25 Years Too Late

Both books--1984 and Brave New World--have relevance in today's society, but 1984 holds more truth.

Some would argue that the genetic cloning in BNW relates to today’s genetic engineering, that the drug use in BNW relates to today’s counterculture, and that the sexual content of BNW relates to today’s world. Those allegations are indeed true. What matters more though is weight; quantity does not matter as much as quality—do the similarities of BNW to today outweigh those of 1984?

Nope, not even remotely. Orwell feared a government that would lie to its people, withholding information from its citizenry. Consider “executive privilege”, the process under which any information pertaining to “national security” can be deemed classified, and seen by no one other than the president himself (or Big Brother, as I will refer to him). When the term “national security” is tossed around with such reckless disregard for the phrase’s original intent as to allow wiretaps to listen in on phonesex conversations from US soldiers in Iraq to their loved ones in the States, have we not fallen victim to a society strikingly similar to that created by Orwell? With over 15 MILLION documents designated as classified each year, how could anyone say that our government is not withholding information from us? Our government is living up to Orwell’s claim.

We live in a country dominated by fear, just a described in 1984. We were fear-mongered into waging a war in Iraq, based on false pretenses, but we did it out of fear. Our Congress was fear-mongered into allowing the Patriot Act to pass. Our airports were fear-mongered into enforcing stricter regulations. Only after we were made to fear were we OK with being searched, searched, and searched some more, putting up with long lines and red tape the whole time. Our state governments are fear-mongered into putting up absurdly low speed limits. The general public is fear-mongered away from the use of drugs and alcohol and cigarettes, our state governments fear-mongered into placing high taxes on such items. Want more examples? There are hundreds on my mind. Just ask, I’ll supply. We have turned into a nation that is dictated by the whims of the masses, but also controlled by the uppermost sectors of the government. Who else has had enough of this NANNY-STATISM?

It seems like Orwell’s prophecy came 25 years late.

OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!

My claim: “The Christian God does not exist as an absolute; rather he exists as a dogmatic subjective concept created by humankind.”

My Proof:

1)If the Christian God exists, he is perfect.
2)If the Christian God exists, he gave earthly beings free will.
3)Perfection refers to the complete absence of flaws, defects, or shortcomings.
4)Therefore if (the Christian) God exists, he is without flaws, defects, or shortcomings.
5)I am free to think and act as I please.
6)(The Christian) God does not comply with what I desire God to be.
7)Therefore, if (the Christian) God were to exist, he has at least one shortcoming.
8)Thus (the Christian) God is not perfect.
9)The Christian God does not exist.

Premise number 1 is true by the very definition of God in Christianity. Christians, by the tenets of their religion, see their God as omniscious, omnipresent, omnipotent, and PERFECT.

Premise number 2 is correct by the tenets of Christianity. Christians believe that God gave humankind free will.

Premise number 3 is correct by the definition of perfection. The concept of perfection was defined by man as something without flaw, defect, or shortcoming.

Premise number 4 is correct following premises 1 and 3.

Premise number 5 is correct by premise 2. If premise number 5 is incorrect, it follows that premise number 2 must be incorrect as well. If premise 2 is found incorrect, either God does not exist, or the Christian Doctrine is wrong entirely.

Premise number 6 is correct because that is my own personal opinion being presented as such. I am able to have this opinion because of premise 5. It better suits me if (the Christian) God does not exist. I feel that God is not perfect because no entity that is perfect would ever require others bow down to it. I feel that any entity that would willingly condemn another to eternal torture (Christianity’s “Hell”) is not worthy of reverence. If the Christian God were to exist, I would be condemned to Hell merely for writing this blog; thus I would be better suited if (the Christian) God did not exist. Therefore, to me, (the Christian) God has a shortcoming.

Premise number 7 is true by the statements of premise 6.

Premise number 8 is true by the statements of premises 3, 4, and 7.

The conclusion, line 9, is proven true by the statements of premises 1 and 8.

Thank ME For A Vegetarian Thanksgiving!!!

For all carnivorous readers of my blog, please take a moment to view the above video. For all of you who consider yourselves moralists, do the same. For all of you who consider yourselves respectable human beings, do the same. For all of you who wish to truly solve some of the world’s most dire problems, please view the video, read on, and then consider what you have read.

