In response to theOX...

If you have anything further to say, I'd be glad to hear it. I take interest in your peculiar responses to my fellow classmates. If you'd rather not hold a mature conversation, or think that you are incapable of doing so (you did hint that you failed out of class), then ADMIT your own personal shortcomings and KINDLY MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS rather than make childish, inane statements on others' blogs, especially assignments that you ought to know are not undertaken with any goal other than for passing the class.

This I Believe video project

The following is my This I Believe project, both transcript and video. It is what I believe; hence the title of the project being, "This I Believe." If you'd like to comment on the essay, feel free to do so. It would be greatly appreciated, though, if commenters refrain from delving into a philosophical or religious debate. I am not writing this to prove, disprove, or bicker about any spiritual realm that may or not be. If you don't agree with my ideas regarding such, kindly buzz off and keep your aggressive postulates to yourself, or post them on a blog debating such. Thanks a bunch.


Earlier on in my life, I considered myself fairly lucky to have so many family members. I had pets, aunts, uncles, cousins, godparents, grandparents, and even a great-grandmother. Of course, nothing, and no one, lasts forever. The only downside to having so many family members is that they’ve all got to go at some point.

The first to go was my father’s father, but I couldn’t really know what to think of that. I hadn’t really known him, seeing him perhaps once or twice a year, and was also fairly young. As a result, the funeral was a strange experience. My godfather’s death, on the other hand, was much more distinctive and destructive. He was around almost all the time, and died on a cruise. Because of the nature of his death, the body vanished for fear of biohazardous bacteria, or something along those lines. Just like that, a close friend, gone. My great-grandmother was apparently already on the way out, so to speak, suffering from a failing mind and considerable confusion, so I was upset but not very surprised when she died. Her peaceful passing, compared to her nervous and troubled state of existence prior, made it easier to accept her death. And, of course, the pets also have their time; in the space of a day, one of my cats suddenly fell ill and died due to gradual degradations of undetectable cancer.

Of course, there’s no point in repeating this solely to focus on the misery and anguish of death. It’s inevitable and harsh, and certainly everyone has seen the chaos it wreaks on survivors. However, there’s one pleasant thing to be gained from these grim surprises, one thing that at least I believe in.

I suppose the critical shift came when I began to see dead people. Not any dead people, and not in everyday activities; no, that would be disturbing. But in my sleep, I would dream and see whatever my mind created, and occasionally I would see the deceased. Occasionally I still see the deceased, but it would primarily occur shortly after the death of the visitor. It seemed similar to some final comfort before they headed their separate ways. I could clearly hear the voice, see the person, and it appeared to me that I wasn’t merely dreaming. For example, my godfather and mother’s parents kept two cats, one of which died; following my own cat’s death, I saw my cat with my grandparents’ cat, which were both with my godfather. And they all acted, sounded, responded to me as they would, as they did, before death; there was a clear presence.
Whatever it was, be it some supernatural revelation, an active and grieving mind, or whatever I ate for dinner, it was something. And the more I knew, the more that I saw in my sleep. The more I remembered, the more that I had experienced, the more realistic the dreams became. I’ve never been able to actually converse with these dead, but I personally believe that they are there. Wherever there may be.

Now, some philosophers have reasoned that all is within the mind of God, that the physical world is the manifestation of the spiritual world. If that is so, perhaps that is what my dreams mean. Perhaps there is life after death, within one’s own mind. Perhaps there is a universe within the mind where one can recreate their life, the existence they knew, as philosophers believe God did with this universe. Of course, if one hasn’t lived, there can’t be a world to create; there are no paints, no ideas, nothing worth drawing.

I believe that the purpose of life is to live, so that at life’s conclusion there is a place where your mind can go. Think of life as a template and as a buffet; the more you see, the more you can keep. And the more dreams can become realistic, the more senses can perceive, and the more fulfilled one can be in the end. Death might be final, but it certainly doesn’t have to be such a dreaded horror. Consider it a deadline, pardon the pun, announcing when the research period ends and the main task of eternity begins. And, after all, so long as one has memories, nothing will ever truly vanish.

