldiers in The Things They Carry. Every war is different. Every war is the same. Every soldier is different. Every soldier is the same. The idea of the lost generation could essentially be applied to any war with young soldiers, not just World War I. The majority of men drafted during wars are boys. They are in the best shape and have the least to lose because they are so young and have not been given the opportunity to start a life, yet. It is sad but the truth.

While further exhausting the idea of weight, I want to talk about the different tangible and intangible things the men, rather boys, carried. The whole opening chapter of this novel moves rapidly from the tangible to intangible. The men carry responsibility, guns, ammunition, experiences, emotions, radios, and the list continues infinitely. There are far too many things for one man to carry by himself. That is why all of the men work together in a unit. It is more efficient. The aspect of that chapter I found to be the most interesting was the listing of all the different weights. There would be discussion of the 3.4 pound comic books or the 45 pound radio (do not quote me on the exact weights) and then the stress of not knowing what could happen next. The next line would be about the 17.1 pound M-16 and miscellaneous pounds of extras men carried, then right in the middle of all of this, another intangible pops up. These two ideas are so intertwined in this chapter. It gives off a feeling that the soldiers' lives were so mixed with tangibles and intangibles, further complicating and adding to the weight of their lives.

Many people have stated that they feel betrayed that The Things They Carry is a fiction work, even though it is clearly stated everywhere in the novel. The most important aspect of the novel is that Tim O'Brien is able to force the reader to feel an emotional connection to the characters. The readers are able to feel these burdens and problems placed upon the shoulders of these young men. He is able to create an atmosphere in which the characters seem real. The responsibility and loss of innocence and becoming a man and seeing buddies blown up is all real, maybe not specifically the way he creates the characters in the book to experience it, but it is. The fact that he is able to get the commoners to understand all of the many issues and feelings and problems experienced by the men in combat is truly incredible. No one should be mad about that. He uses this idea of weight to describe situations to vivid that a reader is able to emotionally empathize and feel the weight, as well. That is what I call good writing.

The moral of the story is this: boys grow up to men under intense pressure and stress, childhood innocence is quickly lost, stress and experiences and emotions all can overwhelm and sometimes prove to be too much for men, and any time an author can create an emotional connection between a reader and the characters in the book, he/she is good. It is that simple and that complicated.