Be a vegetarian for the sake of the animal, the sake of yourself, and the sake of the world.

How is vegetarianism better for the animal?
1) Viewing the above video should just about answer that one…
2) I, along with the majority of the populous, love animals. I simply prefer them alive.
3) No one who is a meat-eater can say in good conscience that they care about animals.
4) At most stockyards so called "downers" may lie suffering for days until they are dragged by chain to their slaughter.
5) Contrastingly, an animal can legally be kept in agony, sick or with broken bones simply because alive it will fetch a higher price for a rancher.
6) If you are Christian, Jesus preached peace and love for all of creation. You sit down to eat with 2 choices: contribute to the violence and genocide in the world, or simply eat a balanced vegetarian meal. Which of the two upholds the tenets of religion???
7) Animals DO have brain activity---Consciousness, thought, feelings…

How is vegetarianism better for the individual?
1) The consumption of animal products lowers the body’s pH. Acidic levels are often precursors to disease. This leads to cellular degeneration.
2) The majority of animals raised for human consumption are injected with hormones and antibiotics as to allow for greater efficiency in agribusiness. These chemicals are then consumed by the humans who consume the meat, leading to hormonal imbalances and resistance to antibiotics.
3) Consumption of meat actually leads to ingesting TOO MUCH protein. Though supporters of the meat industry try to convince us otherwise, scientific studies have shown that an excess of protein hurts calcium absorption, in turn contributing to osteoporosis and other bone-degeneration illnesses.
4) Because of differences in the bowels (human bowel is 12 times the length of the torso, while carnivorous animals have bowels 2 times the length of the torso), we are not fit for the consumption of meat. Such an improper bowel leads to high levels of toxicity in humans who consume meat as it putrefies.
5) On a calorie basis, spinach has 14 times the iron of a sirloin beef steak.
6) Animal products are deficient in Vitamin C.
7) The National Cancer Research Institute found that women who eat meat are FIVE TIMES MORE LIKELY TO GET BREAST CANCER compared to those who do not.
8) USDA meat inspection today is virtually non-existent with sometimes as few as 3 out of 1,000 carcasses checked. Federal inspectors are not allowed to stop the assembly line if a problem is sighted, they may only complain. Many cancerous carcasses pass inspection.
9) Factory-farmed animals have as much as 30 TIMES more saturated fat than yesterday's free-range, pasture-raised animals.
10) Meat contains 14 times more pesticides than plant-foods.
11) There are 20 - 30 thousand animal drugs currently in use. Roughly 90% have NOT been approved by the FDA. So prior to FDA inspection, these drugs are being ingested by you.
12) Detection of salmonella is not required by the USDA. Not a single plant in the country inspects for it. CBS's "60 Minutes" found half of the chickens they randomly purchased to be contaminated.
13) Nearly all toxic chemical residues in the American diet (95% to 99%) come from animal sources.
14) A mother’s milk from a nursing woman who’s diet is rich in meat is so toxic that if it were to be sold across state lines, it would be subject to confiscation and subsequent destruction by the FDA.
15) Meat-centered diets are linked to many different types of cancer.
16) In regions where meat is scarce, cardiovascular disease is unknown.
17) Meat contains no essential nutrients that cannot be obtained in higher quality directly from plant sources.
18) Due to the overuse of antibiotics in animal processing, we are embarking on an era on which antibiotics are useless and diseases untreatable.