I intend to see, do, and understand as much as possible, knowing that everything that was still is, still can be, when my time comes. I still have fears, doubts, but at least I have a belief. And that belief is telling me that I am never alone, that those before me have lived and now have their eternity, and that before I can receive mine there is still so much that has yet to be done. My belief about death is what allows me to live.

A Humble Suggestion

It has come to my attention that the United States faces a severe problem, which has plagued politicians and nativists alike since the foundation of this nation. America is the land of opportunity, where freedom reigns supreme and all men are created equal. We, as patriotic citizens, have fought for this country countless times to ensure its survival and support the spread of its ideal (and by “we,” I mean our ancestors and our neighbors in the armed forces). Unfortunately, some people are of the mind that such freedom should be freely given to all the oppressed, regardless of the logistics and facts of reality. Such persons, eager to jump on the bandwagon and attain their free share of freedom, which we have long toiled for, are likely at this very moment successfully breaching our border, especially in the South. I speak, my friends and fellow Americans, of the issue of Mexican immigration.

There is nothing wrong with the Mexicans. Allow me to explain that my motives for addressing this problem are not connected in any way to prejudice and ill will against our Spanish-speaking vecinos. My only issue is one of detached calculations. The unchecked flow of immigrants into America has taken and will continue to take an immense toll on all aspects of our life. Mexicans currently enter illegally into the nation across the southern border, usually fleeing miserable or hopeless conditions at home, trying to make a living and reach that dream of a stable, comfortable life. Cubans also enter the country via rafts, fleeing similar conditions and a perhaps less-than-respectable leader. These people will come seeking jobs, and being illegal, will have to be paid under the table. This will result in countless jobs going to non-Americans, which will raise unemployment throughout the country. The possibility for abuse and mistreatment runs high, as no Mexican will be able to go and report such an injustice without being deported. Furthermore, there have been efforts to help these immigrants apply legally for citizenship, granting them access to Social Security and healthcare benefits. Some even toy with the thought of legalizing all of them at once, seeing no way to halt the inward flow from Mexico. Such events would place an enormous strain on the economy, already in poor shape and watching with fear as the baby-boomer generation ages. And there are the regular daily questions to answer, as well. Where will they live? How will they live? How will we understand what they are saying? The inherent lack of knowledge of the American language and culture may lead these poor, huddled, teeming masses to take up several lesser positions, such as taxi driving and fast-food window operators. The language barrier will prove an obstacle to everyday life for many, especially since Spanish classes are being replaced by French and Chinese in several higher educational facilities. Soon our country will break under the financial and cultural stress, and democracy itself will be in peril. I hate to say it, but there just isn’t enough freedom to go around.

Therefore, I would like to put forth my own humble suggestion in solution to this impending crisis in the South. I suggest that we follow the lead of one of our greatest presidents, Ronald Reagan, who had previously proposed a similar idea while awaiting the green light for a radio broadcast. During the Cold War, Reagan had been endlessly seeking a way to put an end to the Evil Empire of Communism, and was overheard to have uttered a groundbreaking proposal minutes before a national address. Reagan’s plan to completely outlaw Russia never got off the ground, but perhaps this idea still holds some final hope for today’s issue. I propose that we pass legislation that completely outlaws Mexico, and utilize our immense nuclear arsenal to wipe the Hispanics off the map entirely.

