Letter to Charles Bukowski- for 10-28-11

Dear Mr. Bukowski,

Your poem Dinosauria We was very interesting and probably has some truth in it as well. The poem already shows some of the things that have occurred throughout history, especially recently. When you talk about hospitals being so expensive people would rather die than pay for it is becoming true for many people today, especially with the health care costs rising nearly 10% in one year. People are also murdering, emasculating, raping, in a few places eating, and yelling at each other. Political boundaries also shifted with this year's revolutions in the northern Africa region. People are also committing larger scale genocides as time goes by, with Darfur and the Holocaust as obvious examples. Millions of Americans are also in jail, and they are swelling as the days go on. Fools are also elevated by the masses, sometimes merely for looks (Hollywood, anyone?) Humans are born into materialistic, competing, self absorbed societies who trample each other for an elusive thing, be it money, fame, or power. 

You also seem to have a strong view on humans: that they are driven by a bad nature. The Chinese philosopher Sunzi would agree with you, while Mencius (another Chinese Philosopher) would propose "humans are good." I think you are partially right. While humans do possess judgment, survivalist instincts like those witnessed in the road turn them into self important cannibals who may even kill and consume their friends or family (although there are some like the boy in The Road who seem to be an exception). The only thing you failed to mention is that humans also have a capacity to love, to take care of, to create, and to form lasting relationships. 

I think your poem added some bits to my cave reality, and I am grateful to have read it.

From, Danni O.

Father and Son (for 10-20-11)

            In the award-winning post apocalyptic novel The Road, Cormac McCarthy depicts an extremely strong bond between a father and his son. Their relationship is marred by an unspoken of tragic event which annihilated the majority of America's (and perhaps other parts of the world as well) population. Their healthy relationship now has to reckon with bandits, lack of provisions, no real home, and the compromising of principles. Therefore, it is understandable that the circumstances of the times altered many previous definitions, resulting in a skewed relationship based on survival. The boy witnesses events (such as the murder of a man), something that can only be offered in a society bent on survival.

         The relationship between the two is sublime. The father even attempts to show his son glimpses of the previous world he had never seen, such as when he led his boy to the waterfall, or gave him Coca-Cola. The two companions talk to each other freely, both would die for each other, and the father will stop at nothing for his son's safety--even killing a man who attempted to murder the boy. The only tension between the two concern aiding people, where the father leaves them alone for their family to survive, whereas the son prefers to help them, perhaps even at the expense of his family's lives. The father and son juxtapose each other in another way--the father is suspicious of people in general, while his son is trusting nearly to the point of naivety. It is also the boy who constantly call the father's ethics into question, like a policeman. 

          The strong relationship between parent and child is very common. It is also a special bond that can be rarely duplicated; when people are united by blood and intent, sob and chuckle together, exchange information, share memories, and bask in each others presence. It is a special bond that should be cherished in all circumstances.

John Proctor: Hero or Stooge? (for 9-30-11)

So, is the protagonist of The Crucible a knight or a subordinate being with no backbone? Is he a person who has overcome obstacles and still looked generally good in the process, or is he just a nameless indentured servant to Abigail and her coterie of cronies? This post seeks to concisely answer the question, cutting back on precious time and superfluous words.

First, we must define: what is a hero? A hero is someone "identified with good qualities," is usually amicable enough, and has a decent track record. John Proctor fits the bill. The town, with mostly the exception of Rev. Parris, respect and perhaps even like him. He is a Christian, God-fearing man who other than plowing on Sunday has only committed one true crime, both legal and moral: adultery. He succumbed to his temptations, with Abigail Williams egging him on. Only once did he actually commit lechery with her, but that was enough to tarnish his relationship with Elizabeth and foster hope in Abigail of deja vu-an encore of what happened between them. He is indeed a hero, but he is a tragic one. He actually had two flaws, really: temptation influenced his dealings with Abigail, and in the end of the play, hubris (a Greek word meaning pride) keeps him from signing his confession that he is a witch, and leads him to his own hanging.

His brief relationship with Abigail should not be underestimated. Too many times in history, and especially today, you see people succumb to temptation and hurt their spouses forever, have children out of wedlock, step across ethical lines, and/or transfer AIDs and other sexual diseases. Even if he didn't impregnate Abigail, the situation between John and Elizabeth had never been the same again when she heard of the harlot's crime. Of course, there is also the breaching of ethical lines that must be taken into account as well. Therefore, John Proctor is not the fantastical role model so many people dream of. But then again, no one is. 