Why is meat-consumption harmful to the world?
1) A meat-eating American needs 3-1/4 acres of cultivated farm land per year; vegetarians only require 1/6 acre per year.
2) Beef cattle return only 1 pound of meat for every 16 pounds of grain and soybeans they are fed, causing huge inefficiencies in food utilization, while millions of people go hungry.
3) 60,000 people die each year of starvation, while enough wheat is fed to animals (bred for human consumption) to feed 250,000. If we were to cut our meat consumption by even 10%, we could feed all of those who are starving.
4) It takes 2,500 gallons of water to produce a single pound of meat.
5) It takes only 25 gallons of water to produce a pound of wheat.
6) A meat-eating American needs 3-1/4 acres of cultivated farm land per year; vegetarians only require 1/6 acre per year.
7) The planet's entire petroleum reserves would be exhausted in a just over a decade if the whole world adopted the technology used in the U.S. to produce the standard American meat-centered diet.
8) Forests are being destroyed for meat production. If we were to stop consuming meat, less land would be required for farming and the world would be restored to its natural order.
9) U.S. livestock produces 20 times the excrement of the human population. Their waste no longer serves to fertilize pastures a little at a time, since they spend much or all of their lives in factory sheds or feedlots. Wastes are often simply flushed away dangerously raising ammonia and nitrate levels in our drinking water. Going vegetarian helps to clean up our nation's water more than any other single action.
10) Ingestion of toxic fish led to a 30% decrease in sperm count in American men.
11) Cattle grazing is subsidized by the US government; this essentially means: YOU PAY FOR IT! (Taxes…) Without government subsidies, beef would cost $35 per pound.
12) Poultry processing is one of the most hazardous occupations. Work in that business can lead to repetitive motion disorders and nerve damage. I guess that could be called karma.
13) Agricultural engineers discovered that the energy costs of producing poultry, pork and other meats was over 10 times that of any plant food.
14) Over half of the water in the U.S. irrigates land for livestock feed and fodder.
15) When an Allied naval blockade in World War 1 forced Denmark into national vegetarianism, the death-rate dropped by 34%.
16) Every 3 seconds, a child dies of starvation. If meat consumption was reduced and the food fed to animals was used efficiently, we could prevent this travesty.
17) It follows that by ingesting meat, YOU ARE NOT ONLY KILLING ANIMALS, BUT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF HUMANS AS WELL.

So please view this site as well: http://www.vivavegie.org/vv101/101reas98.html for more information. It is not enough to merely read this and forget about it. Consider what you have learned, and do what what you think is right. Let us end this travesty.

They Grow Up So Fast...

“It's now 1990. I'm forty-three years old, which would've seemed impossible to a fourth grader, and yet when I look at photographs of myself as I was in 1956, I realize that in the important ways I haven't changed at all. I was Timmy then; now I'm Tim. But the essence remains the same. I'm not fooled by the baggy pants or the crew cut or the happy smile—I know my own eyes—and there is no doubt that the Timmy smiling at the camera is the Tim I am now. Inside the body, or beyond the body, there is something absolute and unchanging. The human life is all one thing, like a blade tracing loops on ice: a little kid, a twenty-three-year-old infantry sergeant, a middle-aged writer knowing guilt and sorrow. (236)”

Everything is in flux, life—constantly changing—must never be mistaken as static. The dynamic nature of human existence is the very element that makes it worthwhile.

Tim O’Brian seems to believe in an absolute truth of sorts, an unchanging constant around which life oscillates, attempting to stray from it slightly but never fully breaking free of it. “Inside the body, or beyond the body, there is something absolute and unchanging,” claims O’Brian. His claim is one based of both reason and faith. He has faith in an absolute truth, but was led to that conclusion through his own self-awareness. I disagree with his assertion because I feel that life is in constant flux — “I cannot step into the same river twice,” said Heraclitus, an esteemed Greek philosopher.

From an observatory standpoint, I have witnessed not only the maturation of myself over the years, but also the growth of my peers. I have watched close friends evolve into who they are today; certainly who they are today is not who they will be tomorrow, and it most definitely is not who they were yesterday. People are constantly changing, adapting to environments and dealing with changes pertaining thereto. When a person is forced to change to in order to adapt to new conditions, or to compensate for old flaws, or even due to simple maturation, change that person will. An individual will not remain the same when it is no longer most efficient to do so, for that would be to defy human nature. Consider how friendships change: some evolve, some dissolve. Without changes in the personal characteristics of the individual parties in question, there would be no such need for changes in friendship. The friends I am close to today are not the friends I was close to in years past, and it is impossible to tell if they will be my friends in the future. Only time reveals the true form of the individual. I have watched quiet, subdued students grow into confident and outspoken ones; the converse is true as well—many students who are arrogant from a young age are humbled by their experiences, changing as a result. Yet again, time is the ultimate catalyst. (Note the irony of time itself as a catalyst, as true as the aforesaid statement is…)