When one considers it, the potential benefits to this course of action are numerous and appealing. First, it will solve the central issue of Mexican immigration. Any Mexicans caught in the future will be immediately disposed of, saving us the price of gasoline to return them and the food and lodging necessary to take care of them until they are carted back to their native soil. This will free up the previous under-the-table positions held, allowing more jobs to be taken by American citizens rather than illegal immigrants. This will also eliminate the danger of economic stress from legalized Mexicans of both the naturalization process and the legislative process. Several knowledgeable persons have declared that immigrants often take the positions that Americans refuse to take. If this is so, then perhaps the American youths who will take such occupations will have improved attitude and insight that only menial labor can adjust, restraining the slothful and humbling the haughty. Employment will rise, and big businesses will be deprived of their secret pay plans, now forced to pay minimum wages and properly care for their employees. And there are more international bonuses as well. First, the Mexican-American border will now be sealed airtight. Walls and fences cannot perform as efficiently as a lake of radioactive sludge can. This will end the endless Congressional stalemate over the problem, perhaps bringing both sides closer to unity with one less divisive issue to argue over. Additionally, it will eliminate the threat of terrorist infiltration across the borders. Though terrorists can easily get into the US with fake passports or with the help of allies, when the airports and docks clam shut with improved security measures, there may be no better alternative than a leaky border than even a Mexican teen can cross. The bombing of Mexico will remind other nations that we do in fact have a nuclear arsenal and are not afraid to use it against anyone, which will entice other nations with whom we have rocky relations to “not mess with Texas,” as it were. The bombing will prove an effective way to reduce our nuclear arsenal, perhaps as a gesture of friendliness and good will, increasing our ability to call for limitations on nuclear power and reduction in atomic weaponry across the globe. Or, if the United Nations agrees, all nations can demonstrate their desire for world peace by simultaneously launching most of their nuclear stockpiles at Mexico along with us. This mutual assured destruction of nuclear arms will help banish the grim specter of a nuclear Armageddon, and should ease tensions between nations and stand as a symbol of international cooperation.

One will find that my proposal’s benefits are made all the more agreeable by the presence of faults associated with several other plans. Though this plan has perhaps one great fault, and that is the unfortunate waste of so many cheap laborers, it more than makes up for it in global unity and economic stability. And after all, we can always find other sources of cheap labor in other nations; businesses such as Wal-Mart have already established facilities overseas abundant with willing workers. And the culture of Mexico will be perfectly preserved by countless establishments even here in America, in museums and Taco Bells in countless scenic locations. Yet what faults do other notions have? Plans for a border fence, or heaven forbid, a border wall, are outrageously expensive. The cost of border-building, especially when building a solid and impassable border, are astronomical, and the cost for labor would be appalling. The only way to feasibly pay for the labors would involve less-than-respectable practices, and such cruelty to the Mexicans is unnecessary and unjust. Our current method of tracking down illegal immigrants has provided little tangible results, and the personnel necessary for continual effective monitoring of the nation is also costly. And neither of these solutions address the continued legal migration from Mexico. The root of the problem lies in America’s reputation as a land of freedom and opportunity, and also the apparent lacking of livelihood in nations south of the border. One might think that calling upon Mexico to take care of its borders better could produce results; if they cannot even take care of their own, how could they take care of their own border? International agreement to improve Mexico, so that Mexicans are not compelled to flee their homeland, is a pleasant but unrealistic thought. Rarely will an international effort actually benefit an entire people, and cooperation frequently dissolves as soon as difficulties arise. Besides, I am sure that my suggestion will hardly be met with must international outcry. If Europe cares not about genocide in Africa, what reason have they to be concerned about Mexico? And the concept of a simple missile launch for world peace is much easier to agree on than combined, prolonged international aid. It’s more of a fireworks warty than a sleepover.

I am willing to hear further suggestions towards the solution of this issue, but am confident that this proposal is the most appealing and best remaining option. Personally, I shall miss Mexico, but I am willing to make a sacrifice in order to keep my nation and future Social Security payments as sound and secure as possible. I do hope that all persons interested in progress consider carefully my argument and perhaps make some united movement to a prosperous and memorable conclusion to this issue.


(notice: This is a satire. Do not comment thinking that this is a serious proposal. You have been warned.)