I'll finish off with a final word: as a young child, I always loved to divulge The Series of Unfortunate Events, written by Lemony Snicket (otherwise and usually known as Daniel Handler). In one of the latter books of the series, he brings up a few good points: that people are like onions (meaning their intentions may be murky and they are ridiculously complicated) and that humans are "a chef's salad," meaning they are composed of both good and bad things. People are like onions, with many layered ideas, intentions, and pasts that are difficult for even the most adroit scholar to decipher. Humans are also chef's salads, for even though they may have not ever committed a crime, life is a series of interlocking fates, with people simultaneously helped and hampered by others. Such is the nature of life.  

Sinners in The Hands of An Angry God: The Human Question

Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God is a sermon by the famous Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards (also a great intellectual, attending Yale at a mere 13 years old) concerning the fate of sinners who step out of line. In it, God is portrayed as a rather cold being who would cast the people he created into hell (because of their sins) without a blink, that the "wicked" deserve to be condemned without a second thought, and that God could impose his wrath on people without repercussion. This morose view is in line with predestination (a view first expressed by John Calvin, who influenced the Puritans), which states that God dictates one's destiny, with some people being condemned to hell and others to heaven. It is dubbed "predestination" because God imposes this fate on people before they are even born. This view coincides with another Puritan view, that they and they alone are "the chosen ones" (other religions and denominations often share similar views about themselves.) For them, it is rare when a non-Puritan goes to heaven, if at all.

The sermon, which was preached on July 8th, 1741 in the midst of the Great Awakening (a Christian movement in the early 1700's that swept Western Europe and the U.S. colonies, with Christians striving to learn more about God and mend their errors), brought a controversial reaction seen even today.  Although it is a cherished sermon which addresses the errors of sinners and wakes them up to the possibility of hell, there are a few loose ends. Number one, why doesn't the sermon tell the whole story (God's bad side is more mentioned than his good side)?  Also, is he suggesting humans are naturally inclined to commit evil, then good?

So, why didn't the sermon address the good side of God? There are two reasons: tradition and purpose. The Puritans have always set a priority of drawing the line, and talking about the dreadful consequences that ensue if that line is crossed. But their tradition doesn't highlight the goodness of staying inside that line (this can be compared to God commanding us to never stray from our set path, to not commit sins. There is a good side to not committing sins, not just a punishment if we do). Also, the purpose of his sermons was not to portray both sides of the story in a balanced way, nor was it to gloss over the bad parts. His sole purpose was to educate, to tell his fellow congregants that there is indeed a hell, and nothing in the world is more crucial than going to heaven. 

Second, and also important, are humans predisposed to do good or evil? Edwards' sermon brings  a certain historical character to mind: Sun Tzu, or Sunzi, (a Chinese general who served emperor Wu) believed that humans are inclined to commit evil by nature (his firsthand experience of war doubtless influenced this idea he possessed). On the other side of the spectrum is a famous philosopher named Mencius, who lived a few centuries later than Sunzi. His view on human nature juxtaposed that of Sunzi's, with him advocating the idea that humans are inclined to do good. So who is right? None of them, that is to say both of them. They are both partially right. Humans have an eternal battle raging in their hearts with two sides, the side of good and the side of evil. Neither completely prevails. 

Put it this way: both humans and God are a many layered onion we may never fully grasp.

There Goes The Neighborhood: The Showdown Between the Palestinians and Israelis

When some groups mix together, catastrophic results may follow. The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is a vivid example of the bad chemistry that is a consequence of what happens when a certain groups are meshed together. Ever since the late 19th Century, the Israelis and Palestinians have been in gridlock over who is entitled Jerusalem and its surrounding cities. At the genesis of the conflict, Zionism (a Jewish political movement advocating the installation of a Jewish State, Israel) and Muslim Nationalism (the majority of Palestinians are Muslim, and the Palestinians make up a large bit of Israel's population) have been prevalent in the country. The conflict has evolved into a bloody one, with nearly 10,000 casualties since 1948. There are disputes between the Jews and Muslims, mainly over entitlement to land, as well as water distribution, securities, mutual recognition, and so on. 