I, personally, have changed only slightly over my years. As a young boy, I needed to be held back a year in pre-school because I was emotionally incapable of advancing at that time. I would cling to my mom’s leg at the beginning of the school day, afraid to let her go. I was weak, feeble. Then, subconsciously, I realized a change was necessary; I changed as was essential to my success. I matured greatly in the year that followed, and then began my actual school career. Since that initial transformation, I have been confident, outgoing, and outspoken. Other than that pivotal change after third grade, I have only matured, but never really changed. Though that may seemingly contradict my prior thesis, I believe that I have not changed because I have not again had a need to, I have not been forced to adapt yet. The last time I needed to alter my person, I did so. Nonetheless, my maturation has been steady and ongoing.

In a world where constant change is needed for progression, the world population does just that. Some of us change ourselves so much so that we may lose sight of who we once were. Keeping in mind that we are always apt to change when the need arises, and are always maturing subtly over time, it is important to never forget how we become who we are. I feel that it is the journey that defines the man; a man is never in his current form, rather he can be defined as the culmination of all of his transformations throughout his life, constantly advancing toward what can be his truest form, as his true characteristics are discovered and displayed over time. Even in dealing with the intentional suppressions of certain emotions or traits, which would lead one to believe that the true form of the individual is hidden, is that not saying something far truer about the individual?

Why I Write--Jeannette Walls

Why do I write? To tell a story—my story. Mine is a story of survival, a story of life. I write not for the money, nor for the fame. I am not an excitement addict. I write because I must. I also write because I want to.

Growing up, the only constant in my life was education. My mom, a teacher, and my dad, an inventor, were both smarter than most would give them credit for. They gave my siblings and me quite an education. Us kids were taught from a young age that education was of the utmost importance, even if it wasn’t always a formal education. Sometimes, though, formal isn’t the best. A formal education would have never taught me what I learned from my childhood. I would have never learned how to skedaddle, how to brush past muggers on the streets, or how to worry about no one’s opinion but my own. Without a well-rounded and practical education such as this, I would be just another memoir writer hoping to sell copies to those who would be willing to read them. With this “unorthodox” education, though, I feel that I can truly write my feelings, not merely my words.

I learned how to write at a young age, but the joy of writing never caught on until the ninth grade. In my freshman year, I was able to work with the school newspaper, The Maroon Wave. Working with the paper opened my eyes to a world I had never before laid eyes upon, a world of truth and candid clarity. I was able, for the very first time, to see things as they were, and convey this to others. For the first time, I felt inspired to write. Writing helped me through my own inner struggles by allowing me an outlet—this outlet helped me reach out to others as well.

Some may call my young family life “abusive” or “neglectful”, though I do not see it as such. Certainly, my father suffered from alcoholism, and my mother suffered from “excitement addiction”, but that only gave me inspiration. It inspired me to break free from their lifestyle and create my own. It inspired me to write--to tell the world what I had learned.

Writing is my passion. Writing gave me the courage to break free from the life of my parents and begin a life of my own. I write, unlike many others, because I have something to say—I have a story to tell.

The Glass Castle

"You can turn painful situations around through laughter. If you can find humor in anything, even poverty, you can survive it." --Bill Cosby

The above line perfectly characterizes one of the central themes of Jeannette Walls’ memoir, “The Glass Castle”. It is important to be able to laugh, even in the direst of situations; one must find light in the darkest of times. In “The Glass Castle” humor is used extensively to alleviate the tensions that accompany poverty and assuage any negative feelings thereof.

In this memoir, Jeannette (the main character) is raised in poverty, living a nomadic lifestyle running from bill collectors with the rest of her family. Her father has a gambling problem and drinking problem, using much of the family’s (very short supply of) money to fuel his two vices. Despite her father’s shortcomings, he is generally a good man and shows a great deal of love and affection for his children. One way that he expresses his love is via his use of humor in situations that would not be typically considered comical. For example, when Jeannette was thrown out of a moving car because the door spontaneously opened, her father ran over to her and said, “You busted your snot locker pretty good”, hoping to cheer her up and give levity to the situation. His tactics proved effectual, for Jeannette ran back to the car and joked to her mother and siblings about her broken “snot locker”. In this instance, her father truly made the best of a bad situation by taking it lightheartedly and using humor to help his daughter forget her pain. Often that is what humor can be used for—forgetting pain, be it physical, emotional, or both.