1984 and Brave New World - Ties to Today

Two of literature’s most famous dystopias, created by Aldous Huxley and George Orwell, haunt societies around the world. The debate rages on, pondering which one of them is most likely to happen and dominate mankind. Neil Postman believed that Huxley’s world of satisfaction and pleasure is more prominent today than Orwell’s world of misery and despair. Though it may seem that Huxley’s Brave New World is far more relevant today, Orwell’s 1984 still lurks in some parts of the world. Which threat is largest, it would seem, depends on the circumstances in that specific region.
Our society here in America is frequently one of convenience, and such a trend appears in other nations as well. Electronic devices, instant service and connection, availability, comfort, and other such social pleasantries suggest Huxley’s vision is close to being realized. Sex is spreading to lower age groups, or at least becoming more prominent, and the frequency of lawsuits in response to minor discomfort (often brought on by stupidity) suggests a growing need to keep the masses satisfied. However, international crises threaten this lifestyle. Shortages of supplies (for example, oil) and worldwide economic downturn prevents this utopia from coming to fruition. Not only that, people are too aggressive, prejudiced, and hateful to hold the carefree and loving attitude trademark of Huxley’s fantasy. And, as much as we have drugs today, there is nothing close to soma (in fact, most drugs today carry multiple unpleasant side effects, the exact opposite). We have some conditions similar to Brave New World, but we are far from reaching it.
On the other hand, there is Big Brother and Orwell. Many countries overseas are dominated by Oceania-like governments, and the boot grinds daily into the face of humanity. Other nations, too content to care, look on with a disapproving tsk, but do nothing more. Unnecessary waste will remove resources, and wars with other nations are used to fuel patriotism and act as excuse for violations of civil liberties. 1984 could happen, and there would be no relief from it. Of course, the American population are not the Proles; we are well aware of our situation, and will doubtlessly rebel in such circumstances. There are too many nations to set in place a series of waste-wars to keep us down; additionally, we hate the wars we already have, for the most part, so patriotism is out of the question. And, even more, unless our government suddenly becomes a dictatorship taken over by one party, there is no threat of a Big Brother crushing us underfoot. Elections will switch out someone else soon enough, and both parties will not agree to oppress us; they would not dare work together even for today’s crises.
Both utopias exist in our society (and others) in small amounts. Neither is close to fruition; barring any major world-changing event, neither will be achieved. What we must be cautious of, however, are advances in such smaller categories as described above. We must, in areas where a governor or statesman leads through fear, power, or corruption, remove that official. Where people are disconnected from the outside world, and are apathetic to world events, we must inform and evoke effort and action. We must keep ourselves vigilant against drifts to one society or another, while still understanding that what may result is not irreversible or catastrophic. Nor will these changes occur overnight; the conditions for sustaining these societies are too numerous and complex. We must avoid hysteria or needless fear, but still make sure that we avoid being too lax in accordance with either Orwellian or Huxleyan “nightmares.”

Claim Statement - Animal Farm

Fear has the capacity to paralyze the masses. A single person might speak out, but the general populous is slow to rouse. Strength in numbers may eventually overwhelm a tyrant, but if those numbers never materialize, the people will not take action. And if the tyrant moves the masses for his own purposes, his followers will overrun those who understand the truth. Unless there is a general agreement among the majority of the society, and preferably the situation becomes one of life or death, a tyrant will not be overthrown by his or her subjects.

There have been attempts by single people to overthrow a government. However, smaller numbers of people can move to action faster than the entire society. Secret societies are often formed from the percent of the population that would, by nature, always resist the tyrant regardless of the situation. If this number was, say, 15%, there would be an equal amount on the other side of the political fence that would always support the tyrant for whatever reasons. The central 70% must be won over, but it is extremely difficult to persuade two-thirds of the population over the opposition. It is much easier to act alone, but this will not cause the masses to move in unison. Several times in history, the assassination of a dictator has been met with indifference; after all, another would soon take his place, and their condition does not change. The masses are generally provoked, over time, to either support or oppose the tyrant, but to provoke them to rebel is another extreme case entirely.