So, why is there such a fierce battle for the land (modern day Israel)? The Muslim Palestinians had lived in Israel (which they called Palestine) had lived in the country for centuries, and only relatively recently did many Jews seek refuge in Israel after World War 2, after the horrors of the Holocaust. However, many Israelites had been exiled from the country centuries ago. The Jews formed a Zionist Army (with the permission of the United Nations), which helped them establish a nation-state which we now call Israel. Jews believe they are entitled to the country, something they support with religious scripture from the Hebrew Bible. This claim posed a problem to the Palestinians, who had nurtured the land for generations and called it their home. They didn't buy the Hebrew Bible, either. After the Israelites attempted to return to their country, clashes ensued. Propaganda on both sides boosted their enmity, adding fuel to the fire.

There have been many attempts of peace, each with varying success. The Balfour Declaration, drafted in 1919 with cooperation from both sides, supported the building of a Jewish State in Palestine (a wartime promise from the UK), with Palestinian cooperation. The British Mandate for Palestine, released in 1922, gave the UK a large influence on Palestine and set up Israel. This spurred an increase in Jews immigrating to Palestine, sparking many riots. The UN would later allot 1/2 of the land to each side, with the exception of Bethlehem and Jerusalem in the International Zone. However, as neither side was satisfied with the compromise, the violence resumed. 1948 brought the Israeli-Palestinian War, resulting in many deaths and hundreds of thousands of Jews becoming refugees. Many wars and peace treaties later, efforts for peace appear to be futile. There is still violence, there are still problems, and it is uncertain how things shall turn out. Despite encouragement from many governments, the two sides refuse to bargain. A two-state solution was suggested, with the Palestinians only occupying the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Sadly, this is only one of a plethora of battles that occur over neighborhoods, large and small. Hopefully, humans can continue to come up with additional creative ideas to help combat modern problems.

Introduction- 9/9/11

I suppose you could say I'm unusual. Funky. Avante-garde. Well, it's the truth. How many people can devour three lemons in one sitting, read over one hundred books a year, and possess around fifty different laughs? Not many. This freckled, bespectacled bookworm has a story to tell! 

The story picks up in Tabor, a town located in Southeastern Czech Republic, on December 21st, 1995, when a squealing infant named Daniela is born to two ecstatic parents. Around six months later, tragedy strikes. I, the young infant am found to have a coloboma, a birth defect which scars the retina, scars the pupil, and reduces one's vision drastically. Haven't heard of it? Not surprising. Only 1 in 10,000 people get it. Despite the setback, life went on, as it always does. I have been used to coping with my handicap from birth (luckily, the defect was mostly in my left eye), and in my whole life, I have never shared the perspective of those with normal eyes. This has helped me appreciate different perspectives and what I do have.

 

 When I was barely one year old, my parents and I moved to America, something that seemed unlikely with the couple being young (my mother twenty years old and my father twenty four). They would be the pioneers: starting the first generation of my family in America (everyone else still resides in Czech Republic and Slovakia). We moved to Rhode Island, with my early years punctuated by a happy childhood and a caring family, with my mother watching me while my father went to school. As I grew up, I was diagnosed with a learning disability, although my family helped me improve greatly. I lived there until the summer of third grade, when the surprising news came: our family would move to Chicago! The reason? My father had earned his second masters degree at Harvard  and would study for his PhD. at the University of Chicago.

And so we moved. The first year in Chicago was difficult, but my loving family helped me overcome some obstacles. My parents were in a divorce, as new immigrants, our economic resources were limited, and to top it all off, my ISAT scores were in the 30th percentile, largely due to developmental delays. That's when a  miracle happened: I was rewarded with one of the most caring teachers I've ever had: Ms. Webb, an alumna from Dartmouth. She was an inspiration for me, a kind, loving woman who gave me consolation when my father had cancer (ironically, the diagnosis was on April Fool's Day), my ISAT scores burgeoned to the high 90's (though I still had a B average, with a few C's), and she taught me how books helped me explore new worlds. I shall not forget her helpful personality and excellent teaching. Things improved considerably after that. My father made a strong recovery, I attended Lenart Regional Gifted Center, and was enrolled in Whitney Young. I also have an amazing stepmom who cares about me, who is kind to me (even when I do not always return the favor), gentle, and loving. 

Life may be difficult at times, but with perseverance and a loving family, you can overcome many things.