The previous example offered humor as a remedy for physical pain; contrastingly, here is an example for the alleviation of emotional pain: Throughout her childhood, Jeannette referred to her family’s moving habits as “skedaddle”. Each time that her family would have to sporadically move due to financial dangers, they would play “skedaddle”, as if moving were a game or an adventure. “Skedaddle” is used as a playful euphemism, giving a lighthearted feel to a quite serious predicament. Here, the use of such a humorous and jubilant term also gives levity to the situation. The children are able to forget about their family’s struggles and poverty by turning it into a game. This is reminiscent of children playing “eviction” in the streets during the Great Depression of 1920s America.

Aside from direct humor and laughter, it is also important to keep a positive attitude when life gets difficult; much of the time, without a good outlook, it is impossible to push forward. Such a positive outlook is infused with creativity when Jeannette’s father gives his children starts for gifts. One Christmas, he was unable to afford gifts for the family, so he took them outside and let each of them pick out a star, forever to be theirs. This was a clever way to avoid negative feelings around Christmas time, and to keep their spirits high. He was using his easygoing and lighthearted nature to help his family temporarily forget the hardship of their lives.

Throughout Jeannette's childhood, her mother and father's optimistic views helped her get by. Not only did their "games" and "adventures" help the children, but it also helped the parents as well. Her parents needed positive reassurance perhaps even moreso than the children did, because if the parents were unable to remain hopeful and cautiously optimistic, the children would have suffered much more. Without the laughter and (false/ignorant) joy to help her cope with her situation, Jeannette would have never been able to escape from the economic snare that she was born into.

"The Worst Day"

(I chose the topic of "The Worst Day" because no one has chosen it, so I figured i will endeavor on uncovered territory...)

Oskar, the nine year old narrator suffering from the death of his father and dealing with a fragile mental state, refused to name September 11th by date; he simply referred to it as "the worst day". He makes no direct reference to 9/11 throughout the entire novel. There are several effects of the absence of such direct mention, demonstrating exactly how carefully Foer uses every single word.

The primary effect of Oskar’s manner of referencing 9/11 is that it presents the day from a definitive point of view. By calling it “the worst day”, Oskar is presenting his opinion as fact, defining it not as his worst day, but as the worst day. Such authoritative reference to 9/11 shows exactly how deeply Oskar was affected. Throughout the novel, Oskar consistently states facts, rarely espousing his opinions to others. He more frequently quoted data and statistics than he did opinions. In the instance of calling it “the worst day”, Oskar is stating his opinion as fact. Certainly not everyone in the world views September 11th as the worst day, but he feels so strongly that he presents it as such; he deviates from his usually objective nature, referencing the day solely with his conclusive belief.

Also, “worst” is a definitive word. Amongst his references to the Dresden bombings and the bombing of WWII Japan, the terroristic events of September 11th are mentioned. The bombing of Hiroshima resulted in over 140,000 deaths, the bombing of Dresden 40,000, and The World Trade Center 3,000. The personal impact of the loss of his father drove Oskar to categorize September 11th as “the worst day”, even though both Dresden and Hiroshima were significantly more catastrophic. The numbers of deaths did not matter as much to Oskar; the single death of his father is what drove him to such despair—understandably so. Foer wrote Oskar to speak with uncharacteristic definitiveness about this day as to further exemplify its personal effects.

Finally, the most obvious reason for saying “the worst day” was Oskar’s avoidance. Oskar was unable to call this date by name. Oskar’s indirect references to the day depict his overwhelming pain and intense inner struggle. Because of the loss of his father, it was too painful for him to say the date of his father’s death. It was as if he was attempting to forget the date, to push it out of his mind as to be able to think of his father as if he were still alive. By giving his father’s death a date, his father was gone forever, conclusively—that is the opposite of what Oskar wanted. Oskar’s inner struggle to accept his father’s death emblematized the inner struggle and pain that all of the families of victims faced, as well as the denial and confusion of a country wary of an impending plunge into economic despair and military turmoil.