In Animal Farm, the animals agree to rebel against mankind at one time or another. This was a decision supported by all present. When Jones failed to feed the animals, and then drove them from their food by whip, the starved animals reacted through instinct. To secure food to survive and to drive away the common threat, the animals together removed Jones from power. This supports the fact that a coup only occurs with prior agreement and in critical situations. When Napoleon took control, the situations may have been critical, but there was no general consensus to overthrow Napoleon. No animal could offer a solid reason; no common irritation existed. The sheep, seeing no overt act of tyranny, continued to bleat slogans, as did Boxer. And between the two of them, no one rose to challenge the pigs, who tactfully silenced any single individual who spoke out. Additionally, at the mass execution, there was no objection, even though the situation had become life or death, because the remainder of the animals had not agreed to overthrow Napoleon. They may have been shaken, but certainly weren’t moved into action.

1984 also shows an occasion where no general impetus exists to remove a tyrant. Individuals committed crimes, but the general masses quietly obeyed Big Brother regardless of what was said. Conditions may have been poor, but they were not life or death so long as the rules were followed. The proles could never be united against the Party; they had no reason to. Thus, tyrants are capable of remaining in power so long as they keep their subjects in their control. If the masses are not allowed to agree to overthrow the leader, they will never do so with a concerted effort. With careful statements and strategic assassinations, the tyrant can prevent a general consensus against him and ensure that, perhaps even in a life or death situation, he will find no great opposition.

1984 - About THE BOOK

"Goldstein's" book, really written by O'Brien, was exceedingly peculiar. It was allegedly written by Goldstein, who opposed the Party, yet seemed to define a good deal of what Ingsoc was. The arguments were surprisingly coherent and logical, though lengthy and a tad boring. Two chapters of the book were detailed in the novel. And since it was really O'Brien who wrote it, is this therefore expressive of the Party's beliefs, or is it something completely different altogether?

Chapter 3 of the book seemed to explain how things came to be, to expand the setting beyond London to the state of world affairs that held constant ever since the Cold War began. Essentially, the war was a conflict between Oceania, the United States, and Eurasia, the Soviet Union. The Cold War seems to have split the world up into only two superpowers, perhaps a remark on the nature of the Cold War and both superpowers' aggressive interference in foreign nations. This erupted into an atomic war in the 1950's, another fear of the people at that time, which led to the creation of three supernations that could never destroy each other. "Goldstein" then argues that continued, vicious warfare, though without purpose or end, could be the solution to civilization. He argues that equality for all would cause the elimination of a power caste, and to give wealth to one group would result in a collapse of power; the only solution was to engage in continuous warfare to throw away goods while keeping the people's attention. Though the logic is reasonable, the application to the real world is slightly peculiar. This required that there be only a couple superpowers, all of which agreeing to reduce their countries to a pitiful existence barely above the limit at which humans could exist. This doesn't sound like Communism, but rather a reason to promote a dictator. This foreshadows O'Brien's later claim to power and corruption.

Meanwhile, Chapter 1 discusses how equality would not be beneficial to the society. By keeping a rich upper class and a severe restriction of freedoms, the "pendulum of history" could be "frozen" at a specific point in time. "Goldstein" argues that "inequality was the price of civilization," but then decries past dictators as "half-hearted" attempts at totalitarianism. Again, the book seems to be supporting O'Brien's later claims in the Ministry of Love. Also explained is why the Party exists, which apparently is because the wealthy upper class can more easily hold the majority of Oceania's goods if they're sharing them all. "Goldstein" also tries to explain that the Party will never fall, and discusses crimestop, blackwhite, and doublethink. Winston can't help thinking that the book only tells him what he already knew, what he had already been taught; in fact, several passages, I believe, were cut-and-pasted from earlier chapters in the novel. This repetition doubly stresses the peculiarity of such an allegedly offensive book.

When I first read this, I knew that something was off. This perhaps made the Party seem incredibly offensive, but it explained exactly what the Party was doing. It was pure propaganda written by O'Brien, a school textbook, even. Such echoes of power and authority, and a deep description of doublethink and its various forms seem to be persuading one that the Party is, in fact, perfect. The underlining of Oceania's everlasting, eternal condition suggests to the reader that there is nothing they could do to stop the Party, and explains how one should act while a part of it. Already O'Brien was trying to ingrain the Party philosophy into the minds of Winston and Julia; perhaps the time limit for reading the book was to get them to read it before the Party made them disappear. Undoubtedly this was an honest description of the Party, and to have it written under Goldstein's name could be yet another example of doublethink. The importance of the book within the book, I feel, was to have O'Brien explain to the reader more clearly the what and how so that he could explain the why during interrogation and confession. The book, in context to Winston, was solely to glorify the Party and begin to transform Winston into a loyal Party member once more.

The Things They Carried - Passage Qualification

O'Brien states that the essence of a person remains the same. I would agree with that statement given certain qualifications. A person most certainly does not change when one considers the identity. However, if one considers the personality, the one part of a person that truly defines that person, that makes them different from anyone else in a sea of clones, then I would have to disagree. Who you are remains the same. What defines you changes with time.

O'Brien compares his fear of defying the playground bully with his fear of draft-dodging mockery when he received his draft notice. He attempts to state that, deep down, he is no different than he was when he was in the fourth grade. This isn't the part of him that remains unchanged. Sure, it's the same type of inability to act, but that part still changes. In the first example, the fear was more of a fear of injury. The second fear was of embarrassment. The type of fear is different, though he is still fearful. The first fear is something that can be fairly easily overcome, with time and growth. The second very few people can overcome, ever. In "In the Field," O'Brien tells us how he was the one who let Kiowa go under the muck. He describes himself without using his name, but illustrates himself frantically searching for the picture he lost during the attack. He was likely searching in order to keep himself busy, as a pleasant distraction, but he, as the narrator, states that he was doing so in case "something might finally be salvaged from all the waste" (173). As O'Brien tells his stories, he is really doing the same thing he was back in the field. He is searching through all of his stories, retelling them, in the hopes that something good might have come out of Vietnam. This search, in contrast to the former frantic search out of anger and guilt, is more exploratory, more purposeful. Where before he searched to save what little he had left, now he searches to find what he never had, even for what little is left of others, and possibly leave it for the future.

Having acknowledged that a good deal of similarity can be undone by purpose, I still maintain that O'Brien is right in the sense that his identity is unchanged. He discusses in the final chapter how he and his comrades kept the dead alive through stories. In the two detailed retellings and short return to the man he killed, O'Brien describes the characteristics and possible future of that person. The man's overall identity, that of a young Vietnamese soldier who would rather not be a soldier, remains unchanged. He's still the same person walking down the road, and in O'Brien's mind, he still is the same person walking right back down the road. Linda is unchanged, preserved in his mind, in his stories. Though what defines a person changes, who they are as a physical being does not. Rat Kiley slowly lost his mind, and Mary Anne vanished into the jungle. However, they remained Rat Kiley and Mary Anne regardless of where they went or what they did. No matter what kind of person one becomes, they are still essentially the same person. But their personalities change the definition of who they are. Tim O'Brien remains Tim O'Brien, but what is the definition of Tim O'Brien?


Response to "theteach":
Perhaps personality might not have been the best word for me to use, but I believe that one's preferences and actions can help define a person for a specific time frame, a specific purpose. People do change as time goes on, be it from one significant experience or several lesser experiences. Like words with multiple meanings, people can only be judged concretely in a specific context. Yet to analyze the overall word and its general connotation, all definitions must be analyzed. If, following your example, one was gregarious or retiring, it would help define who that person was at that time. But if the person reversed and became the opposite, that would change the temporary definition and add to the overall definition. By no means does one single personality define the person entirely, but all personalities taken together would roughly define them. Thus, one could use a personality only to define a solitary aspect of that person, in a specific context. In the end, you're still using the same word, with the same spelling. And like language, definition is not concrete all around the world. Definitions don't ever replace other definitions, they just add to what's already there. Therefore, personality partially defines a person in the sense that it offers a new definition, a new purpose and meaning.